NATO does not believe that Spain can meet its military capabilities by investing only 2.1% of GDP in Defense. The Secretary General, Mark Rutte, made it clear yesterday by pointing out that the country will have to spend 3.5%. The Alliance is "absolutely convinced" of this, specifically pointing out, thus contradicting what the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, had stated just a few hours earlier. And to ensure that the Government fulfills its responsibilities as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it will have to submit, like the rest of the allies, an "annual report" on its investments and obligations met.
"Each country will periodically report on what it is doing in terms of spending and achieving the objectives," Rutte continued in the press conference prior to the summit that begins today in The Hague. In this way, he wants to prevent situations similar to those left by the Wales meeting in 2014, when the allies agreed to reach 2% of military investment. But many countries, including Spain, did not take that increase in investment seriously and kept postponing it.
Rutte is clear that a scenario like that is now unacceptable, and he will use these reviews to monitor whether Spain complies with those obligations. Because the disagreement between the Government and NATO is not about capabilities. Both agree that the Government is fully committed to compliance. But Moncloa states that it can do so by spending 2.1% and the Alliance asserts that this is not the case at all.
The former Prime Minister of the Netherlands also emphasized that the investment target remains at 5% for all members of the Alliance, and it will be done under the 3.5%+1.5% formula. The first part represents classic military spending, what could be called hard spending, and that is what Rutte referred to when asked about Spain. The second part includes elements related to security, such as basic infrastructure or cyberattacks. NATO sources indicate that they do not believe Spain will have problems reaching that second figure, mainly because it is expected that the allies will have considerable leeway in calculation. That is, they will be able to include many concepts and investments within this heading.
But for the first part, the Alliance insists, Spain will have to make an additional effort. "In NATO there are no exclusion clauses and no understanding of parallel pacts or agreements," Rutte summarized to once again reject that 2.1% will be sufficient for Spain and also that the "pact" announced by Sánchez on Sunday exists.
Regarding the letter in which the Secretary General informed Spain that it will have its own spending path to meet its obligations, both NATO and diplomatic circles point out that it is a political framework. A space where Sánchez can sell his national narrative and "constructive ambiguity," a term also being used by the Government. But the investment goal, they emphasize, remains reaching 5% within a 10-year period and that is what will be signed in The Hague. With "flexibility" for all allies, yes, but without changes in the target they must reach.
And among the rest of the countries, Spain's stance has long been causing discomfort and even resentment. Some, those closest to the border with Russia, speak of a lack of solidarity. There are also those who fear that this new standoff may affect NATO's unity as it could be "unfair to the other nations," as reported by this newspaper yesterday. In fact, Belgium has already requested the same "flexibility" that Spain talks about. And there is still the pending statement from the President of the United States, Donald Trump, during his participation in the summit -provided that the escalation of conflicts in the Middle East does not prevent it-. Yesterday, the U.S. delegation at NATO maintained that the goal is 5% for all countries.
But neither Rutte's words nor the pressure from the U.S. alter Spain's roadmap and position. In La Moncloa, they maintain their position that they will not spend more than 2% of GDP on Defense based on an agreement with the highest representative of the Alliance that exempts our country from spending more. And that agreement, which they say was endorsed in the letter sent to Sánchez on Sunday, is valid and sufficiently protected against the pressures and discomfort of partners like the U.S. Government sources argue that in the context of this negotiation, there have been contacts with the U.S. administration and they are not afraid of what Trump may do or say in the coming hours, where he will meet with Sánchez.
In the presidential complex, they also brush off the friendly pressure. They interpret the President's words questioning the 2.1% announced by Sánchez as a sufficient figure within a pact as a disagreement. "We agree to disagree," they say. In La Moncloa, they give validity and strength to Rutte's letter, in which he indicates that "he will give Spain the flexibility to determine its own sovereign path to achieve the Objectives in Capabilities and the annual resources needed as a percentage of GDP."
What is the basis for Spain's confidence in the face of Trump's unpredictability or Rutte's pressure? The Spanish delegation points to the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the NATO Secretary General -with the refusal to reach 5%, the call for flexibility, and Sánchez's confirmation that Spain will join the final declaration- as well as the agreement on the final declaration, which was finalized this Sunday, as the reasons for their tranquility, because no onebroke the silence in the negotiating process to protest or complain, not even the U.S., they argue. Furthermore, the Government recalls that Trump has already indicated that his country does not plan to reach 5% either and that it may benefit from Spain's clause.
Precisely, the Government points out that the final declaration is full of ambiguity so that each of the allies, according to their position and approaches, can interpret it according to their interests. For this, as they anticipate, the use of formulas like "we the allies" or "all the allies" has been avoided, simply mentioning the "allies," in general, so that each side can defend their narrative and position.