&w=3840&q=100)
'Unreasonable, counterproductive': Spain's Sánchez rejects push to increase Nato defence spending to 5%
Spanish PM Sánchez has told Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte that the proposed increase in the alliance's defence spending target to 5% of GDP would be 'not only unreasonable, but also counterproductive', according to a report read more
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has told Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte that the proposed increase in the alliance's defence spending target to 5% of GDP would be 'not only unreasonable, but also counterproductive,' according to a report.
According to The Guardian report, citing Spanish newspaper El País, in a letter responding to Rutte's proposals for next week's Nato summit in the Hague, Sánchez declared his opposition for the proposed change arguing 'it is not necessary to fulfil our commitments to the alliance.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Sánchez reportedly argued that the proposed 5% GDP defence spending target 'has nothing to do with the level of commitment to collective defence,' asserting that Spain remains confident in its ability to meet Nato obligations with lower spending levels.
He warned that adopting such a target would negatively impact the Spanish economy, potentially requiring tax hikes, cuts to public services, and delays in the country's green transition plans.
'We choose not to make those sacrifices,' The Guardian quoted Sánchez to have told Nato Rutte.
According to the report, the new Nato defence spending goal had been expected to pass unanimously, but Spain's opposition could now prompt further discussions among member states.
A Spanish government source told El País that while Madrid does not intend to 'veto anything' for other countries, it wants to be clear that it 'can't commit to it.'
Spain's national broadcaster RTVE also reported on Sánchez's stance.
The latest Nato data shows Spain's defence spending at just 1.3% of GDP — the lowest among all alliance members.
In April, the Spanish government announced tentative plans to raise that figure to 2%.
With inputs from agencies
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The World This Week: SCO silent on Pahalgam terror attack; uncertainty looms large amid tenuous Israel-Iran ceasefire; India, US hold final round of trade talks
India refuses to sign the draft statement of the SCO as it omitted reference to the Pahalgam terror attack; uncertainty looms large over West Asia as Iran hints at suspending cooperation with the IAEA amid fragile ceasefire with Israel; Trump claims a ceasefire in Gaza could be reached within a week; NATO leaders agreed to raise defence spending to 5 per cent; India holds a final round of talks with the US before the July 9 deadline; Rwanda and Congo sign a peace deal – here is weekly roundup of key global news. Objecting to the absence of a common standard for terrorism, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign the draft statement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) as it omitted a reference to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir but mentioned 'disturbances in Balochistan'. The failure to issue a joint statement after the Defence Ministers' meeting in Qingdao, China from June 25 to 27 doesn't bode well for the 10-member group. The joint statement, which was silent on the Pahalgam attack, nonetheless, mentioned the Balochistan Liberation Army's hijacking of the Jaffar Express in Pakistan. Although the SCO is largely invested towards its founders (China, Russia, and Central Asian states), leaving out the reference to the Pahalgam attack is largely seen against the renewed momentum in India-China relations after the 2020 border standoff, and the SCO chair held by China for 2025. Moreover, the SCO was established in 2001 to enhance regional cooperation on terrorism, and its founding Charter in 2002 underscored the need to build 'mutual intraregional efforts to curb terrorism, separatism and extremism'. Defence Minister Singh underlined that as the world faces an intricate web of challenges, including transnational terrorism, cyber-attacks, hybrid warfare, and other non-traditional security challenges, which do not respect national boundaries, a unified response rooted in transparency, mutual trust and collaboration is needed to address such threats. Since SCO member countries inhabit about 40 per cent of the world's population and contribute around 30 per cent of the global GDP, the creation of a safe, secure and stable region is a collective stake, he added. The meeting of the SCO Defence Ministers took place weeks after Operation Sindoor which India launched on May 7 in response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam and struck terror targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Since then, India took its fight against terrorism global and sent parliamentary delegations to 32 countries, but it did not include any SCO member-country. On the sidelines of the SCO meet, Singh also held bilateral meetings with his Russian and Chinese counterparts, Andrey Belousov and Admiral Dong Jun. Now the attention will be shifted to the SCO Foreign Ministers' meet in July and the SCO Summit in August-September to see how India's concerns are addressed. Amid all this, the broader geopolitical landscape remains tense. While a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds after 12 days of war, uncertainty looms large over the ever-volatile region of West Asia, with Iran hinting at suspending cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog and US President Donald Trump asserting he would 'absolutely' consider fresh attacks to curb Tehran's nuclear weapons programme. But a serious concern remains the assessment of damages caused by the US attack on Iran's three nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – especially amidst contradictory claims. Preliminary assessments suggested that Operation Midnight Hammer did not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and only set it back by a few months, contradicting Trump's claim that the three sites were 'obliterated' and the programme was set back by decades. However, Iran on Wednesday (June 25) for the first time acknowledged that US strikes 'badly damaged' its nuclear installations. 'Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that's for sure,' Bloomberg cited Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei as saying during an interview with Al Jazeera TV. He called the US attacks a 'detrimental blow' to international law and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory. Iran has also approved a Bill to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to Al Jazeera. It raises concerns over the status of Iran's 400 kg of enriched uranium — enough material for nearly 10 nuclear bombs — or the condition of its advanced centrifuges, which IAEA inspectors could ascertain if Iran allows them. However, despite being aware of the lack of balance of power, Iran's battle-hardened leadership is unlikely to back down. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even claimed Tehran won its recent 12-day war with Israel. Iranian-American academic Vali Nasr also argues that since Iran is locked in a battle for survival with Israel and the US, it is unlikely to capitulate and would possibly seek to acquire nuclear weapons as a measure of deterrence. During the 12-day war, Iran's sustained retaliatory attacks against Israel not only exposed vulnerabilities in its vaunted multilayered air defence system but also demonstrated the futility of war in either dismantling its nuclear programme or imposing regime change. The situation turns the spotlight back to diplomacy. But it will not be easier to bring Iran back to the negotiating table as the war has wedged deeper distrust and hardened the positions on both sides. In the meanwhile, amid growing condemnation of Israel's horrific war in Gaza and continued killing of starving Palestinians near aid sites, US President Trump claimed a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could be reached within a week. Gaza's Government Media Office says revelations in the Israeli media that soldiers were ordered to 'deliberately shoot' starving Palestinians seeking aid supplies are further evidence of 'war crimes' in Gaza, Al Jazeera reported. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz have rejected the report of commanders targeting civilians. But Gaza's Health Ministry has reported that almost 550 Palestinians have been killed near aid sites operated by the US- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) since Israel partially lifted its total blockade on the strip in late May. The head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) Philippe Lazzarini says GHF aid distribution sites created 'a killing field'. This view was echoed by the Director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, Chris Doyle, as he told Al Jazeera that food distribution centres are 'death traps'. He also stressed that UN agencies and humanitarian groups have for months warned that operations by the GHF were 'utterly wrong and unworkable'. Meanwhile, ongoing restrictions on the entry of essential medical supplies and fuel have compounded the health crisis in Gaza, the UNRWA has said. According to Gaza's Health Ministry, Israel's war on Gaza has killed at least 56,331 people and wounded 132,632. An estimated 1,139 people were killed in Israel during the October 7 attacks, and more than 200 were taken captive. Al Jazeera's Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman in Jordan, also said that talk of a 'ceasefire in Gaza increased exponentially after the ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Israel does not want to talk about ending the war. In fact, the Israeli prime minister would be risking a lot if he did.' But, she added, there is an understanding, according to many reports, that Netanyahu would have to agree to some sort of ceasefire in exchange for normalisation deals with Arab states, which the Trump administration has promoted. Hamas, on the other hand, requires that Israel stop its war on Gaza and that the Israeli military withdraw from areas it seized in Gaza after breaking the last ceasefire in March. 'Hamas also wants US guarantees that negotiations would continue and that Israel wouldn't break the ceasefire again if more time was needed for negotiations,' Odeh added. Amid pressure from US President Trump and his stance on the Russia-Ukraine war, NATO leaders agreed to raise defence spending to 5 per cent of their countries' economic output by 2035 and expressed their 'ironclad commitment' to come to each other's aid if attacked. The 32 leaders of member countries endorsed the final summit statement saying: 'Allies commit to invest 5 per cent of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence- and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.' However, Spain, which had allocated 1.24 per cent of its GDP in 2024 to defence spending, announced it would not adhere to this target, earning Trump's ire and the potential for Spain-specific trade sanctions. The summit was held in The Hague, the Netherlands on 24-25 June. The 'One for All, All for One' principle mentioned in Article 5 constitutes the bedrock of NATO's existence. It says an attack against even one of the members would be considered an attack against all members. NATO was founded by 12 Western countries in 1949 to resist the threat from the communist Soviet Union. NATO's first secretary-general, Lord Ismay, famously declared its goal: 'To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.' C. Raja Mohan argues that in the post-War order, this formula made sense, but the present moment demands a very different configuration. The reversal of decades-long animosity between the US and Russia has largely upended NATO's stance towards Ukraine. Since 2022, every NATO summit has committed to aiding Ukraine in its war against Russia. Most NATO countries view Russia as a direct and immediate threat. But Trump has paused US military aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia and has ruled out the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. C. Raja Mohan argues as Trump rethinks US relations with Russia and China, major powers in Europe and Asia will have to rethink their great power relations and look beyond the US security alliances. This recalibration of global power equations coincides with India and the US seeking to finalise a trade agreement. As the July 9 deadline for the reciprocal tariff pause is just days away, Indian trade negotiators are in the US to hold final negotiations for a trade deal. However, market access in agriculture and other sensitive areas remains key sticking points. President Donald Trump on June 26 said the US and India may sign a 'very big' deal 'where we're going to open up India'. According to a person privy to the development, India is likely to face more pressure to accept US demands to avoid reciprocal tariffs. The US and India held the last round of talks earlier this month, which yielded little progress. The two sides are at loggerheads over the US's demand seeking increased market access for its agricultural products, especially soya and corn. Agricultural goods receive high protection in India and have largely remained outside trade agreements. India primarily exports basmati rice, spices, cereals, dairy, and poultry products to the US. Amid the ongoing trade talks, there were reported concerns among some domestic agricultural-based industries about the possible concessions that the deal might entail, especially those related to genetically modified (GM) crops. The US has also flagged a number of non-tariff barriers and high duties in India, but is yet to commit to several Indian demands. In addition to the elimination of the 26 per cent reciprocal tariff, India is seeking duty-free entry for labour-intensive export items such as textiles and footwear in the US. At the same time, India has reduced tariffs on some items, including high-end motorcycles and automobiles, and some other electronics. Official trade data also shows that India's import of crude oil from the US rose 11.49 per cent to $63 billion in March 2025 compared to the previous year. In the meantime, Trump claimed that the US and China have signed a trade deal that will make it easier for American firms to obtain magnets and rare earth minerals from Beijing. 'Part of the agreement was tariffs coming down and rare earth magnets starting to flow back to the US,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Friday. The same day, another significant political development was reported from Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda signed a peace agreement on Friday (June 27), raising hopes for an end to the worst fighting in decades that killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands. The agreement, signed by the two African countries' foreign ministers in Washington, DC, would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern Congo within 90 days, according to a copy seen by Reuters. The peace deal is backed by the US and Qatar, and came after a series of talks that followed a meeting between the governments of Congo and Rwanda in March in Doha, Al Jazeera cited a Qatari diplomat as saying. The talks were held amid offensives by Rwanda-backed M23 fighters in which they captured eastern Congo's two largest cities – Goma and Bukavu – and lucrative mining areas earlier this year. The gains by M23 were the latest cycle in a decades-old conflict with roots in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Eastern Congo, on the other hand, has been experiencing the worst conflict since the Second Congo War (1998–2003). The Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly known as Zaire (from 1971 to 1997), is a vast, resource-rich country with an estimated $24 trillion in untapped mineral deposits. US President Trump said, 'We're getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it,' Reuters reported. Send your feedback and ideas to
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Everything is fine as long as…': Putin accuses West of encouraging separatism, attacks NATO expansion plans
Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused the West of encouraging separatism in Russia and attacked NATO for increasing its defence spending citing Moscow's 'aggressiveness.' Putin said that Russia's repeated security concerns regarding NATO's activities were ignored by the West.(via REUTERS) Putin also hit out at the Western nations for repeatedly 'betraying Russia' by not honouring their promises regarding NATO expansion and resolving the conflict in Ukraine. 'No one has wished to pay attention to the Islamic State, as long as it operates against Russia. Explosions in Moscow, and all that. This is still happening today,' Putin told reporters at the Belarus capital Minsk, according to news agency PTI. 'No one wants to pay attention to this. Everything is fine, as long as it is against Russia,' the President said on the sidelines of the summit of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Also Read: Vladimir Putin offered Donald Trump 'help with Iran'. US President's reply was this "The same happened when the collective West encouraged separatism in our country, and such an instrument of the fight against Russia as terrorism," he further said. Putin also said that Russia will no longer play 'one-sided' games with the West, according to state-run television Russia Today. "Western nations have repeatedly betrayed Russia by not fulfilling their promises related to NATO expansion and resolving the Ukraine conflict,' he said. He also said that NATO is using alleged Russian "aggressiveness" to justify plans to increase defence spending and bolster its military presence in Europe. "No one is saying a word about how we've come up to the Russian special military operation," the Russian President reportedly said. He added that the roots of the conflict in Ukraine goes back decades when Moscow was "blatantly lied to" about NATO expansion. "What followed was one expansion wave after another," he stated. He further said that Russia's security concerns about the bloc's activities have been consistently ignored and met with silence. 'Isn't it aggressive behaviour? That is precisely aggressive behaviour, which the West does not want to pay attention to," he added.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's head-spinning foreign policy
WASHINGTON—President Trump hasn't sounded much like Donald Trump in recent days. He said the U.S. needed to attack Iran over a growing nuclear threat, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wasn't ripping off America and that Russian President Vladimir Putin was an impediment to ending the war in Ukraine. It was a remarkable shift for a president who said he would extract the U.S. from foreign entanglements, once called NATO obsolete and often has avoided criticizing Moscow. But Trump's supporters and critics alike said they didn't expect the new version of Trump to last for long. By Friday afternoon, Trump said he wouldn't lift sanctions on Iran after suggesting earlier in the week that he would do so. Minutes later, he said he was canceling trade talks with Canada. Since his first days in office, Trump has pinballed from dove to hawk, at some points promoting a more inward-looking America and at others defending risky armed responses. Trump has kept world leaders off balance since his second inauguration in January, threatening tariffs against dozens of countries, hinting at military incursions against Greenland and Panama and ambushing fellow national leaders in the Oval Office. The president's supporters said he would do whatever it takes to secure U.S. interests—and that keeping foreign leaders on their toes is a feature not a bug. This past week has underscored the complexities of defining a cohesive 'Trump Doctrine." He has promised to keep the U.S. out of conflicts in the Middle East, but has nonetheless engaged in them. He has said he would do whatever possible to end the war in Ukraine, but has at times been hesitant to put political and economic pressure on Russia to do so. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Trump practices 'purposeful strategic ambiguity" in foreign policy to give himself leverage in negotiations. 'World leaders fear him, respect him, and hang on every word he says," she said. Trump is in full command, Leavitt said, asserting that he is shaping—not reacting to—complex global events. 'The world has changed because of Donald Trump," she said, 'Donald Trump has not changed because of the world." But some analysts said Trump doesn't appear to have a clear foreign-policy worldview. 'It is hard to discern a coherent, strategically consistent thread through what Donald Trump does," said Christopher Preble, director of the Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center think tank. Trump initially resisted involving the U.S. in Israel's military campaign against Iran, but later authorized U.S. strikes on Tehran's nuclear sites. The mission was designed to inflict maximum damage on the facilities, knowing Iran was weakened and would struggle to retaliate, before turning back to his preferred diplomacy-focused approach. After helping to broker a cease-fire in the Israel-Iran war, Trump gave conflicting public statements about whether the U.S. would try to reach a deal with Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. 'We may sign an agreement," he said Wednesday at a NATO summit press conference, but added, 'I don't think it's that necessary." Two days later, Trump said the U.S. would pursue a nuclear pact that could include inspectors in Iran and the end of the nation's domestic uranium enrichment—but his advisers said he remained open to striking Iran again if necessary. Trump's comments this week triggered confusion among foreign-policy analysts and government officials over whether the U.S. would wind down sanctions on Tehran. Trump wrote on social media earlier this week that China could purchase oil from Iran, a move that would weaken the president's maximum-pressure campaign aimed at starving Iran of money to fund its nuclear ambitions and regional proxies. The White House later said there had been no change in U.S. sanctions policy. Then on Friday, Trump said he had been working to remove U.S. sanctions on Iran after all. But he said he changed his mind because he was angry at Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for saying his country had won the war. Trump is hardly the only president who adjusted his foreign policy views in response to events. George W. Bush campaigned against nation-building, but after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq before attempting to establish democratic beachheads in both countries. Barack Obama promised a more peaceful foreign policy, but he expanded the use of drone strikes and ordered more troops into Afghanistan and Iraq without fully resolving either conflict. Presidents who follow carefully-planned strategies aren't guaranteed success. The Biden administration spent months trying to avert a Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it didn't stop Putin from launching the largest European land war since World War II. Trump has long touted his personal approach to decision-making. 'I like following my instincts," Trump said when announcing his decision to send 3,000 troops to Afghanistan in August 2017 after campaigning on ending the war. 'But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office." After vowing to reduce military involvement in the Middle East, Trump also authorized a large campaign to defeat ISIS, attacked chemical-weapons sites in Syria and ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, then the leader of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Trump promised a different approach in his second term: The U.S. would finally steer clear of the Middle East's internal affairs. 'In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built—and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves," he said during a May visit to Saudi Arabia. The following month, Trump authorized 125 U.S. aircraft, including seven B-2 stealth bombers, to drop more than a dozen 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs and a barrage of cruise missiles at Iranian nuclear sites. Trump quickly brokered a cease-fire between Iran and Israel, ending the 12-day war. The Iran strikes prove a Trump doctrine is coming into view, administration officials said. Vice President JD Vance, in a social-media post this week, said Trump's approach to foreign policy centers on three points: '1) Clearly define an American interest; 2) negotiate aggressively to achieve that interest; 3) use overwhelming force if necessary." Arriving at the framework took years, according to his supporters. 'I don't see this as a different Trump; I see it as a more experienced president," said Victoria Coates, vice president of the Heritage Foundation's national security and foreign policy team. Administration officials said the president's approach has led to successes. Iran's nuclear program was set back significantly by the attack Trump authorized. The U.S. brokered a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Trump also has said he persuaded India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed enemies, in May to quit fighting after a four-day skirmish that could have spiraled out of control. Pakistan nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, while India disputes the U.S. played a significant role. But such accomplishments don't stem from a core foreign-policy vision, said John Bolton, one of Trump's national security advisers in the first term, and whom Trump dismissed. The only consistency with Trump, he argued, is that he is inconsistent. 'There's an old saying about Washington weather that applies to Trump: 'If you don't like the weather, wait a minute and it will change,'" Bolton said. 'That is the only certainty in Trumpworld." Write to Alexander Ward at
