González Laya, former Foreign Minister: “If Europe wants to be an active player in Ukraine, it cannot remain complaining in the corner.”

Do you think this is the most important moment for the European Union in recent years?

We are living in a moment where the foundations of the European Union’s functioning are in question. It is not law, it is authority, it is not institutions, it is not transactions, it is not alliances, it is it, it is not values, it is pure interests. And then of course, this wave that is arriving and which is arriving very strongly, especially in recent months from the United States, is directly colliding with the rules on which the European Union is based, and that is why it is a difficult moment for the European Union, because it has to reinvent its model.

How is it done?

The European Union is a model for managing interdependence through law and institutions to entrench policies, values ​​as well as interests. So the European Union must reinvent itself in order to survive this historically complex moment, and to be able to write its future. Let’s go topic by topic.

Regarding the Spanish government and as a former minister, do you understand that it tried to lead Europe regarding Gaza, almost single-handedly, but then in the debate on defence, our concept of security was completely different from that of the Baltic states? We don’t seem to “buy” his message…

I think Spain had a pretty consistent position. I believe that cohesion today represents a rare value that is widely recognized when it is practiced. I think Spain has been very clear in its support for Ukraine. From all points of view it has been hosting Ukrainian refugees, contributing through community funding, which is also Spanish, and contributing directly like Spain, including in the defense sector.

But was there a lack of leadership?

He was not a leader, but he clearly was, as he constantly put himself on the side of those he wanted to support. There is recognition by the Ukrainian people themselves and their President Zelensky, which was also evident. Spain has sought to be coherent, looking a little, with a similar situation in another conflict, where it was a little more of a leader, because it was less, where there was less clear expression by the EU countries. It has also done so with other countries, it has done so with Ireland, it has done so with Belgium, it has done so with Slovenia, it has done so with Norway, which is not a member of the European Union, but from that point of view also it stands for the search for respect for international law. Spain shows a coherent position in foreign policy.

Did you understand the turn the government took on the Sahara or Maduro’s policy towards Venezuela?

Regarding decisions taken by the government, especially the government to which I belong, and especially regarding such sensitive issues, I avoid speaking out because it seems to me that it is the right thing to do from a moral point of view.

Do you see a general election in Spain soon with everything going on?

The French have an expression that I really like to use, which is that when I look at myself I feel lonely, and when I compare myself I feel good. I see in Spain incredible pathos and loud expressions of disappointment that do not match what is said about Spain when one is abroad. I think we also need as Spaniards to be a little conscious of the things that are done well, which are many and which others envy.

What do you say is being done wrong? Corruption issues, the Attorney General, political division…

There is a general tendency in Spain as elsewhere to dig in, to insist on things that don’t work, to persist in mistakes, to seek to wear down the opponent. The best way to wear down an opponent is not just to talk about what is not going well, but to try to put an alternative on the table. Here I see the limitations of this exercise. I see this in Spain: constant criticism when not accompanied by an alternative proposal serves that purpose, criticism, but it does not serve governance.

Returning to the latest, what do you think of Trump’s peace plan?

I think we have to start from the basis that it is a ceasefire plan, but this cannot be done without taking into account the party that is under attack. I think it is commendable that the United States wants to mediate between the parties to reach a ceasefire. I think this is important. I think the European Union will stand with the United States 100% on this, but we must be very clear, this cannot work if it is done behind Ukraine’s back.

Do you have a feeling, which is also shared by those of us who follow the issue day by day, that in the end we have gone to a scenario of two parties: the United States and Russia are looking for one thing, and Ukraine, Europe and NATO are looking for something else?

The problem here is that the United States is a member of NATO. But I want to think that what we are seeing here, as in Gaza and now in Ukraine, is Trump’s desire to be the architect of peace agreements wherever there is conflict. Until then, I think Europe will fully side with the US President.
The fact is that in order to reach these agreements, there must be all parties involved in the conflict.

Do you think it is necessary for the EU to be able to manage member states to take the step of using Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine?

If Europe really wants to play an active role, it must prove that it is up to the task. And you are an actor when you make decisions. And you are not an actor when you simply stand in the corner complaining or complaining.
This is the reading I do. The truth is that Europe, the future of Europe, can be written by Europe. No one should write this, but to make it happen Europe must act. The continued lack of definition or inability to make decisions will lead to others writing Europe’s future.

It appears, in general, that Trump wants to close the chapter on Ukraine quickly to focus on other areas, such as Venezuela. Do you share it?

It seems that the arrival of this administration to the White House was accompanied by a certain lack of understanding of international issues, however, we see that this was part of the MAGA program, and was intended to focus on solving the problems of the borders of the United States. However, we have witnessed tremendous activity on the part of Trump to get involved in all kinds of conflicts. He did it between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, he did it between Cambodia and Thailand, he did it between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and he clearly did it in Gaza. It seeks to do this in Sudan and is also trying to spread it in Ukraine, and it is clear that it is spreading an attempt to influence the future of Venezuela, although the situation is different because there is an internal conflict in Venezuela. But I do not think that they are issues isolated from each other, but rather they are a line of points that must be connected.

What should the Spanish government do?

It is very clear that Spain stands alongside Portugal in translating this European ambition to strengthen alliances with all regions of the world, and has been pushing it very clearly with Latin America. I think that one of the prescriptions that the European Union must implement is to strengthen relations with other regions of the world, and I think that without a doubt Latin America and the Caribbean is a part of the world where Europe has a lot to strengthen and a lot to work with.

This means closing the entire EU-Mercosur agreement.

I, who in my previous life participated in the negotiation of this agreement, look forward with great interest to the signing of this agreement at the end of this year because this is how we translate messages, positions and stances into concrete facts and this will be a very important concrete reality for strengthening the relationship between Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean.

In light of what we have seen, has trade become a political weapon?

You have to be careful here with the analysis. We are very clear that the United States has decided to leave the international consensus required by the rules of the World Trade Organization and has been very clear about that and has been very clear in its desire to use trade as a weapon to achieve commercial benefits with other countries, to attract or force foreign investment to come to the United States, and also to achieve broader political goals such as in the case of Brazil.
But we’ve also seen, as this is happening, that the remaining 87% of international trade, which is the rest of the world, doesn’t want that, doesn’t want to follow that path. She wants to follow the path of rule-controlled business relationships.