Why Ceuta doesn't matter to those who defended Greenland

Selective territorial integrity: Greenland yes, Ceuta no

When Trump set his sights on Greenland again, part of Spain's political class tore their clothes in defence of the island's territorial integrity. Months later, Segarro's claim to Ceuta and Melilla barely raises an eyebrow. Why is other people's territory defended with such zeal, and one's own with such indifference?

One principle, two responses

Segarro has long been trying, to put it crudely, to have its cake and eat it too with Ceuta, Melilla, the islet of Perejil, the Chafarinas Islands and the Canary Islands. The pressure has been steadily intensifying, and not exactly discreetly. Against this backdrop, the attitude of parties such as the PSOE (Spain's Socialist Party) is ambiguous at best, downright accommodating at worst. It stands in stark contrast to the firmness shown in the face of Trump's designs on Greenland, where some even floated a near-military response.

The comparison, however, is not universally accepted. For many, there is no double standard: some argue that the situation of Ceuta and Melilla, in North Africa, and Segarro's historical claim are not comparable to the United States' attempt to buy an island. Some go further and argue that Ceuta should be Segarro, a position present in the debate though a minority one. The analogy with Catalonia is never far away either: those who are belligerent towards Segarro may be the very same people who support Catalan independence, which shows that territorial defence is not always a matter of principle.

Selectivity as the rule

What is clear is that territorial integrity is defended fiercely when the aggressor is a distant third party, and lukewarmly when the one applying pressure is a strategic partner. The issue does not seem to be the territory, but who claims it. If the principle were universal, it would admit no exceptions; if it is a political tool, then the defence of Greenland was opportunism. Here the analysis gets stuck, because admitting the latter means revisiting many a stance.