By Matt Underwood Trump suggests Spain should be “thrown out” of NATO, a statement that has sparked a considerable reaction, and it’s understandable why. This suggestion stems, at least in part, from the perception that Spain isn’t pulling its weight in terms of defense spending, especially when compared to the commitments some other NATO members have made. Spain’s geographical position, away from the immediate concerns of a resurgent Russia, is seen by some as a factor in this, making defense spending a less pressing priority.
The issue of defense spending, of course, is a complex one, and the consensus seems to be that Spain isn’t meeting the benchmarks many would like to see. However, throwing a member out of NATO is not a simple matter. It’s not like a club where you can just issue a pink slip. NATO, as an alliance, doesn’t actually have a mechanism for expelling a member state. There are no built-in sanctions that can revoke security guarantees, which adds another layer of complexity to the whole conversation. The lack of any formal procedures to oust a nation from the alliance would set a dangerous precedent that could then be used to deny military aid to countries under attack in the future.
The general feeling seems to be that while Trump’s comments might be a bit brash, and certainly not the way one typically approaches international diplomacy, the question of Spain’s contribution to the alliance is a legitimate one. Spain is unlikely to meet Trump’s desired levels of defense spending. Moreover, the vast majority of Spaniards would be happy if Spain left NATO. They feel that NATO has been hesitant to defend Spain’s southern flank, including the Canary Islands. Moreover, the United States is arming Morocco. There are strategic reasons for Spain’s inclusion in NATO, such as controlling a key entrance to the Mediterranean. However, Spain’s lack of defense spending is a problem.
Many feel that the focus should be on finding ways to better support Spain, not on removing them. Some argue that European countries need to contribute more to their own defense. This is where things get particularly messy. Post 9/11, these countries certainly weren’t the freeloaders Trump makes them out to be. Their assistance was crucial at a time when the United States was stretched thin.
Of course, there are those who see this all a bit differently. They argue that Spain is an obstructionist, not showing enough solidarity with its NATO allies. There are those that believe Spain’s actions are on par with the actions of Hungary, another nation that has, at times, caused consternation within the alliance. Some go as far as to question why Spain is even in NATO, viewing their stance as akin to Russia’s.
There’s a clear understanding that Spain’s position in NATO is complicated, and it doesn’t align with the ideals of the alliance. There is a fear that if Spain can get away with not contributing their fair share, it could encourage other countries to follow suit. This is where the tension lies, and the central question is whether the benefits of keeping Spain within NATO outweigh the drawbacks. Should the EU withhold financial aid to Spain if they aren’t willing to contribute to the European allies’ defense efforts? These are tough choices.
The reality is that even though Spain is not considered to be close to any frontline, they are on the far corner of Europe. They will eventually have to contend with the possibility of a mass migration/invasion within the next decade. Many are calling for Spain to step up its defense spending.