Outcome of the NATO Summit in Madrid

The 30th NATO Summit Conference was held in Madrid from 28 to 30 June 2022, attended by the Heads of State and Government of the 30 Member States, their colleagues from Australia, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand, and the Presidents of the Council and the European Commission. The President of Ukraine addressed the Summit by teleconference. 

Despite the negative omens caused by the anti-NATO attitude of the minority partner in Pedro Sánchez's government, the summit took place as normal, and was a success for Spain, for its head of state, and for the president of the government. The meeting - which has been conditioned by Russia's war against Ukraine - has been a real boost for the Alliance. The meeting adopted a new Concept for the next 10 years and a Political Declaration, gave the go-ahead for Finland and Sweden to join the Organisation, and restored the transatlantic link between NATO and the United States, which had been considerably weakened after the presidency of Donald Trump. 

Following the disintegration of the USSR and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO had lost its compass as its original goal of confronting Soviet expansionism in Europe weakened. The signing in 1997 of the Founding Act on Mutual Security and Cooperation Relations brought about a change in the perception of Russia as an ally, and cooperation was channelled through the Permanent Joint Council. Relations cooled after the Alliance's intervention in Kosovo and the progressive expansion of the Organisation to the East. There were ups and downs, especially after the invasion of Georgia by Russian troops in 2007, but even at the Lisbon Summit in 2010 - attended by Russian President Dmitry Madvedev - a Joint Declaration was signed, heralding the beginning of a new era of cooperation through the creation of a common space of peace, security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. This phase was short-lived because, following the Maidan Square uprising and the ousting of Victor Yanukovich, Putin launched his offensive against Ukraine - which had dared to apply for NATO membership - by annexing Crimea, Russian support for the rebels in Donbas and the creation of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, and the invasion of Ukraine. 

The Madrid Summit has therefore been conditioned by Russia's war against Ukraine, which has led NATO to change its view of Russia as an enemy and has created an atmosphere of dialectical confrontation, which the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has described as a return to the Cold War. After careful preparation - including the performance of the Alliance's permanent representative to the Alliance, Miguel Fernández-Palacios, and his team - NATO has met all of its objectives. 

Above all, the Organisation has risen from the ashes, or "greened", to use Ana Palacio's graphic expression. In Charles Powell's view, the war in Ukraine has given NATO a new raison d'être and shown that it was neither obsolete - as Donald Trump maintained - nor brain-dead - as Emmanuel Macron claimed - and has returned to its core mission of ensuring the collective security of its members. 

As Jeed Nadaner - former NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence - has observed, by invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has brought NATO and the United States together to a degree not seen for some time. William Bush Jr. initiated America's distancing from Europe and shifted its focus from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, a policy that was followed by Barack Obama and culminated by Donald Trump, who went so far as to consider the possibility of the United States leaving the Alliance. Under Joe Biden - a moderate Atlanticist - there has been a major shift, prompted by the war in Ukraine. The president has decided to double the US troop presence in Eastern European countries near Russia's borders and supported the Alliance's decision to increase the size of the immediately deployable force to 300,000 troops. There should be no illusions about this change, which may be temporary, as the United States remains obsessed with preventing China from becoming the world's leading political, economic and military power. 

The Lisbon Strategic Concept, which described Russia as an ally, has been replaced by the Madrid Strategic Concept, in which Russia is seen as an aggressor and the Alliance's main enemy. The Founding Act has become a dead letter and Putin threatens NATO with retaliation of all kinds - including the use of force - if it continues to expand towards its borders. Russia's aggression in Ukraine has served the EU well - in Araceli Mangas' view - to revitalise itself and foster its longed-for strategic autonomy, as she has pointed out in the EU's recently adopted "Strategic Compass", which configures European defence policy as complementary to that of NATO, for - as Manuel Selas has observed - they are two sides of the same coin. 

The eighth strategic concept adopted in Madrid sees Russia as "the most important and direct threat to the security of allies and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. It seeks to establish spheres of influence and direct control through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation. It uses conventional, cyber and hybrid means against us and our partners. Its coercive military posture, its rhetoric and its demonstrated willingness to use force to pursue its political objectives undermine the rules-based international order". Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has shattered the peace and severely disrupted our security environment. Its brutal and illegal invasion, repeated violations of international humanitarian law and vicious attacks and atrocities have caused untold suffering and destruction. A strong and independent Ukraine is vital for stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. 

The Alliance stressed the need to "significantly strengthen our deterrence and defence as the backbone of our Article 5 commitment to defend each other", and accused Moscow of having broken the international security order hitherto prevailing in Europe, and of investing in sophisticated conventional, nuclear and missile capabilities, with little transparency or respect for international norms and commitments. He warned of the need to prevent attempts to erode democracy, as Russia is making a deliberate effort to undermine multilateral norms and institutions. "In light of its hostile policies and actions, we cannot consider the Russian Federation as our partner. However, we remain ready to keep channels of communication open with Moscow to manage and mitigate risks, avoid escalation and increase transparency." 

New in the Concept is the reference to China - which was not even mentioned in the previous Lisbon Concept - and which, under US pressure, has not been shown the red card like Russia, but has been given the yellow card. "China employs a wide range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global presence and project its power, while remaining opaque about its military strategy, intentions and development [...Its] malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational and disinformation rhetoric target allies and damage the security of the Alliance". NATO warns that Beijing "seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains. It uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and increase its influence. It strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains. The deepening strategic partnership established between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, and their attempts to reinforce each other with the aim of undermining the rules-based international order, run counter to our values and interests". 

Pekín ha reaccionado con vehemencia ante esta agresividad verbal de la Alianza y acusado a Estados Unidos de querer crear una especie de OTAN en la región de Asia-Pacífico en contra de China, construyendo una red defensiva con democracias como las de Australia, Corea del Sur, Japón y Nueva Zelanda, como muestran la presencia en Madrid de los respectivos presidentes de Gobierno de estos Estados. Según ha advertido el representante permanente chino ante la ONU, Zhang Jun, –que ha acusado a la Alianza de aprovecharse de la guerra de Ucrania para “crear una tensión entre bloques a nivel mundial”–, las expansiones de la OTAN a la región indo-pacífica no sólo logrará que Europa sea más segura, sino que “sembrará la semilla del conflicto”. China –que tiene a la UE como su principal socio comercial–, está tratando de independizarse de la dependencia tecnológica de Estados Unidos. 

In order for NATO to meet its multiple challenges, the Madrid Summit has pressured its partners to fulfil the commitment made in Wales 2014 to dedicate - from 2024 onwards - a minimum of 2 per cent of their GDP to the defence budget - only eight member states have fulfilled it, another nine are in the process of doing so and the rest are still far from achieving it - which should not be a ceiling, but a floor. Spain is second to last in this ominous "ranking" -only behind Luxembourg- and Sánchez has been forced to reiterate this commitment, although he has requested a margin of five additional years to achieve it. In the face of opposition from his partner Podemos and his nationalist allies, Bildu-etarras and ultra-leftists, the president will slightly increase military spending in the 2023 budgets, and pass the 'brown' on to the next in line with the axiom 'after me, the deluge'. To fulfil this commitment, as well as that of increasing the number of destroyers located at the Rota naval base by two units, Sánchez will need to call on the support of the opposition, which has offered it to him with a sense of statehood. It is curious that the only 'podemita' minister who has considered the increase in defence spending reasonable has been the minister for universities, the separatist Joan Subirats. 

At the summit, the process of Finland and Sweden joining NATO began. The invasion of Ukraine has brought about a sudden change of heart in the governments and public opinion of these two countries with a deeply rooted neutralist vocation - in one case imposed and in the other voluntary - and has led them to request, for reasons of security and survival, to join the Alliance, despite threats from Russia. Their requests - favourably received by the partners - were blocked by Turkey, which has subjected the petitioners to blackmail on domestic political grounds. In order to lift its veto, Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanded a series of concessions, which the parties were forced to make through a trilateral agreement: the Kurdish PKK must be considered a terrorist organisation, support for the Kurdish YPG in Syria must be withdrawn, a commitment to fight terrorism and transnational organised crime - including a more favourable attitude towards extraditions - and the arms embargo - established after Turkey's acquisition of Russian anti-missile systems incompatible with those of NATO - must be lifted. The United States, in turn, has agreed to supply Turkey with state-of-the-art aircraft that it had previously refused. These concessions to Erdogan have been regrettable, because Turkey has shown itself to be an unreliable partner with its flirtations with Russia, its acquisition of Russian weaponry, its intervention on its own in Syria or Libya, and its uncompromising attitude towards support for Ukraine, under the pretext of acting as a mediator between the aggressor and the aggressed in order to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict. 

The Madrid Summit has undoubtedly been a diplomatic success for Spain, due to its magnificent organisation in difficult circumstances and its smooth running, despite the logistical challenge of providing adequate security for 34 heads of state and government at a meeting that was in the crosshairs of the Russian secret services and their propaganda, computer interference and disinformation teams. It has highlighted the positive performance of King Felipe VI - whom Sánchez is trying to take over - as the main foreign policy asset, and of Queen Leticia - the impeccable hostess of the group of accompanying guests - without any interference other than the usual interference of the Prime Minister in granting his consort the protocolary status of "first lady-bis". It also demonstrated the open and hospitable nature of the city of Madrid and its inhabitants, who accepted with patience and understanding the numerous restrictions on traffic caused by the meeting. The organisation was a success, as most of the participants acknowledged and expressed their gratitude. 

Spain has benefited from the results of the summit as a NATO member, but has not achieved its two fundamental objectives: strengthening its southern flank and covering Ceuta and Melilla under the Alliance's umbrella. This is largely due to the diplomatic weakness of Sánchez's government and its lack of credibility. As ABC editorialised, the Madrid summit was a mirror in which the government's contradictions were reflected. It was an exceptional occasion for Spain to acquire international prominence as host of the international concert, but - far from offering an image of cohesion - it has presented the internal division between socialists and communists, who have lavished declarations and demonstrations against NATO. It is hard to imagine a greater degree of irresponsibility for a party that is part of the government to call for demonstrations against the Alliance and for deputy minister Enrique Santiago to take part in them. If Sánchez has not participated in Biden's rounds of consultations with the leaders of the main European countries, it has been due to the scepticism of the Atlantic partners about the reliability of him and his government. "You can't ask for trust if you don't have the conditions to deserve it". As José María Carrascal has asked, what could be more tawdry than hosting NATO and having NATO's bitter enemies in the government? Articles such as the one by Mariam Martínez-Bascuñana in "El País", in which she argued that, for there to be peace and stability in Europe, Europeans could not rely on a US-led NATO, which was an aggressive and destabilising Organisation, and that the solution for the future lay in a neutrality accepted by all, do not help. According to Víctor de la Serna in "El Mundo", saying this on a day when Finland and Sweden had confirmed their application to join the Alliance had a prize. 

Spain has been insisting for years, without success, that NATO pay attention to the risks generated on the Alliance's southern flank and strengthen its presence in it. The Summit was a magnificent opportunity to achieve this, but what has been achieved is unsatisfactory, as the new Strategic Concept has limited itself to making a generic statement, by stating that "conflicts, fragility and instability in the Middle East, North Africa and the Sahel are confronted by interconnected security, economic and political challenges, parole' - but not a statement of legal or political scope that entails the adoption of operational measures that are indispensable to address the power vacuum in the Sahel - the EU's southern border - where the most diverse and dangerous jihadist guerrillas are at home, especially at a time when France is withdrawing its troops from Mali - where the presence of Russian mercenaries is increasing - and Spain - which is currently leading the EU's troop training mission in the region - is also fighting a retreat. Finally, it includes in a totum revolutum North and Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, which have a different set of problems. 

As Pablo Pardo has observed in El Mundo, it is understandable that the Donbas eats Melilla in terms of political attention and strategic planning by NATO or the EU. What is happening in Ukraine is of such a caliber that the southern flank takes a back seat. This will remain the case as long as the war continues, and only when negotiations begin between Russia and Ukraine will the South perhaps regain prominence. "How long you trust me!" In my view, it would not be a matter of pulling NATO's defensive blanket to cover southern feet at the expense of uncovering the eastern head, but of spreading the blanket wide enough to cover the head and limbs of the Organisation. The much-vaunted 360º risk coverage has come to nothing more than wishful thinking and pious wishes. 

Another of Spain's legitimate claims was that somehow - legally or politically - the Alliance should recognise that the very Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla were protected under NATO's protective umbrella, which is not the case today, In accordance with Article 6 of the Washington Treaty, the territories of the States Parties located in North America and Europe, as well as the islands belonging to those States located in the Atlantic region north of the Tropic of Cancer, which includes the Canary Islands, but excludes the geographically African cities of Ceuta and Melilla, fall within the Alliance's territorial scope.

General Rafael Dávila has asked what would happen if these cities were attacked militarily and Spain requested NATO intervention to repel the attack in fulfilment of the assistance obligation under Article 5 of the Treaty. The Spanish government assumes that the two cities are implicitly covered by the Treaty, but the general has his doubts, which I share. According to Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty, NATO is not legally obliged to intervene, as these cities do not fall within the scope of the Treaty. When Turkey joined NATO, it took good care to include all its territories, both in Europe and in Asia, in the Agreement. Spain did not have the opportunity to do so, because it joined the Alliance under forced conditions and without time to negotiate the terms of membership, to which I can personally testify as Technical Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time. 

On the morning of Saturday 29 May 1982, Minister José Pedro Pérez-Llorca phoned me at home to ask me to come urgently to the Ministry to draw up Spain's instrument of accession to the Washington Treaty establishing NATO, for which purpose he would send his secretary to me. I told him that in addition to the main treaty there were other complementary treaties, but he asked me to forget about them and to limit myself to drafting the requested instrument, which - once drafted and signed by the King - was taken that same day to the embassy in the United States by a colleague in a special suitcase. On Sunday, the Chargé d'Affaires a.i., Alonso Álvarez de Toledo, deposited the coveted instrument with the depositary in an empty Secretariat of State, surrounded by rubbish bins and Puerto Rican cleaning ladies. The reason for the urgency was that former UCD minister Francisco Fernández Ordóñez - who had voted a year earlier in favour of Spain's NATO membership - had changed his mind after leaving the UCD and started his "apertura a sinistra" and tabled a motion proposing that the accession process be suspended until the consequences of Argentina's attack on the Falklands on Gibraltar had been examined. The issue was to be debated on Monday 31, and Calvo-Sotelo and Pérez-Llorca were unwilling to take the risk of the proposal succeeding. 

According to the Strategic Concept, although NATO is a defensive alliance, "no one should doubt our strength and determination to defend every inch of allied territory, preserve the territorial integrity of all all allies and prevail over any aggressor". In the opinion of the Minister of Defence, Margarita Robles, with this reference to the territorial integrity of member states, Ceuta and Melilla would be implicitly protected, as they fall under the protection of article 5. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, José Manuel Albares, has stated that he had no doubt that NATO would defend every inch of the territorial integrity of its member states, and that nobody asked whether Riga or Vilnius would appear in the Strategic Concept, so it was a false debate. The problem is that Vilnius and Riga - unlike Ceuta and Melilla - do fall within the Alliance's geographical scope. 

As Ignacio Camacho has observed in "ABC", in international politics, what is not in writing has the same value as coffee-table talk. The Washington Treaty does not admit any interpretation that would lead to the conclusion that Ceuta and Melilla are within its scope. Unless explicitly mentioned in a subsequent document, they are not protected under Article 5 of the Treaty. The Madrid Declaration does not mention them among the "security challenges" to be addressed by the Organisation. The term "southern flank" is too open-ended, especially since the Alliance considers Morocco to be an "important extra-NATO ally" and relations with this country must also be taken into account in the Alliance's strategic objectives. 

In the opinion of German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht, the protection of the borders of Ceuta and Melilla is more a matter for EU interior ministers than for NATO defence planning. The strategic concept took into account the challenges of the South and Article 5 applied in all directions. According to Dávila, Ceuta and Melilla have never been in the sights of the United States, which has no interest in annoying its preferred African partner with petty minutiae, hence its Western Sahara policy. 

Who could attack Ceuta or Melilla? Logically only Morocco, as it is the only country that claims sovereignty, and there have been precedents such as the invasion of Western Sahara with the "Green March" or the attack on the islet of Perejil. How would NATO react if such a thing were to happen? As these cities do not fall under NATO's geographical scope - as Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has acknowledged - NATO partners' assistance under article 5 would not be automatic. Spain would have to resort to article 4, which provides that "the Parties shall consult with each other when, in the opinion of either Party, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any Party is threatened". On this basis - as TVE's Brussels correspondent Marta Carazo rightly explained - the matter would have to be examined by the Atlantic Council, which would have to decide unanimously whether an attack had taken place and - if it considered that there had been an attack - would adopt the appropriate measures. Given that the vote of each and every member would be required, it is possible that a France - Morocco's traditional protector - a United States - which has on more than one occasion disregarded the Spanish partner before the Moroccan partner -, a Turkey - out of Islamic solidarity - or a Hungary - by decision of its autocratic president - would throw a black ball, and Spain would find itself under attack and without assistance from its NATO partners. It is an unlikely but not improbable scenario. 

According to Carlos Segovia, NATO sources have pointed out that the case of Ceuta and Melilla would not be as automatic as that of other NATO territories, but that - if Spain were to invoke Article 5 for an attack on these cities, NATO would respond favourably. "Inshallah. In any case, the Spanish government should insist that the situation be made clear. Even for those who confidently believe that Ceuta and Melilla are, of course, covered by the NATO umbrella, they should be reminded of the French adage "si cela va sans dire, ça va mieux en le disant" (if it goes without saying, it is better to say it). 

Without going to the verbal extremes of Minister Albares, who has declared that, "when we look back in historical perspective, the Madrid Conference will be on a par with the Yalta Summit or the fall of the Berlin Wall", I believe that the meeting has been a diplomatic success for Spain, and we can only congratulate ourselves on it. Nevertheless, the Spanish government should continue to insist on NATO's recognition of its two priority objectives: confronting the risks of the Southern Flank and the unequivocal acceptance of Ceuta and Melilla under the Alliance's protective umbrella.