2010: The unfairness of the construction of Spain as Nation, since its early Catholic inception till its latest Fascist design, and its maintenance as a fiction of unity that does not exist and will never do, has cost the different territoires under its flag too much suffering. Spain as a concept is a failure and is still a place to be explained and to be redeemed from its pain.This is a place for memory recovered, for causes to be revised and for traumas to be processed.
Showing posts with label Catalonia colonised. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catalonia colonised. Show all posts
"Espanya es construeix des de la injustícia, el seu sosteniment i suposada unitat és només una fal·làcia convenient per la qual han pagat un preu horrible els territoris que per la seva existència sostinguda ha hagut d'assimilar-se forçosament. La seva Bandera mostra la sang i el patiment que la seva història estrenya. Espanya com a concepte falla i s'estavella contra una realitat que crida justícia. El seu fracàs encara no s'ha explicat, però a la vista està, en el que es pretén ocultar i denegar. Aquest lloc i zona virtual, està dedicat per contenir i compilar material que pugui servir-li a estudiosos i Detectius Salvatges varis."
"España se construye desde la injusticia, su mantenimiento y supuesta unidad es solo una falacia conveniente por la que han pagado un precio horrible los territorios que su existencia ha asimilado forzosamente. Su Bandera muestra la sangre y el sufrimiento que su historia contiene. España como concepto falla y se estrella contra una realidad que clama justicia. Su fracaso aún no se ha explicado, pero está a la vista en lo que se pretende ocultar y denegar. Este lugar virtual, está dedicado para contener material que pueda servirle a estudiosos y Detectives Salvages varios."
Men in my generation have Spain in our hearts. It was there that they learned that one can be right and yet be beaten, that force can vanquish spirit, that there are times when courage is not rewarded. Albert Camus
The European Parliament today showed complicity in Spain’s abuse of human rights by lifting the immunity for MEPs @ClaraPonsati@toni_comin@KRLS the question that must be asked of Spain is what do they fear from allowing the Catalan people exercising their democratic will 🎗 pic.twitter.com/wz9AeuF9mU
— Aamer Anwar🎗✊🏽#BlackLivesMatter (@AamerAnwar) March 9, 2021
Se consideró que 38 debían ser retirados y los cinco restantes podían ser conservados.
Bandera franquista en una manifestación en Madrid.EFE
El Gobierno tiene constancia de la existencia de al menos 43 vestigios franquistas en cuarteles de la Guardia Civil.
Así se lo ha asegurado el Ejecutivo en una respuesta parlamentaria a una pregunta escrita del portavoz de Compromís en el Senado, Carles Mulet.
El Gobierno explica que la Comisión Técnica de Expertos de la Ley de Memoria Histórica contabilizó en 2011 un total de 43 vestigios franquistas en dependencias del instituto armado, de los cuales se consideró que 38 debían ser retirados y los cinco restantes podían ser conservados.
La contestación parlamentaria señala que la retirada de esos vestigios "se viene efectuando de forma paulatina, conforme lo permite la disponibilidad presupuestaria, debido a que no existe un crédito específico habilitado a tal fin".
Para Mulet, "si después de nueve años de elaborarse ese informe, no se han retirado, por ejemplo, los tres escudos que lucen en tres cuarteles de la Guardia Civil en Valencia, ni hay plazo para ello, es que se están burlando de la ciudadanía, demuestra que la ley 52/2007 es una tomadura de pelo, y que tanto para los gobiernos del PP como del PSOE y ahora para el de PSOE-UP, dignificar la memoria democrática solamente está en los titulares y no en los hechos".
Compromís denuncia además que "el Gobierno más progresista de la historia" "vuelva a burlarse del control parlamentario y no aporte la documentación pedida del catálogo donde se pueda ver estos 43 vestigios catalogados, y que tampoco se explique por qué de los 43, 5 pueden ser conservados, ni tampoco explicación de cuantos de los 38 restantes se han retirado". "Son un fraude de Gobierno, como los anteriores", se queja Mulet en un comunicado.
Stranger and stranger circumstances came to light, statements were hidden, the imam was a secret service agent, the surviving terrorists were not charged with murder
A year ago, the Público newspaper revealed that the secret service and other Spanish security forces were in contact with Imam Abdelbaki Es Satty until the attacks in August 2017, which Telepolis had reported extensively on ( Spanish secret service controlled terrorist cell .
Now Público has added and published that a key statement about Es Satty's work for the Spanish secret service was hidden in the mountain of investigation files with a volume of 100,000 pages and passed over by the public prosecutor's office and the Guardia Civil. The newspaper does not consider this to be a coincidence, after all, it was the main witness whose questioning had been expressly requested by Spain from the Belgian authorities.
Público rather assumes that the statement should remain hidden. It is therefore not mentioned in a summary of the investigations in the context of a request for legal assistance and it does not appear in the table of contents of a CD on which it is stored. Neither the judge nor the lawyers, therefore, knew of the existence of the statement. And no translation of the statement was sent to the judge responsible.
It is the five-page testimony of Soliman Akaychouh, the head of a mosque in Diegem near Brussels, where Es Satty wanted to preach. Akaychouh was questioned just three days after the attacks and stated in a statement published by Público that Es Satty said he was in telephone contact with the Spanish secret service. "He told me that he was speaking to the Spanish secret service, which among other things wanted to know where he was," said the head of the mosque.
The head of the mosque was suspicious of the imam because of his radicalism and extremism. That's why he got in touch with the Belgian police. The then started a request to the Catalan police. However, this yielded nothing, as the Mossos d'Esquadra, as is well known, had not been informed by their Spanish colleagues about the activities of the well-known radical Islamist and former drug dealer. As Telepolis reported, the Mossos were also left with access to important data and resources from the Center for Combating Terrorism and Organized Crime (CITCO).
Behind this was an unbelievable process in which the Spanish national police warned radical Islamists in 2015 about the investigation by the Catalan police. The troops were evacuated with the "Operación Caronte" and wanted to carry out attacks on Jewish institutions in Barcelona and the parliament. The Islamists were also in contact with a neo-Nazi, friend of the head of the troop, to get weapons and explosives. And surprisingly, he was not accused of "supporting terrorism".
The big parties are preventing any clarification of the Imam's involvement with the security forces
These events are part of a whole series of peculiarities surrounding Islamist activities in Catalonia and Es Satty. He was known to the Spanish security forces as a radical Islamist since 2003. He was in contact with radical Islamists and was friends with one of those who caused the 2004 massacre in Madrid, which left 191 dead. Strangely, Es Satty was also released early from jail where he was on drug trafficking. And his deportation to Morocco, which had been expressly stipulated in the judgment after the sentence had been served, was not implemented either, as he did not pose a "danger".
One could list many more curiosities. There is the fact that all the major parties in the Spanish parliament are refusing to investigate the imam's involvement with the security forces. Then there is the fact that the surviving members of the terrorist cell will not be charged with murder, despite the fact that they killed 17 people - including a German woman - and planned huge attacks. They were prevented because part of the troops was blown up while building the bomb the night before.
"We doubt that the Imám of Ripoll is dead"
The newest and most interesting curiosity, however, is that serious questions now arise as to whether the secret service spy Es Satty actually blew up while building the bomb in Alcanar, which has always been assumed so far. The lawyer Jaume Cuevillas said on Catalan television: "We doubt that the Imám of Ripoll is dead." Cuevillas represents the family of the young Xavier Martínez, who was also murdered during the terrorist drive with the van on the Ramblas.
He didn't find any evidence in the investigation files, such as DNA traces, that could prove that Es Satty was actually in the house at the time of the explosion. According to the investigators, four to five terrorists are said to have been there. However, only the remains of two people were found in the rubble, of whom only one could be identified. Witnesses also testified that the Imam's car drove away shortly after the explosion, which was later found in a neighboring village.
Es Satty's cell phone was also not found in the rubble. The lawyer reports from the investigation files that the phone was still used four days after the explosion. The e-mail address through which the terrorist was in contact with the secret service, as Público had discovered, was also used after the explosion. For Cuevillas it is also noticeable that no one claimed the Imam's body, but that the Imam's niece bought two plane tickets the night after the explosion and hours before the attack in Barcelona. Because of all of this, the attorney expressed "reasonable doubts" that Es Satty is dead.
An outdated culture allowed King Juan Carlos I to become a lobbyist for Arab dictatorships and to hide his fortune for decades. By David Jiménez
Mr. Jiménez is a Spanish journalist and nonfiction writer. Aug. 13, 2020
King Juan Carlos of Spain, right, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2008.Credit...Pierre-Philippe Marcou/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Leer en español
MADRID — One of my first assignments as a reporter, in 1996, was to interview an alleged lover of the king of Spain, Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón. My editors at El Mundo asked me to look into whether Bárbara Rey, a Spanish film and television actress, demanded money from the state in exchange for keeping her relationship with the married king secret. In the end, I didn’t get the interview. Under pressure, Ms. Rey chose to remain silent. Thus our king’s two great weaknesses — women and money — remained the country’s worst-kept secret for another two decades.
It’s time we Spaniards acknowledge that we always knew the king had no clothes, but we chose to look the other way.
An outdated culture of allegiance, the opacity surrounding the Spanish monarchy and a Constitution that exempts our kings from any criminal responsibility sent the monarch the message that he was above the law. His immunity from prosecution, designed to give stability to the institution of the crown, was used to amass a fortune primarily through millions of dollars in presumed kickbacks from Arab dictators. He acquired such wealth that in 2012, in the middle of the Great Recession that left 25 percent of Spaniards unemployed, he transferred 65 million euros to his lover Corinna Larsen, a German businesswoman.
The revelation of this royal “gift,” which Ms. Larsen attributed to “gratitude and love” — and investigators consider an attempt to hide illicit deals and large sums of money — is just the tip of the iceberg of a scandal that has forced the monarch into exile.
Juan Carlos I left the country on Aug. 4 and his whereabouts is unknown to us Spaniards. This strategy of keeping him out of the spotlight, after a secret negotiation between the Royal Household and the government, shows that we have learned nothing.
The former king, who abdicated in favor of his son, Felipe, in 2014, should be in the country he ruled for almost four decades while he is under investigation in Switzerland and Spain, including for receiving 100 million euros from Saudi Arabia in 2008. The royal bounty under suspicion, accumulated over decades, includes Ferrari cars, a yacht, luxury trips, land in Morocco and a London flat valued at more than 62 million euros, a gift from the sultan of Oman. It would be naïve to think that such generosity didn’t come at a price.
The Spanish Supreme Court is investigating whether the donation of 100 million dollars from the Saudis was a commission paid to Juan Carlos I for getting Spanish companies to build the high-speed train between Medina and Mecca at a value of 6.7 billion euros. We now know that for years the head of state led a double life as a lobbyist and that in return, his beneficiaries obtained decisive influence in Spain. How much influence? The authorities have only minimal interest in looking under that rock.
Parliament has blocked the creation of a commission that could have revealed the geopolitical implications of the former king’s behavior. The citizens thus miss the opportunity to ask the past four prime ministers of Spain what they knew about the king’s business dealings and their influence on Spanish foreign policy while his immunity from prosecution, which ended when he abdicated, protected him. Back in 1995, a well-known businessman, Javier de la Rosa, told the executive director of El Mundo at the time, Pedro J. Ramírez, that Kuwait paid $100 million as a reward for persuading the Spanish government to join to the coalition against Saddam Hussein during the first gulf war.
For decades, Spain has been a main supporter of Arab dictatorships that, thanks to our monarchy, have found a way to achieve international legitimacy. In November 2018, amid outrage over the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia showcased that Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who some accused of ordering the killing, still had friends: A photograph of a friendly greeting between Juan Carlos I and the crown prince appeared in Saudi news media.
Nor did the repression of protesters calling for democracy in Bahrain prevent the king from frequently traveling to that country, another of the “sister monarchies” that padded his bank accounts. One of Juan Carlos’s wealth managers told the Swiss attorney general’s office that the former king returned from a trip to Manama, Bahrain’s capital, with a briefcase containing nearly $1.9 million.
A demonstration last month in Madrid against the monarchy for alleged corruption.Credit...Oscar Gonzalez/NurPhoto, via Getty Images
Even as we await the decisions made by the judges in Switzerland and Spain, there is no doubt about the immorality of the behavior of the king, who for decades was the most admired man in Spain for his role in helping to lead the country from dictatorship to democracy. But the accumulation of evidence and the progression of the investigations hardly matter: The same political class, business community and courtly press that draped a mantle of impunity over the king has come to his rescue. What should be a question of decency and accountability is instead a polarized debate for and against the monarchy.
The emeritus king’s defenders proclaim that despite his faults, his legacy as the father of Spanish democracy is indelible. They consider it paramount to protect the institution at a time of great political fracture and territorial tensions, including Catalonia’s government bid for independence. The argument is legitimate, but loses its meaning when cloaked in conspiracy theories about a coordinated attack by the country’s enemies to overthrow the monarchy. No one has done more to sabotage the monarchy than the former king himself.
European monarchies are relics of the past whose role has been reduced to tasks of diplomatic representation, patriotic symbolism and, let’s face it, entertainment for the masses. The dissolute lives of the monarchs themselves (and their families) have traditionally been accepted, within certain limits. But when scandals involve a network of child abuse, such as the recently revealed connection of Prince Andrew of England to Jeffrey Epstein, or suspicions of corruption, as with Juan Carlos I, that tacit pact is broken and the question resurfaces: Do we need the monarchy?
An institution like the Spanish one cannot be saved by seeking a placid retirement for the former king. Shielding him from the consequences of his actions and maintaining the usual opacity sends the message to the current monarch, Felipe VI, that he would receive the same treatment regardless of his actions.
What we need is an open debate on the model of our state and deep reforms that adapt the monarchy to the times, starting with putting an end to judicial impunity and establishing a culture of transparency. The idea that in the 21st century, kings can appear unclothed, as in Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale, and expect their subjects to simply look the other way can result only in an unhappy ending.
David Jiménez (@DavidJimenezTW) is a writer and journalist. His most recent book is “El director.” This article was translated by Erin Goodman from the Spanish.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Goya. La letra con sangre entra. I d'haver de digerir aquella "dissonància cognitiva" que una Fiscalia també experta en psicologia social atribuïa a Jordi Cuixart, hem hagut de passar a escoltar el Suprem etzibant que la reinserció de l’estimada Carme Forcadell ha de ser una altra i diferenciada. Per què? Perquè és la Carme. La distinció segregadora és l’enèsima prova del caràcter polític i el tracte polititzat del cas i del que ja era més que previsible: les ganes de brutalitat judicial amb la revocació dels tercers graus i els 100.2. Anatomia de la crueltat tocada de negre toga i la neta –i bruta– vocació de suplantació política. Suprema vergonya, no s’han atrevit pas a descriure quina ha de ser l’alternativa reinseridora a la natura política del delicte comès per la Carme: permetre un debat parlamentari en un Parlament democràtic. És a dir, tant com complir escrupolosament amb la seva responsabilitat institucional sense admetre ingerències indecents.
Però ni el recurs a la malaltia dels fiscals ni el tracte dispensat ad hoc, ad hominem et ad feminam, no és nou sota un cel de plom i uns tribunals estantissos. Rutina i excepció alhora, que sigui el Suprem qui decideix de nou i qui determina altre cop és pura política d’estat. La sala segona és la continuació d’una guerra política per altres mitjans. Prova del cotó fluix reiterada i repetida del que neguen endebades: el caràcter purament polític, repressiu i autoritari del judici, de la sentència i dels empresonaments. El búnquer judicial ja és això i ja és així. Un periodista ho va resumir nítidament fa temps: l’aznaritat no va colonitzar l’aparell de l’Estat ni va capturar les altes instàncies judicials espanyoles per a no res, sinó per a tot plegat.
El fiscal Zaragoza deia el 2019 que "la supremacía de la voluntad popular sobre la ley está en el origen de funestas experiencias históricas bien conocidas". Algú li hauria d’explicar què passa quan és a la inversa, quan la llei s’imposa a la democràcia, que és precisament quan s’han produït les experiències històriques funestes a què feia referència barroerament. Contradictio in terminis, també afegia que "la ley es, ni más ni menos, que la expresión democrática de la voluntad popular". És tot just el que passava al Parlament de Catalunya. De funesta i macabra memòria són també totes aquelles experiències històriques que han recorregut indistintament al llenguatge militar o sanitari per tractar l’altre de malalt i erigir-se ells en cirurgians de tercera o salvapàtries de segona. I així ens va. Absolutament malaltissa, completament desbocada i terriblement venjativa és la ideologia que mou el clan dels fiscals.
Absolutament malaltissa, completament desbocada i terriblement venjativa és la ideologia que mou el clan dels fiscals
Ara bé, no s’imposen aquesta mena de discursos profilàctics, depuradors i inquisitorials sense que abans s’hagin estès des de l’esfera política, mediàtica i institucional. La caverna fa la feina i al final pren forma de sentència. Envien la pilota a la teulada de la judicatura i després no hi ha qui la recuperi: l’anell és meu. Bilis de poder. A aquesta tropa, per tal d’escarmentar-ho tot, com deia sàviament abans-d’ahir Joan B. Culla, se’ls enfot si pel camí amenacen o es carreguen els drets de totes les persones preses. Si cal, ho faran, per demostrar un pretès tracte igualitari a tothom i camuflar com a pretès privilegi el que és discriminació política. Només llegint la Transició amb el manual adoctrinador de Victoria Prego es pot viure en el seu món feliç.
Passa que la memòria sempre és un problema i alhora la millor alternativa, perquè pel mirall retrovisor es veu el que es veu. I sovint més clar. Que topes, per exemple, amb el 23-F: ara sí, un intent de cop d’estat. Realitat contra ficció, sura l’evidència radical que als que van voler tombar l’ordre constitucional i l’aleshores anomenada jove democràcia espanyola –cada cop més infantilitzada des d’aleshores– sí que se’ls va acabar indultant quan va tocar –general Armada–, alliberant-los moltíssim abans que complissin la sentència imposada en tots els casos i ascendint-los sovint. Per acabar, rivet d’or, pagant-los a tots la màxima pensió militar. No està malament, oi? La revisió és eloqüentment dramàtica.
Els recents arguments esgrimits pel Suprem, que interpreta la norma al seu grat i la canvia discrecionalment quan convé, es desmunten amb els arguments passats del Suprem. España, rotos y descosidos, SA. El cinismetròmetre esclata. I la farsa peta. ¿A petició de qui es va enllestir l’indult del general Armada? Efectivament, del Tribunal Suprem. Un informe favorable de la sala militar. Què va dir el jutge de vigilància penitenciària en relació al respecte a la Constitució a què Milans del Bosch es negava? Obrin els ulls, parin l’orella i no badin boca: "La citada garantía debe forzosamente presumirse" i, per tant, el seu rebuig al sistema democràtic no va ser cap obstacle insalvable per a la seva llibertat. Què havia dit Milans del Bosch el 1985 rere la sentència? "Ante las mismas circunstancias, volvería a hacer lo mismo". És a dir, que si ets militar colpista i dius que ho tornaràs a fer, ja ho veuen, al carrer. Catifa. Catifa i sou: Milans sempre va cobrar, fins i tot ja expulsat, el 80% d’una elevada pensió militar. Llei de l’embut, ells sí nosaltres no, el passat 12 d’octubre el general Pedro Garrido va emprar idèntiques paraules casernàries per vindicar la violència institucional de persecució de l’1 d’Octubre, afegint de cirereta: "Lo volveremos a hacer". No li va passar res. És sobrer recordar-ho, ja ho sé.
Algú objectarà que això són fets dels 80 i dels 90. Indubtablement. I precisament per això són elements constituents, constitutius i definitoris del model político-jurídic que patim: on ja no hi ha dret penal d’enemic sense dret penal d’amic. Al capdavall, dialèctica dels separadores y separatistas que intuïa Vázquez Montalbán, l’augment de l’independentisme serà proporcional a cada suprema injustícia. Fins i tot es podria forçar una darrera paradoxa. Todos al suelo, deien els colpistes del 23-F per via militar colpista. Todos al suelo, ordenava la troica quan aconseguia el miracle de reformar via exprés la irreformable Constitució espanyola un agost del 2011 per aplicar el seu brutal pla neoliberal. I todos al suelo, per la via judicial, dicta ara el Suprem. Però si tots tres diuen exactament el mateix, salvant totes les distàncies de cada cas, és senzillament perquè saben que seguim, com podem, dempeus.
"No nos incumbe ofrecer –ni siquiera, sugerir o insinuar– soluciones políticas a un problema de profundas raíces históricas". La frase no és meva. És de la mateixa sentència del Procés dictada pel Suprem. 100 anys de presó. Menteixen obertament en el seu simulacre mediocre: cada decisió que prenen no és res més que una resposta política calculada per evitar qualsevol mena de solució democràtica, escalfada pels cenacles de poder madrileny prealçats contra el govern socialcomunista. Si no, no s’acarnissarien amb la Carme ni amb la resta de presos i preses polítics. Ho escric en un dia vint-i-vuit que no és de desembre, sinó de juliol. Però en aquest ordre celtibèric de les coses, la innocentada és ja cada dia. Por la puerta de detrás, com diria Cosidó sobre Marchena. I ara ja per la portalada principal. Segle XXI, cau el teló i cau el teatre sencer: que se note el cuidado y que, sobre todo, se note el efecto. Entre tanta negror, dubto molt que hagin guanyat. Però sí que sé que ja ens han perdut. Definitivament.
Spanish Army Chief about Catalonia: “when the metropolis is weak”, “the fall takes place”
The Chief of Spain’s Army Defence Staff, General Jaime Domínguez Buj, was asked on Tuesday about the situation in Catalonia and he has implicitly compared it with a colony. The main General of the Army stated that “when the metropolis is weak” is the time when “the fall takes place”. He added that a “processes” such as Catalonia’s happens “when the central power is weak”, as happened in 1898, when Spain lost Cuba and the Philippines, he said. His words have caused quite some controversy. Later on, Domínguez Buj, nuanced his previous statement and said he was referring to 1808 and the Spanish War of Independence against Napoleon’s Empire. Such a war helped some of Spain’s American colonies to get their independence.
Barcelona (ACN).- The Chief of Spain’s Army Defence Staff, General Jaime Domínguez Buj, was asked asked on Tuesday about the situation in Catalonia and he has implicitly compared it with a colony. The main General of the Army stated that “when the metropolis is weak” is the time when “the fall takes place”. He added that a “processes” such as Catalonia’s happens “when the central power is weak”, as happened in 1898, when Spain lost Cuba and the Philippines, he said. His words have caused quite some controversy. Later on, Domínguez Buj, nuanced his previous statement and said he was referring to 1808 and the Spanish War of Independence against Napoleon’s Empire. Such a war helped some of Spain’s American colonies to get their independence. He also added that he was referring to other historical periods and to other empires, such as those of the British, the Turkish and the Roman.
Nowadays, almost no one in Spain considers Catalonia to be a colony, neither most of the people supporting independence. However, on several occasions during the last few centuries, the Spanish Army attacked Catalan citizens and bombarded their cities and towns to stop them from quitting the kingdom, such as in the mid-17th century, when Catalonia was independent for a week, or in the early 18th century or early 19th century, when Catalonia also split from Spain for a few years. On top of this, in the mid-19th century, General Espartero – who was Regent of the Kingdom – stated that Barcelona should be bombarded every 50 years in order to remind Catalans about the Spanish rule. Furthermore, Francisco Franco talked about his “right of conquest” when he entered into Barcelona, at the end of the Civil War. He was using the expression written in the laws cancelling Catalonia’s self-government institutions and Constitution, which also banned the use of Catalan language, in 1716.
Back then, after Catalans lost the Spanish War of Succession, the new king Felipe V founded Spain as a Unitarian State and no longer a union of different kingdoms under the same crown. He tried to homogenise Spain under Castile’s rules and language, imposing a centralist government and a harsh political, social and cultural repression to Catalonia through the use of force, as he recognised when he wrote he was doing so “by the right of conquest”.
The Army is there to protect the Constitution, the Army Chief points out
Besides comparing Catalonia to colonial Cuba, Domínguez Buj, pointed out that the Army is “a tool” that the Spanish Government has with which to defend the Constitution. He said that armies “have to be ready to intervene in the way governments want”, being “inside” or “outside” the country. However, he also added that he does not think that Catalonia’s conflict will be solved “through the use of force”. He also said that the Spanish Government should “win the hearts of all Spaniards” and convince them of the advantages of being a Spanish citizen.
The General also added that he feels “pain for Spain” due to the situation of the last years, particularly because of the manifold corruption cases and Catalonia’s political process. Domínguez Buj was speaking in the Madrid-based Institute for International Affairs and External Policy.
Bandera franquista en una manifestación en Madrid.EFE
King Juan Carlos of Spain, right, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2008.Credit...Pierre-Philippe Marcou/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
