Ceuta is not a coincidence

Crises rarely appear out of nowhere. And when too many actors gain political benefits from the same fire, the least we can do is ask ourselves who is holding a match.

The images from Ceuta have gone around the world in a matter of hours. Thousands of people crossing the border, extraordinary migratory pressure on Spain and a European Union that, once again, always seems to react a few steps behind events.

But reducing what happened to a simple migratory episode would be a mistake.

This is about geopolitics.

Morocco has been demonstrating for years that controlling migratory flows is one of its most effective tools for diplomatic pressure. When Rabat decides to tighten controls, the border holds. When it relaxes them, all of Europe looks towards Ceuta and Melilla. It is not an extravagant theory; it is a pattern that has been repeated at different times in recent decades.

What is striking is what happens next.

Donald Trump immediately uses the images to fuel his electoral discourse in the United States. He no longer speaks of Ceuta as a European problem, but as a preview of what, according to him, would happen in his country if his adversaries govern. Human suffering turned into political propaganda.

Meanwhile, Morocco re-establishes itself as a strategic partner for Washington. The relationship between Donald Trump and Mohamed VI took a decisive leap when the United States recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara during the first term of the Republican president. Since then, that alliance has continued to carry enormous geopolitical weight.

Israel is added to that equation. The Abraham Accords fostered close cooperation between Rabat and Tel Aviv, strengthening an axis of interests in which the United States plays a central role.

Does that mean there is a perfectly designed conspiracy between Trump, Mohamed VI, and Netanyahu?

There is no public evidence to support this.

What does exist is an evident convergence of interests. Morocco increases its leverage over Europe. Trump finds perfect images for his campaign. Israel maintains a strengthened strategic alliance with Rabat and Washington. And the one that appears weakened in the eyes of international public opinion is Spain.

Let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, some European leaders seem more concerned with competing to deliver the harshest speech than with solving the problem.

There appears Giorgia Meloni, for some, a reference for a hard-line immigration policy. It is worth remembering, however, that the Schengen area does not function on whims or press conferences. European Union Law allows for the re-establishment of temporary border controls in certain circumstances, but no State can unilaterally decide to expel another partner from Schengen or permanently suspend the functioning of the system because it is politically profitable to say so.

Serious politics has rules.

Propaganda does not.

Spain cannot continue to be naive either. Defending the external borders of the European Union is not incompatible with respecting human rights. What is incompatible is looking the other way every time Morocco uses immigration as an element of diplomatic pressure.

And Europe should ask itself another question.

If Ceuta is a European border, why does it often seem that only Spain defends it?

Perhaps the real problem is not solely Morocco.

Perhaps it is also a European Union that reacts late, a far-right that turns every human tragedy into electoral fuel, and an international policy where strategic interests weigh much more than the principles so often invoked in official speeches.

Because when thousands of desperate people become pawns on a geopolitical chessboard, no one wins.

Except those who have been using fear as a tool of power for too long.

And that, unfortunately, does not seem to be a coincidence.