2035. A decade ahead. Not even Nostradamus, seeing the current scenario of volatility and change in Spanish politics, would dare to make a prediction. This is the horizon that NATO has set for allies to reach a Defense investment of 5% of GDP, where Spain adheres but raises its hand to claim a flexibility agreed upon with Mark Rutte, the Alliance's top representative, and stay at 2% of spending. "It is enough, realistic, and compatible with our social model," defends Pedro Sánchez. While NATO looks long-term, the Government looks short-term. How to hold on until 2027 in a situation of great weakness, with an alleged corrupt scheme within the PSOE and the Executive, which has generated deep discontent among its governance partners, leaving the legislature at a standstill. The same parties that support La Moncloa do not agree with an increase in military spending, hence the decision of the head of the Executive to confront the US and unleash the wrath of Donald Trump, who threatens to derail the Spanish economy.
Sánchez defends a political project that has social spending as one of its pillars. It is one of the cementing factors to unite left-wing and conservative parties. Measures such as raising the minimum wage, pension revaluation, the minimum living income are framed there... Not fighting against diverting money for these items to put it in the Security and Defense budget would have given his partners, already impatient, an argument for someone to press the nuclear button of the legislature.
"If we had accepted the budgeted amount, we would have had to allocate over 300,000 million until 2035. Where would it come from? From more taxes, cuts in education, health, pensions (...) Signing the 5% would have been an absolute mistake," Sánchez defended yesterday. Despite the pressures, the attacks from the US administration, the domestic issue is a key factor in understanding this unprecedented clash, probably only comparable to what happened when José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero decided to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.
On the other hand, the Secretary of State for Trade, Amparo López Senovilla, said yesterday that the Government has a "wide range" of trade instruments to defend against possible reprisals such as antidumping procedures, trade safeguards, or the public procurement instrument that has just been launched within the European Union.
Spending 80,000 million a year on Defense would mean cutting social programs and a guillotine from Sánchez's partners. Therefore, his political project and his survival would be called into question when the legislature is already at a standstill. But that rejection of reaching 5% of GDP in Defense has had a collateral damage: Trump's anger, who yesterday from The Hague, just minutes after Sánchez displayed his own spending path within NATO setting it at 2.1% for the coming years, threatened to unleash a trade war against Spain, beyond the one he already has open with the EU.
"The economy is doing very well, but it could go wrong if something bad happens. We are negotiating a trade agreement with Spain and I am going to make them pay double," affirmed the President of the United States when asked about Pedro Sánchez's position. "And I mean it. I like Spain. I know many people from Spain. It is a great place and they are great people. But Spain is the only country that refuses to pay," continued Trump, who concluded this issue by emphasizing that it is "unfair".
Despite the uncertain scenario that looms after Trump's threat - the Government has already activated a 14.1 billion aid plan to "mitigate" the negative impacts of the trade war initiated in April against the rest of the world - at the last minute yesterday, La Moncloa downplayed Trump's words and recalled that trade policy is negotiated within the framework of the European Union. Government sources avoid confrontation with the US administration and do not believe that the threats will translate into concrete measures. Spain, for now, does not foresee a diplomatic response.
In an attempt to convey that the glass is half full and that there is no crisis, the NATO summit ends with international criticism of Spain. In the hours leading up to it, the criticisms were already very noticeable. From Denmark, Poland, or the Nordic countries, for example, who considered Sánchez's refusal to increase spending beyond 5% unfair and set a "bad example". Even Belgium, which at some point seemed like a Spanish ally, ironically referred to Sánchez as a "genius".
The Secretary-General of the Alliance also pointed to Spain before the start of the summit on Tuesday when he stated that there was no agreement with Sánchez and that 2.1% would not be enough to meet the assigned military capabilities. A clear correction, opposing opinions. And from the United States, it was also stated that Spain was a problem. Trump did it, and so did Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
There was a moment, it is true, that it seemed that the situation would stay there. It was not insignificant, of course, but after the agreement was signed, the situation seemed to relax. The allies, without including the term "all" at Spain's insistence, agreed to reach the 5% Defense spending under the 3.5%+1.5% format: the first part allocated to hard military investment and the second, in areas related to security such as critical infrastructure and cyberattack prevention.
The approved text also states that "the trajectory and balance of spending under the plan will be reviewed in 2029, in light of the strategic environment and updated Capability Objectives." This means that in four years, NATO will analyze if the agreed 5% is still sufficient, if it needs to be increased, or if it needs to be reduced - the latter being unlikely.
"We agree that we disagree", Rutte simply responded when asked about Spain's position. It is the only country that has openly rejected the goal, and although there are others who have talked about flexibility and shown doubts, such as Italy, Canada, or the aforementioned Belgium, none did it with Sánchez's stubbornness. His political future was at stake, of course.