Spain Pushes Back Against Mooted 5% NATO Spending Goal

Spain is resisting US President Donald Trump's demands to hike defence spending to five percent of national output, potentially threatening NATO unity at a crucial alliance summit this month.
The European country ended 2024 as the NATO member that dedicated the smallest proportion of its annual economic output to defence, falling short of the two percent target set in 2014.
Faced with Trump's threats to withdraw US security guarantees from member states perceived as not pulling their weight, Spain has announced fresh spending to hit the two percent mark this year.
But Madrid is baulking at suggestions the target should rise to five percent as an aggressive Russia, whose invasion of Ukraine has stretched into a fourth year, menaces Europe.
With Germany and Poland already backing the new benchmark, Spain could find itself isolated among its allies at the June 24-25 NATO summit in The Hague.
"Many countries want five (percent), we respect that... but Spain will fulfil those objectives set for us," Defence Minister Margarita Robles said on the sidelines of a meeting of NATO counterparts in Brussels this month.
"What is really important is that Spain will meet the capacities and objectives" assigned by NATO and "we cannot set ourselves a percentage", she said.
For Felix Arteaga, a defence specialist at Madrid's Elcano Royal Institute, "internal political reasons" are determining the stance of the minority left-wing coalition government.
Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez faces a balancing act of aligning with NATO allies and cajoling his far-left junior coalition partner Sumar, which is hostile to increasing military spending.
He has not submitted to parliament the plans for new defence spending of more than 10 billion euros, sparking criticism from his parliamentary allies whose support is crucial for the government's viability.
The fragile coalition has wobbled in the past week after a corruption scandal implicating one of Sanchez's inner circle sparked a crisis within his Socialist party.
In Spain, "high political fragmentation makes it difficult to reach deals similar to those of other countries" such as Germany, said Santiago Calvo, an economics professor at the Universidad de las Hesperides.
Calvo also pointed to "delicate" public finances, with Spain's debt one of the highest in the European Union at 103.5 percent of gross domestic product.
That figure has nonetheless receded in recent years, and continued strong economic performance should give the government "margin" to spend more, said Arteaga, who instead identified "cultural" hindrances.
The Iberian Peninsula's greater distance from Russia than eastern European countries like Poland "reduces concern and urgency... we do not feel threatened, we do not want to enter armed conflicts", Arteaga said.
"The government must explain to Spanish citizens the need to show solidarity" with countries in northern and eastern Europe, he said.
Ambiguity also surrounds the idea of investing five percent of GDP in defence.
NATO chief Mark Rutte has mentioned 3.5 percent of military spending in the traditional definition of the term by 2032, with the remaining 1.5 percent going to security in a broader sense, including border protection and cybersecurity.
At the NATO summit, "everything will come down to details" such as the flexibility of the definition of defence spending and the timeframe to achieve it, Arteaga predicted.
Robles said "Spain will not veto anything" at the summit, calling her country "a constructive ally".

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

DW

2 hours ago

• DW

Iran: The dangerous dream of regime change – DW – 06/21/2025

The longer Israel's attack on Iran goes on, the greater the speculation about the possibility of overthrowing the government in Tehran. But regime change has historically had disastrous consequences in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly told the US broadcaster Fox News on Sunday that regime change in Iran "could certainly be the result" of Israel's operation there, because, he said, the government in Tehran was "very weak." US President Donald Trump has meanwhile sent out contradictory signals. "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," he announced on his personal social network, Truth Social. "He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." It remains unclear how long "for now" might last, however. The longer the conflict between Israel and an Iran goes on, the more tempting it might appear to Israel and the United States to get rid not just of the Iranian nuclear program, but of the Islamic Republic as well. "It's extremely doubtful that it would be possible to bring about a regime change like that from the outside, with the push of a button," warns Eckart Woertz, the head of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) in Hamburg. "If it did come to that, whether things would then go in the right direction is a whole other question." Foreign-imposed "regime change" is a highly controversial concept. Under international law, it is a clear violation of the sovereignty of the affected state. Often, it is not democratically legitimized, and it frequently leads to a power vacuum or violence and instability. Newly installed governments often find themselves unable to cope with the challenge of resolving the country's problems, and this results in further crises and conflicts. This is was what happened in Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, NATO invoked the mutual defense guarantee contained in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first and (so far) only time. A Western military alliance led by the United States resolved to topple Afghanistan's Islamist Taliban regime, and fight the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. Initially, it was quite successful, and by the end of 2001 the Taliban had been driven out of Kabul. But various parties to the alliance disagreed on a number of things, including how military, political and development aid should cooperate. And so, for 20 years, the security situation remained extremely precarious. The country was devastated by attacks as the Taliban launched repeated counteroffensives. Between 2001 and 2021 around 3,600 Western soldiers and almost 50,000 Afghan civilians were killed. The Afghanistan mission cost a total of almost $1 billion (€868 million). After the chaotic withdrawal of the US and its allies in the summer of 2021, the Taliban returned to power. Since then, they have rolled back almost all the progress made over the past 20 years. Afghanistan is isolated and desperately poor, with 23 million people dependent on humanitarian aid. The US once armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was in power for more than two decades. In 2003, however, it decided to overthrow him, with help of a "coalition of the willing," but without a mandate from the UN Security Council. Washington justified the decision with the assertion that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction — claims later proven to be false. "Saddam Hussein was overthrown not because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because he did not possess them," the Middle East expert Eckhart Woertz says today. And, at the time, Iran took note. Once Saddam Hussein had been toppled, the Americans installed a transitional government, which was later heavily criticized for mismanagement and lack of knowledge of the country. Existing enmities between Iraq's different religious groups deteriorated into a situation akin to civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Deadly attacks were an almost daily occurrence. Soldiers discharged from the Iraqi army started fighting the US troops who had previously toppled Saddam. Twenty years after the American invasion and the attempted regime change in Iraq, the situation has improved. Violence has died down, and the next round of parliamentary elections is due to take place in November. Nonetheless, Iraq remains a country in the process of change. Libya is also still suffering the consequences of an attempted regime change, which came from within and was flanked from abroad. In the wake of the Arab Spring, a civil war there began in 2011 with protests against the rule of longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi. When attempted to put down the uprisings with bloodshed, NATO intervened militarily in the form of a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population. The regime held on for a few months. Then on October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was killed. But a government acceptable to the entire country was never established. Instead, there have been years of further conflict between rival militias. The state has virtually disintegrated, with two different governments fighting for control since March 2022. The human rights situation remains extremely precarious. Aside from these cautionary examples from recent history, Eckart Woertz sees another problem: Ultimately, ground force would be required to force a change of government in Iran. "I don't see a massively strong rebel movement within Iran that could topple the current regime," says Woertz. And from outside? "While there was a successful regime change in Germany once, at the end of the Second World War, that required a ground invasion," says Woertz. "And then you need a transition backed by local people. It helps if there is a common external enemy — like the Soviet bloc after 1945 — which glosses over the differences. But regime change has never happened with aerial bombardment alone, and I don't think Iran will be an exception now."

Local Germany

8 hours ago

• Local Germany

German military sees Russia as 'existential risk' to Germany and Europe: report

The Kremlin is "specifically aligning both its industry and leadership structures with the requirements of a large-scale conflict against NATO by the end of this decade," the news magazine wrote on Friday , quoting from the paper. Russia has strengthened forces in particular along NATO borders in western Russia and could have around 1.5 million soldiers on active duty by 2026, Spiegel reported, citing the paper. The report warns that Germany can only counter the threat by consistently developing its military and societal capabilities. The strategy paper was developed by military personnel and experts as a guideline for the future direction of Germnay's military, Spiegel said. In May, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz surprised NATO allies by signalling plans to massively boost defence spending to five percent of GDP as demanded by US President Donald Trump. The spending hike is possible as Merz's coalition government secured major financial firepower – an easing of debt rules and approval for hundreds of billions in extra funding for defence and infrastructure.

Int'l Business Times

20 hours ago

• Int'l Business Times

Supreme Court Declines To Fast-Track Challenge To Trump-Era Tariffs

The US Supreme Court on Thursday declined to expedite a major legal challenge to former President Donald Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports, opting not to intervene early in a case that could reshape presidential authority over trade policy. Educational toy companies Learning Resources and hand2mind had petitioned the Court to bypass the standard appeals process, citing the "sweeping economic consequences" of the tariffs and their impact on businesses and consumers nationwide. The Court's rejection means the case will proceed under the usual timeline, with the federal government now having until mid-July to file its response, Reuters reported. The companies argue that the tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were unconstitutional. They contend that the Act does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose trade barriers without congressional oversight. A lower court ruled in their favor in May 2024, stating that Trump lacked the authority to use emergency powers to enact the tariffs. That decision, however, is currently on hold pending appeal. In urging the Court to take up the case directly, the companies stressed what they called "unremitting whiplash" and an "unprecedented economic burden" placed on U.S. businesses. They asked the justices to schedule oral arguments as early as September 2025. The Biden administration opposed the motion, arguing that expedited review was "unwarranted" and that a similar case making its way through the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit presented a more suitable vehicle for resolving the legal questions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer advised the Court to allow the appellate process to play out, suggesting a decision could be better timed for the October 2025 term. While the Court's procedural ruling does not address the underlying legality of the tariffs, it delays any definitive resolution. The justices could still choose to hear the case in the next term or later, depending on the outcome of related appeals.