The recent migrant invasion of Spanish Ceuta has seen much of the Western Right turn on Madrid. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez found few friends after the invasion, with 22 European Union member states signing onto a letter blasting Spain for its migration policies. The EU’s Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, likewise attacked Sánchez for a regularisation that has drawn more than a million applications, saying – in the understatement of the year – that it was “not a good signal”.
This, though, has led some on the Right to adopt an unwise course. Frustration with Spain’s governance has boiled over, increasing the desire to see the country somehow punished for its political path. And that in turn has led to calls to support Morocco’s claims to Ceuta and Melilla, two North African cities. Earlier this year, the American Enterprise Institute in Washington published an argument by its senior fellow Michael Rubin that Spain should give up the two cities to Morocco. A congressional report approved on July 15, which described the enclaves as “located in Moroccan territory”, also lent support to Morocco’s claims.
It must be underlined that defending Spain’s territories in North Africa is in no way a defence of Sánchez, a political survivor whose only principle seems to be survival mixed with leftist thought. Nor is it a defence of his actions; while it seems increasingly clear that the migrant invasion of Ceuta was orchestrated by Morocco’s Government, the invasion was obviously made easier by Spain’s mass regularisation of illegal immigrants, as well as the country’s lax allowance of migration which acted as a magnet for migrants – who obviously received a push from Rabat.
This may feel satisfying, an effective way of damaging Sánchez before the 2027 parliamentary elections. But it is short-sighted, will backfire, and plays directly into the hands of anti-Western leftists.
Spain has controlled the two cities, neither of which is a colony, for hundreds of years. Ceuta has been under Spanish control since the late 1500s; Melilla, the late 1400s. Neither has ever been under the control of the modern State of Morocco. The only reason Morocco could feasibly claim to rightfully own those two cities is because it is next to them – which is a poor, poor reason for Spain to give up the territories.
Spain is not the first country to come under the fire of leftists and some on the Right for possessing territory. The recent World Cup saw a bevy of countries, including right-wing individuals in Israel, supporting Argentina – and their claim to the “Malvinas” – over England, part of the United Kingdom, which owns the islands and calls them the Falklands. The Falklands have never been under Argentine control, and were uninhabited before Britain brought them under London’s control.
Israel, of course, is lambasted for its attempts to control areas of its near-abroad. Canada is not giving up its territory anytime soon, but guilt over its historical expansion has led to the country being on the precipice of destroying private property rights by handing land back to American Indians who controlled it hundreds of years prior. And of course, university campuses across the United States – and even the Democratic National Committee – have issued “land acknowledgements” for years.
Sometimes, this argumentation has been levelled at the West’s adversaries. In the aftermath of the expansion of the Russo-Ukrainian war in 2022, some argued that Russia, which contains a multitude of indigenous populations that are far from Slavic, was a colonial empire that needed to be dismantled.
One does not need to support all of these land claims. Indeed, there can be national interest reasons for opposing them, or at least for not actively supporting them. But conservatives make a great mistake when they oppose these land claims specifically while using the arguments of the Left.
The Left does not make these arguments because they particularly care for Morocco, or for Argentina (indeed, most leftists are certainly no fans of Argentina’s current government). They do so because it undermines Western civilisation itself, much of which was built on conquest.
The United States of America is a particular example of this. The original country, while still vast, was insignificant in comparison to what it would become, stretching from sea to shining sea. If American conservatives turn on Spain on “Ceuta and Melilla are actually colonies” arguments, then that becomes mainstreamed. It becomes the default: something which once belonged to someone else should belong to them again (again, Ceuta and Melilla did not ever belong to Morocco, but put that aside for a moment).
And once it becomes the default, it grows harder to write an exception for oneself. If there was a national interest argument for Washington to argue that Morocco should control those cities, fair enough (though one struggles to see why it would matter to the United States either way). But if the American Right mainstreams “anti-colonial” arguments against Spain, those same arguments will be used against America. It may not end up giving away land; few American Indians actually seek to control territory, with rare exceptions such as the “Republic of Lakotah”, which would stretch across the American west. But the result would almost certainly be akin to Canada’s current situation, where private property rights are tied up in years of arguments and national authority – and national identity – is dissected.
If the West adopts the argument that Ceuta and Melilla are colonies which must be returned – or Tatarstan in Russia, or the Falklands – the same arguments can be levelled at Hawaii. They can be levelled at French Guiana, or Dutch Curaçao.
These arguments should be rejected as what they are: left-wing attempts to undermine the West’s history and its authority over its own land. The Western Right need not, and should not, cry for Sánchez. But distaste with the Spanish Prime Minister should not cause us to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
