Eduardo Serra: "It is in Russia's interest to destabilise Europe, especially if it sees Europe as an enemy rather than a partner"
The former Minister of Defence Eduardo Serra passed by the microphones of Atalayar Radio to analyse a year marked by the pandemic, but with many open fronts: the leadership of the United States, Brexit, Russia or the tension in the Mediterranean, were some of the topics discussed by the President of the Fundación Transforma España
The vaccination process seems to be one of the great logistical and even psychological challenges that humanity has faced in the last century, don't you think?
It is extraordinarily important and at the same time I think that people still don't get the idea. I don't think that the virus that began in February 2020 will end in March 2021. I think that we are going to continue for a while, the pandemic will be solved, but it will not be a radical cut. I hope that we will go downhill in terms of the health aspects of the pandemic and the economic and social aspects, because we have been dealing with emergency remedies, the ERTE...
The scientific challenge also deserves a reading, because achieving the goal of reaching not one but several different types of vaccines that directly attack the virus in 8-9 months makes us feel happier to be part of this project that is the world.
We are beginning to see the results of this concentration of humanity in science. In this very area of vaccines, we have seen that science is emerging all over the world and that is encouraging. I believe that it has always been necessary to increase resources in science, because they are indeed an investment and not an expense, but now that we are in the midst of a technological revolution, that the most important instrument of any nation is talent, it is more necessary than ever to encourage and incentivise dedication to these tasks.
How do you see the world in a year in which, apart from the coronavirus, important things have happened? Like Donald Trump's replacement, that war for leadership between the United States and China...
This year has been a crucial year for the whole pandemic, but we are living in a time, since a few years ago, where two phenomena of great importance have occurred. The first is the technological revolution. Anyone who saw us 30 years ago and now would think that we were two different societies. In this situation of progress, there has been a new step in globalisation, which has generated a change in the relations between people, societies and nations.
As far as this year is concerned, the pandemic has produced a double sensation, on the one hand, of defenselessness and, on the other, we have also regained confidence thanks to this overcoming of the terrible damage caused by the pandemic. There has been a very specific but very striking theme, which has been the Trump presidency as a break in what had been the United States. Since the end of World War II, he has been the undisputed leader of the Western world and within the United States, they were considered the indispensable nation, the nation that had to give up some things to accept their leadership and, in a way, since the fall of the Soviet Union, everyone has accepted that leadership.
However, Trump, with his "America First" slogan, has pretended that the rest of the world no longer mattered, American leadership no longer mattered, and in my opinion, has destroyed American leadership. Not only because of the Chinese threat, which is very real, but also because in Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Arab world they no longer trust the United States. The worst thing that can happen to the sheriff of a city like the world is for him to be unpredictable and suddenly wake up and say he's sending ships to North Korea. The world needs some of the reasoning that the United States has lacked.
Will he be good at it?
I hope so. These nations have enormous inertia. The first proof is that Trump has not been re-elected. The inertia of the ship, which is the United States, rejects these new developments and prefers to continue on the main path which will be to retake the leadership. I imagine that Biden will be in that line, he was already Obama's vice president, therefore he is a man who is not a novelty.
Will that include a return to multilateralism?
The world has paradoxes, perhaps in 15 years' time we will be thanking Trump that, for the first time, Europe took care of defending itself and not outsourcing defence. But I believe there will be a return, I'm not sure to what extent, to previous relations, not to trade but to strategy and politics, to NATO. Back in 2010 the US Secretary of Defence said that it could not be the burden sharing that it was, and I, although a European, believe that they were absolutely right. But it must also be said that the United States must exercise that leadership or that oversight that it has traditionally exercised, and I believe that in NATO we will return to the traditional. There is also a very new element with a very important role in polarisation, which is social networks, where we can see the radicalisation of American society. There is a very significant percentage of American society that believes that the other media, which they think are enemies, should be eliminated. Until recently they considered themselves rivals, adversaries, but there was a common ground of mutual interest that they believed had to be defended. Let's see where this radicalisation leads American society. There is probably still a common ground that unites Republicans and Democrats and if that is the case, it will renew the relationship with Europe, with Latin America, with China and, therefore, I believe that we will be able to live in a somewhat less fearsome world than the current one.
Look at the way the world is changing, you attended countless European Union Defence Councils that you will remember and as of Friday the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union. What do you see as the European Union of 27 and without one of the most important and historic partners such as the United Kingdom?
From my point of view, a thing of 27 hardly ever works. Even so, there is hope, they say that the symbol of Europe is the phoenix, which rises from its ashes. I wish, but as President Calvo Sotelo said, either we were deepening the European Union or we were enlarging it, but it was impossible to do both. Now we see the case of Poland or Hungary. In fact, in Europe there have always been three countries in command: the United Kingdom, Germany and France, and there were some of us who were close to them, such as Italy and Spain. Now the United Kingdom is leaving and in my opinion there are two very basic readings: if we take the GDP of the 27, the sum of the German and French GDPs is greater than that of the other 25; if the United Kingdom were to join, the GDP of the periphery would be greater than that of Fortress Europe, the Paris-Berlin axis. From that point of view, the Brexit is a disaster, especially for the British, the Brexit has split the British: the old and the young, the country and the city, Scotland and England. Mr Cameron, however many years he lives, will not pay for the crime he has committed. But the other reading is that the United Kingdom has always been the reticent one in the European Union and perhaps the fact that the deepening of the union is being hindered by its departure may also be good news. In any case, for the moment I am left with the idea of the disaster that is Brexit, especially in Defence. The British budget is the first European defence budget, then the French and then the German. This means that we are going to lose a true defender, forgive me for the redundancy, of European defence.
Above all, bearing in mind how the Mediterranean is now, where Russia is gaining a lot of influence, while we Europeans are there and the Americans will hopefully gradually recover their leadership, because it affects us very directly.
When we joined NATO, I remember that the phrase I had prepared was: "You have a torticollis, you have been looking east for 50 years, if we can be of any use, it is to look south. The 21st century will not be East-West, it will be North-South and, just as in the Cold War situation we were the strategically important rearguard, if the tension is going to be North-South we become the vanguard. Another reflection on this issue is that, just as China's danger lies in its power, Russia's danger lies in its weakness. It has experienced the idea of being a superpower and wants to continue to be one. They have done things wrong, as in Ukraine or Georgia, no doubt, but so has the West, and one has been to push Russia too far and now Russia is bouncing back. I think we should reflect and leave Russia alone for a while.
Is Russia a destabilising factor for European countries or even the United States? Because there has been a lot of talk about interference in electoral processes through the Internet, attacks, hacking, false news...
Of course, as far as I know, this has been confirmed and demonstrated, that in the French and American presidential elections, Brexit, and even the Catalan unborn, there were also elections. Naturally it is in Russia's interest to destabilise Europe, especially if it sees Europe more as an enemy than as a partner. Because we as the West have destabilised Russia with Ukraine. We still have the idea that we are the centre of the world and that everyone should be like us, and I believe that it is a mistake to meddle in the internal life of countries and this can lead to complications, the clearest case in my opinion being Russia.
Looking to the south, stability in the Sahel is essential because terrorist groups are taking hold in the area, attempting to destabilise Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Our relationship with North Africa is fundamental not only to Spain but also to Europe and the world. Above all, I say this because of the relationship now with Morocco, the Sahara and the very important step taken by Donald Trump.
In Spain there is no awareness of the role of its importance in the world. I remember that, like all defence ministers, I had four chiefs of staff, three of whom were born in Africa. I used to say this in Finland and they didn't believe it. One of those chiefs of staff, who was very intelligent, told me one day that we Russians knew nothing about them and yet we knew everything about the "Moors", because they were here for 800 years, they are like us. That is, when terrorism enters the Middle East, if Spain has been important, it is because the CIA benefited from our knowledge of Arab terrorism. We cannot talk about another type of terrorism, but we do know comparatively more about it than they do, and so we are very important. Now terrorism is turning from the Middle East to Africa. Africa is an under-explored and under-exploited continent and in this China has moved ahead. Therefore, for the United States, Africa is very important and this is probably reflected in the growing importance of the Mediterranean and the western part of the Mediterranean, and there we are with the Rota base, which has been very important for years. We should be aware of how important we are in certain respects for the rest of Europe and for the rest of the world.
So do you think Spain should make a decision on the Sahara? In order to normalise a situation that could, with a solution, eliminate the problems between Algeria and Morocco, two important countries, and also so that Spain has a clear foreign policy in this area.
For Spanish foreign policy, the first thing is to see how Morocco sees us. The first time I was in Morocco, in 1980, I was surprised that in Fez all the two-square-metre shops had a photograph of King Hassan II and Franco. For Moroccans, Spain is a dream, and we can see it in the number of Moroccans who have come here. I think we should understand the Moroccans, we should be the defence lawyers for Morocco in the European Union, although there are many arguments against doing so, we should do so. That would solve problems like the one in the Sahara, which is a problem that we have not invented but which hurts us and harms our relationship with Morocco. We should be especially careful and close to the Moroccans.
Well, we are a means of communication that is destined to build bridges. Moreover, this can be combined with Algeria, we have to take into account where we receive the gas that we consume.
Algeria and Libya are the main suppliers of gas, but when you are a customer it is more important than when you are a supplier. Now, what I think we should do is try to appease relations between Morocco and Algeria, which are two important neighbours for us, not forgetting Tunisia, with which they form the western arc of the north African coast.
Do you think that the policy of trying to bring about agreements by the Trump Administration of Israel with the Arab countries has been a good one, which has resulted in various agreements of understanding.
Yes, I think that this has been their last chance to try for re-election, but personally I think that this is a good thing. I think that deep down there is some imposture in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Many Arab states have used the conflict to remove the problem they had, with completely primitive societies, with income differences that were intolerable in the 21st century, so it has been thrown out as has happened with Islamic radicalism, Wahhabism, which has taken it out of its own nations and exported it. Therefore, anything that can ease tensions is good.
That millions of Arabs are finally recognising Israel and making peace, I believe, is a geostrategic turnaround and Iran is supposed to be at the forefront, but I believe that the regime of the ayatollahs will gradually take steps towards a calmer and more collaborative relationship with all of them.
I believe that history is very important, Iran has been an empire for thousands of years, and therefore people are more educated than we thought, it's true that they can become fanatical, but I think that this regime should be moderated. As the Arab world lowers the tension with Israel, it will also influence Iran.
You have painted a very polarised world in this interview. I don't know if even Spain is involved in this phenomenon of polarisation in two completely opposite visions of the world and the future. Do you also see a division of the world into two blocks as clear as in society, such as Russia, Iran, Venezuela or Cuba vis-à-vis the West, the United States or Europe? Is this something we have overcome?
When I give talks on geostrategy or geopolitics, what we are saying is to set the world today against the world of the Cold War. The Cold War world was a bipolar world, this is a multipolar world. The world of the Cold War was confronted for ideological reasons, this is a world confronted for cultural reasons. The world of the Cold War was a world terrified by the nuclear threat, but for that very reason it was a safe world, we knew where each country was and there was wise talk of the two superpowers and the satellite countries, why are they called satellites, because the orbit is known and we knew where each country in the world was going to go. However, now we are talking about failed states because we do not know which way they are going to come out, which way North Korea is going to come out and which way Iran is going to come out. One thing is clear: Cold War bilateralism is over. Now we are suddenly faced with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Iran, North Korea and China. Normalizing the position of women is another thing we will have to do.
Of the eight best, five are governed by women and in total there are twelve women.
Ideally, this should not be highlighted or underlined in the world. Let it not be an isolated event.
For some time it will have to be highlighted because of the novelty, I am very much against political correctness. The other day I was watching a television series that portrayed English society at the beginning of the 19th century, the time of the Regency, and the dukes who were the most upstanding were black, politically correct, but historically this is a lie, don't deceive me, because it has been the opposite in fact they have been slaves and we have to know these things so that they don't happen again, because they have been slaves and so no human being in the world can be treated in this way.
Note that it has even been suggested that "Gone with the Wind" be censored, because if black people go out, the document would not be historical. On the other hand, in order not to forget Latin America, Spain is often overtaken by black legends and we are not capable of assuming the very good things that Spain has done in Latin America and right now recovering the relationship with Latin America, taking into account the historical and cultural ties, but above all the economic and commercial interests that we have with these countries.
I believe that one of the great issues that remains to be resolved is to begin to understand our history in depth, with its lights and shadows, but the concept of Poland is a 19th century concept used by the British and the Dutch, when now that the so-called Hall of Kingdoms is being refurbished in the Prado Museum, in the plural, it is because there was no colony of Mexico or Peru, but rather the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Kingdom of Aragon, the Kingdom of Castile. And the laws given by our kings were laws that obliged the inhabitants of the Americas to be considered exactly the same in terms of rights as those of Spain; this has not happened in any other country; the only ones who have mixed race have been us. In the Modern Age, the true successor to the Roman Empire is the Spanish Empire, but there came a time when we faced up to everyone, we faced up to America, we faced up to the English, the French, the Protestants, etc. In 1625, the Count Duque de Olivares wrote a memorial where he told King Felipe IV that he could not go on like this, because he was letting the monarchy bleed out by giving so much money to so many wars. The problem is that Spain becomes an empire because a lady from Madrigal de las Altas Torres marries a lord of Sos from the Catholic King and they marry their daughter to the Prince of Wales, another daughter to the heir of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I do not know any lord from Madrigal de las Altas Torres who has married his children like this. At the end of the Middle Ages, Spain was the most important country in Europe. And this country tries to make the medieval ideal, in the Middle Ages the ideal is Christianity and there is talk of the Catholic monarchy and here we believe that the Catholic monarchy is what is now thought and monarchy was the name that the 15th century was given to the states and Catholic meant universal and what we are now all asking for is a universal government that can deal with climate change that can deal with the exploitation of the land, to stop killing our house, that's what they wanted and that Catholic monarchy was based on the Christian faith, and just when Charles V arrived here in 1518 and in 1520 or 1521 Luther planted his thesis in Germany then an empire was born on a foundation that at that time was split in half. At that time, Spain was trying to bring the medieval ideal to an end, but it realised that the Middle Ages were over. As they knew they were inferior to us, they sank us to propaganda and the drama is that we believed the propaganda of the enemies.
We learned a lot in the interview so we are going to summon you back here in 2021.
To conclude, I would like to say that anything that is to explain to Spanish society what is happening in the world is good if something has been left over from the residue of the past is that living for us. A huge percentage of important decisions are made outside, if we do not decide to look outwards, we will never know. Therefore, congratulations on the purpose of Atalayar.