In recent days, an idea that is as striking as it is difficult to sustain has circulated: that the United States could expel Spain from NATO. The question sounds urgent because it connects with the war in Iran, with the role of the Rota and Morón bases and with the political battle between Donald Trump and several European governments. But the legal answer is quite clear: the United States cannot unilaterally expel Spain from the Atlantic Alliance because the North Atlantic Treaty does not provide for such a mechanism.
What does exist is political, military and diplomatic pressure. And that matters a lot, because although a formal expulsion is not possible, the clash between Washington and Madrid can translate into real tensions within the Alliance.
NATO is governed by the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in 1949. In that text there is no clause that allows a member state to be expelled by decision of another country, not even the United States. The only way to leave the organization is voluntary withdrawal, included in article 13, which requires formal notification and a period of one year.
Things about political rhetoric
This means that the idea of “expelling” Spain belongs more to the realm of political rhetoric than to that of international law. In other words, Spain cannot be “removed” from NATO by an order from Washington. What may occur is a deterioration in the bilateral relationship or a reduction in support and cooperation within the Alliance itself.
The immediate origin of the conflict is in the current confrontation with Iran and the degree of involvement that the United States expected from its European allies. Spain has maintained a more cautious position and has defended that any cooperation must be framed in international law. This position has bothered Washington, especially due to the debate over the use of Spanish military bases for operations abroad.
Rota and Morón are facilities of enormous strategic value. Its relevance explains why any discussion about its use generates so much political tension. However, even in a scenario of disagreement, its existence does not depend on a unilateral gesture from the United States, but on bilateral agreements and the general framework of the relationship between both countries.
If expelling Spain is not possible, what real margin does the United States have? Quite a bit, although not in the form of formal expulsion. It can limit military cooperation, cool intelligence collaboration, exert economic pressure or try to politically isolate Madrid within NATO. It can also use the public debate to send a message to the rest of Europe: anyone who does not follow Washington’s line may pay a political cost.
There can be no expulsion, but there can be pressure
That is probably the key to the issue. More than a legal break, we are facing a fight in which the symbolic dimension matters as much as the norm. The threat of “expelling” Spain may not have a legal basis, but it does serve to mark positions, mobilize voters and put pressure on partners, although everything is nothing more than a real bluff by the United States designed to stage a political punishment where international law closes the door.
For Spain this debate is not minor. It affects its role within NATO, its relationship with the United States and its room for maneuver in European foreign policy. It also reopens a broader question: to what extent can Europe build its own defense strategy without depending completely on Washington.
Likewise, the Spanish case connects with other geopolitical fronts: Morocco, Ceuta and Melilla, the Malvinas and the possible reassignment of alliances by the United States. The problem is not specifically Spain but the reordering of strategic priorities in a rather unstable international scenario.
The discussion also reveals that European security continues to depend on decisions made in Washington, although Europe aspires to greater strategic autonomy. Therefore, even a legally empty threat can have real political effects. Trust between allies, the credibility of commitments and the sharing of military resources are essential pieces of the system.
In parallel, the conflict highlights the value of international law as a limit against political improvisation. If a treaty does not provide for expulsions, that mechanism cannot be invented through presidential pressure or impulse. And that is precisely one of the most valuable functions of international organizations: reducing arbitrariness.
Armando Alvares Garcia Júnior, Professor of International Law and International Relations, UNIR – International University of La Rioja
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original.
