19.01.2018 - 19:57
It is no secret that Spain has gone to great lengths on the diplomacy front to undermine the international support for Catalonia’s secessionist movement. José Manuel García Margallo, Spain’s former Foreign Minister, acknowledged that much a few weeks ago when he admitted, while addressing a parliamentary committee, that PM Rajoy had managed to win over Latvia’s sympathy by deploying 313 troops and 80 military vehicles along the Russian border as part of a NATO deterrence mission. The force was set up to protect the Baltic nations and Poland, who feel threatened by Russian after it annexed Crimea in 2014.
Only now are we beginning to learn the price that Madrid has paid for such favours and Spanish Defence Minister, María Dolores de Cospedal, will have to justify the operation before the Spanish Parliament’s Defence Committee. According to Spanish online newspaper Público, the MPs who serve on the committee have been sent some preparatory documents which state that Spain’s deployment carries a price tag of €63,4M. Besides 313 troops, Spain has also deployed six Leopard 2E main battle tanks, fifteen Pizarro infantry fighting vehicles, twelve armoured transport vehicles, a support weapons section and another of UAVs, as detailed in this report [in Spanish] published by Spain’s Ministry of Defence.
Spain volunteered to contribute to the NATO deterrence mission that aims to protect the Baltic countries. However, not only did Madrid choose to get involved, but its contribution also exceeds Spain’s fair share of the effort, which was outlined last May: to deploy 300 troops, including a rifle company equipped with infantry fighting vehicles. Spain has more than delivered and opted to send as many as 84 vehicles, which amounts to a very significant expense.
What prompted Spain to offer Latvia its military support?
Thanks to the military exercises in Latvia, which cost €63M in taxpayers’ money, Spain managed to persuade the Baltic republic not to show any public support for Catalonia’s independence, unlike in previous years. In the middle of December last year, Spain’s former Foreign Minister
José Manuel García Margallo admitted to having asked the governments of the Baltic countries for their assistance “and reciprocate the efforts made by Spain” in their interest, in a reference to the military deployment that began in May.
There is no need to read between the lines to realise that the Catalan issue was part of the quid pro quo deal. Margallo stated in parliament that “to the question of whether I, as minister, was trying to explain Spain’s reasons as opposed to the reasons of a secession process carried out by other organisations and, as of late, by the Catalan government —whose legitimacy stems from the Constitution and the Statute—, my answer is yes, I was. And not merely with the Baltic countries, but anywhere where I could find a crack”.
It is well-known that diplomatic relations between Spain and Latvia were strained due to its support for Catalonia’s independence process. In a 2013 interview with the Catalan News Agency, then-PM Valdis Dombrovskis stated that the official recognition of Scotland or Catalonia by Latvia should not pose a problem. In a similar vein, Lithuania’s PM Algirdas Butkevicius had spoken in support of Catalonia’s right to self-determination.
At the time Margallo protested in strong terms and even summoned the ambassadors of both countries to Madrid, but Dombrovskis refused to retract his statement. “I said what I said about Catalonia and I stand by it”. This prompted a smear campaign against him when Spanish weekly Interviú published a report quoting Spanish police sources which claimed that Dombrovskis had received money from the Pujol family in exchange for his publicly endorsing Catalonia’s independence bid. Latvia’s anti-fraud bureau refuted the allegations and denied that there was any evidence of a bribe.
Speaking on Spanish private TV network 13TV, Margallo even admitted to having travelled up to four times to the Baltic countries to discuss the Catalan issue. It would seem that all that travelling eventually paid off, once a quid pro quo deal was clinched.