Same old Zapatero

Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero announced on Thursday in Brussels that Spain would host the naval elements of NATO's anti-missile shield. Zapatero, whose trip to the NATO meeting in the Belgian capital was unannounced, insisted that the shield is for purely defensive purposes and is not directed against any country. At the same time, he justified Spain's commitment to the program on the basis of its strategic position "at the gateway to the Mediterranean." The Defense Ministry backed the Socialist leader's arguments by pointing out the economic benefits of installing the system in the area around the Rota naval base in Cádiz province.

The anti-missile shield propounded by US President Barack Obama has little to do with the program first announced by the George W. Bush administration, which was designed with long-range missiles in mind, prompting an angry response from Moscow. There might be some justification for aligning this country to a system that protects Europe from possible attacks by Iran or North Korea, and in which Poland, Romania, Turkey, and eventually the Netherlands and France, will become part.

That said, Zapatero's decision reflects his approach to policy throughout his mandate. In the same way that he improvised changes to the Constitution in the last weeks of his term in office, he has now decided to implement a change to this country's foreign policy after Congress and the Senate have been dissolved in the run up to November's general election. He has not taken into account the possible diplomatic consequences of his decision. And nor has he bothered to establish whether the move is compatible with the 1988 agreement that reduced the US military presence at Rota. We can only wonder what happened to the promises that Zapatero made when he took office in 2004, in that the search for peace would be this country's foreign policy priority.

The stated objectives of the anti-missile shield may be different to those foreseen by the Bush administration, but Russia has once again expressed its fears that this US initiative, which Spain now officially supports, could affect the military balance that has slowly been achieved through nuclear disarmament. The current international situation does not offer an ideal environment in which to establish whether Russia's objections to the shield will be limited to the verbal, or whether it will apply pressure in other areas, for example over the Iranian nuclear program. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, difficult to achieve without the support of Moscow, would provide us with infinitely more security than an anti-missile shield. It might have been worth discussing first whether this support will now be more difficult to attain than before the agreement that Zapatero signed up to in Brussels.

Mariano Rajoy, the leader of the opposition Popular Party, was consulted by Zapatero over the commitment to the missile shield. It is undeniable, however, that Zapatero has now left his party's candidate in the upcoming elections, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, in a very difficult position. But the worst aspect to all this is that once again, Zapatero has deprived the country's elected representatives of the right to discuss in Congress a matter that could change the course of this country's foreign policy.