Kaplan: “Spain Can’t Do Much More Than Manage the Problem. The Ceuta Issue Is a Matter of History and Geography”

As you may have guessed, my first question is about Morocco and Spain and what has happened in Ceuta. From a realistic foreign policy perspective, how should Spain relate to a neighbor whose cooperation it needs, but which can also exert pressure?

Ultimately, it is a matter of history and geography. Spain cannot do much more than manage the problem. We live in a world where hundreds of millions of poor people want to move to places where there is work and, at least, some opportunities.

Historically, migrants have always found a way. You can hold them back here or there, but there will always be migration. Migration runs through all of history; it is the story of humanity. Governments can do things, but, ultimately, it is about managing the problem.

And how should Spain manage it?

The Government wants to be humanitarian, but it is subjected to political pressure that prevents it from being so. That is the real dilemma of the Spanish Government. It wants to show itself sympathetic to migration and to refugees, but it does not want refugees in the country.

So it is trapped in a historical dilemma. Again, it is about managing the problem. There will be no easy solution because Ceuta is there, Morocco is there; it is right on the border of Spain.

In this mix of actors, what role should the European Union play?

The European Union is an elitist institution. It was founded by elites with an elitist vision of a union: a common currency, a common policy, and common viewpoints.

The problem is that it is an elite vision. It does not connect with the concerns of ordinary people. For me, the big issue in Europe is migration.

“The Government wants to be humanitarian, but it is under political pressure that prevents it from doing so”

The Brussels elites see people from all over the world as sophisticated, multilingual, attractive, and truly capable, but those are not the migrants that people living in the countryside and outside Brussels see around them. What is Reagrupamiento Nacional in France? It is an anti-immigration party. What is Germany’s AfD really? Is it a Nazi party? Not exactly. It is an anti-immigration party. If there were no migration or refugees, AfD would lose influence very, very quickly.

So this is the great issue of our time. Migration affects ordinary people and what they see in their daily lives, but it does not affect the elites in the same way. That is why the elites are not as emotionally concerned about managing it.

If Russia continues to press the eastern flank of NATO, what does geography tell us? How should European leaders confront Russia?

Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and in other parts of Eastern Europe is also explained by geography. Who is more threatened by Russia, besides Ukraine itself? The Eastern European countries that border Russia or are near it: Poland, the Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.

When you present the argument of increasing defense budgets or building more tanks, they understand it. They understand it and they are doing it.

When you present the same argument in Spain and Portugal, it has less bite because they are at the far end of Europe. Spain is not threatened by Russian tanks; it is threatened by migrants.

So Spain, even if it does not say so, does not want to increase its defense budget because it does not feel threatened. Ceuta worries it. Ukraine does not. That is what really drives Spanish policy. Everything is determined by geography.

Let’s talk about the United States. With Trump, the country is diminishing its role in protecting Europe. Which countries will be compelled by geography to assume the leadership of European security? Who should step up, if anyone should?

Look, eighty years is a long time in historical terms. For eighty years, the United States supported and led NATO with enthusiasm. That is a long time—longer than many Roman dynasties. If you really look at things from a historical perspective, nothing lasts forever.

Eighty years ago, Europe was devastated by bombings. It was ruined. It was weak. The United States controlled about 50% of global manufacturing capacity and, therefore, was able to lead and protect Europe. Eighty years later, the United States has only about a quarter of that manufacturing capacity. Europe is wealthier by comparison. It is a different world.

“For eighty years, the United States supported and led NATO with enthusiasm. That is a long time—longer than many Roman dynasties”

In 2011, the United States Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who served during Barack Obama’s term, toured Europe warning Europeans that they needed to dramatically and immediately increase their defense budgets. Otherwise, a future American president who would not be sympathetic to Europe—and the American people would not be either—would arrive. He warned Europeans in unequivocal terms.

The Europeans did nothing because they believed the Americans had no choice but to defend Europe. So why would they ask their taxpayers to raise defense budgets? It turns out the United States did have a choice. It has it. Nothing lasts forever.

This is the crisis we have now. Trump is Trump; we can criticize him all day. But this crisis could have been easily mitigated if Europe had acted decades ago.

Let’s return to Trump for a moment. I think several aspects of his foreign policy in Venezuela and his close relationship with Morocco can be explained through geography. How does Trump understand geography, including critical raw materials?

Trump is a man of the real estate world. He knows the maps. He understands maps.

He says: “Greenland should be ours.” That’s how he thinks. He is very simplistic, crude, and grandiloquent.

He does not understand the historical relationship between the United States and Europe because he does not read books. So he knows nothing about what happened in World War II or eighty years ago.

He looks at Venezuela and says: “That should be ours” or, more or less, “We should have a lot of influence there.” From a geographic standpoint, he envisions an expanded North America, controlled by the United States, that would include Greenland, Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico.

He wants the Gulf of Mexico to be called the Gulf of America. That’s how he thinks. If something is spatial and visual, he understands it. If it’s historical, he is neither interested nor understands it.

From that perspective, what is your reading of what has happened and is happening in Iran?

An absolute lack of discipline in foreign policy. At some point the Iranian regime will change, but probably not soon enough to give Trump a victory. We are talking about a matter of a few years.

The regime is unpopular and the economic situation inside Iran is disastrous. This cannot go on forever. But it is never smart to bet on the collapse of a regime. Regimes are resilient; they can cling to power longer than one might imagine. Look at North Korea.

“Regimes are resilient; they can cling to power longer than one might imagine”

After the end of the Cold War, people thought North Korea would be the next to go and that Cuba would be next as well. That was in 1989, 36 years ago. Those regimes remain.

It would be wonderful if the Iranian regime weakened, but I don’t think it is wise to bet on it right now. Trump should not have begun this second war against Iran.

Now, turn to China. You will publish in November China Whisperers: The Voices That Have Helped Shape America’s Views of Its Chief Geopolitical Rival. What is China’s image in the United States today?

China is potentially, and by a wide margin, the most important foreign policy issue for the United States. We have seen wars in the Middle East and in Ukraine, but they do not actually affect the average American’s pocketbook.

It is striking how financial markets have discounted and adapted to the wars in Gaza, Iran, Ukraine, etc. But the same would not be true if there were a military conflict between the United States and China. Then we would see stock markets collapse, all sorts of chaos, and the decline of retirement accounts.

So China is, by far, the most important foreign policy matter. The Trump Administration’s policy has been erratic and poorly coordinated.

“China is, by a wide margin, the most important foreign policy issue for the United States”

The president, out of the blue and without even thinking about it, praises the North Korean dictator. He is not clear whether he will sell arms to Taiwan or not. This is the kind of erratic policy that leads to miscalculation and mistakes and, inevitably, to conflict.

And I know we are not in the same position, but how do you see Europe’s relationship with China?

I think that, no matter how bad the Trump Administration is, China is not an ally of Europe. China is a Leninist totalitarian state that steals technology and is extremely dangerous. Europe finds itself in a difficult position because it wants to benefit economically from China, but at the same time it cannot be China’s ally.

So, no matter how frustrated Europe—and especially Canada—with President Trump, that should not lead Europe or Canada into China’s arms.

What then is the alternative for Europe and Canada?

There is no alternative. It is a tough world with no easy solutions. One of the laws of realism in foreign policy is that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer to every problem.

Europe did well when the United States had moderate, rational presidents and the U.S.-China relationship was on a proper footing. They may not have been friendly, but they were workable. For Europe, it was an easier world to manage.

For now, that world no longer exists. At least until the next president. We shall see.

Thank you very much.