The hypocrisy of the “no to war” stance at the Barcelona ‘Global Progressive Mobilisation’

Convened under the auspices of the ‘Global Progressive Mobilisation’ and under the leadership of the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, the fourth ‘In Defence of Democracy’ meeting was held in Barcelona from 17-19 April. The meeting was chaired by Sánchez, and featured prominent national leaders such as Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, Colombia’s Gustavo Petro, and Brazil’s Lula da Silva, amongst others.

This summit produced bombastic statements and grand-sounding speeches against the war in Iran, against the blockade on Cuba, in defence of democracy, and for a multipolar world. The meeting was conceived as a forum of opposition to Trump, his foreign policy and ‘conservative and far-right forces’. But is there any substance to these calls, and what do they really represent?

Firstly, we must clarify who put together this series of meetings and summits in Barcelona. Officially, the ‘Global Progressive Mobilisation’ was organised by the Progressive Alliance (PA), the Socialist International (SI), and the Party of European Socialists. For those who might be confused (among whom I must confess I found myself when I read the list), the Progressive Alliance is a sort of splinter group of the Socialist International.

In 2013, in the wake of the revolutionary uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, some members of the Socialist International decided that it was too scandalous that within the ranks of their international were the ousted dictators of those countries, Mubarak and Ben Ali. They decided to form another organisation, the Progressive Alliance, which would not include such unwelcome members. 

The Socialist International, of course, is the successor to the Second International, the organisation that, already in 1914, betrayed the global working class by supporting the imperialist carnage of the First World War, sealing that betrayal with the assassination of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in Berlin in January 1919.

But the formation of the Progressive Alliance should not be seen as a step forward, nor as a break to the left. Nothing could be further from the truth. The central aim of the PA was to broaden the scope of social democracy to include collaboration with ‘progressive’ and liberal forces. Thus, although the Socialist International brought together parties that had at least at some point been socialist or had at least used the word ‘socialist’ or ‘social democrat’, the participants in the Progressive Alliance included groups like the US Democratic Party. One of the star participants at the first ‘In Defence of Democracy’ meeting in New York in 2024 was none other than French President Emmanuel Macron.

What is more, although the PA is supposed to have emerged as a breakaway from the SI, in reality, most of the participants in the former remain members of the latter, including Pedro Sánchez’s Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE).

In reality, the political heart of this alphabet soup is the defence of bourgeois democracy and the liberal imperialist world order, ostensibly against Trump and ‘conservative and far-right forces’, but also against Putin’s authoritarianism, and the defence of the ‘rules-based multilateral order’ against the foreign policy of the current US administration.

‘No to Trump’s wars – yes to Biden’s wars!’

That is why the slogan of “No to war” that Pedro Sánchez repeated at the progressive gathering in Barcelona should not be taken at face value. In reality, the diverse political positions of those present all coincide in their opposition to Trump’s wars, but only to those, it seems. The progressives and liberals gathered in Barcelona seem to yearn for the good old wars of yesteryear. Thus, Pedro Sánchez’s government has given its full support to Biden’s war against Russia in Ukraine, providing funding and military equipment, alongside its European allies.

Incidentally, that war was not waged under the auspices of the much-vaunted United Nations. The argument that Russia had violated the borders of a sovereign country loses all validity when we consider that the countries fighting Russia in Ukraine have a very long history of invasions and attacks on sovereign countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, to mention just a few more recent examples).

The “No to war” slogan in Barcelona should more accurately be interpreted as ‘no to Trump’s wars – yes to Biden’s wars’. Or ‘yes to wars that defend the interests of European imperialism’.

The slogan of “No to war” that Pedro Sánchez repeated at the progressive gathering in Barcelona should not be taken at face value / Image: Lula Oficial, Flickr

For example, Hillary Clinton, leading figure in the Democratic Party – one of the two parties of US imperialism – and former Secretary of State, was invited to address the progressives gathered in Barcelona. Hillary was directly involved in organising the coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. But of course, that was a coup ‘in defence of democracy’, apparently. Hillary also enthusiastically supported the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military intervention in Libya and Syria, and was a staunch defender of the programme of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. “No to war”? How hypocritical!

One of Pedro Sánchez’s key positions in the last few years has been his public rejection of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and of Trump and Netanyahu’s war against Iran. It must be said that his stance largely seeks to respond to the enormous pressure from public opinion in Spain and that much of the announced measures were later exposed in the small print.

For example, his initial announcement of an arms embargo on Israel turned out to be, in reality, a freeze on new export licences, whilst respecting existing ones. Subsequently, again under pressure, the Spanish government decided to suspend all arms exports to Israel, but Spain continued to purchase arms from the Israeli defence industry, thus contributing to funding the genocide.

It is true that Spain has vetoed the use of US military bases on its territory for the war in Iran and subsequently also the use of Spanish airspace. It must be acknowledged that this is a concrete measure, which creates difficulties for Trump’s military campaign.

However, at the very same Barcelona summit, political forces were represented that have given their full practical support to the imperialist aggression against Iran, such as the British Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

During the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Lammy publicly came out in support not only of ‘Israel’s right to defend itself’ in general – that is, the right to massacre Palestinian civilians at will – but specifically of the Zionist state’s ‘right’ to cut off access to food and medicines to the Gaza Strip.

The UK allows, without any restrictions, the US to use British military bases for the war against Iran, including RAF Fairford, Diego Garcia, and Akrotiri in Cyprus. Although the British government has officially declared that its actions are purely “defensive”, it is clear that its bases play a decisive role in the American bombing of Iran.

The same excuse was used by Pedro Sánchez to send a Spanish navy frigate to “defend Cyprus”. What was presented as a purely defensive and European mission was, in reality, the defence of the British base on the island, used to intercept Iranian drones and missiles. In other words, the defence of US and Israeli interests in the Middle East.

Also present in Barcelona were several ministers from the German SPD, who, under the pretext of ‘stopping the far right’, share government with the conservatives of the CDU (the German equivalent of the Spanish right-wing People’s Party) in a cabinet characterised by austerity, cuts to social spending, and militaristic agitation. It is not entirely clear how Sánchez reconciles his “no to war” stance with the reintroduction of compulsory military service and the increase in defence spending by his German counterparts, who were present in Barcelona.

The defence of liberal democracy

So how can one interpret Pedro Sánchez’s belligerence towards Trump on a whole range of issues, such as Israel, the war against Iran, and NATO’s military spending? The first thing to note is that the PSOE is in a very delicate electoral situation, leading a precarious and complicated government majority, and faces a series of difficult electoral contests culminating in the 2027 general election.

Undoubtedly, Pedro Sánchez believes that stirring up opposition to Trump and the war is popular among his electorate, whose mobilisation he needs to block the advance of the right, both the PP and Vox. There is a very significant element of electoral calculation in Sánchez’s confrontation with Trump. To this could be added an element of personal ambition, of wanting to play a greater role on the international political stage, particularly now that it seems Trump may fare poorly in the US midterm elections.

In this sense, the Barcelona meeting forms part of the current of opposition to ‘Trumpism’ by the liberal sectors of the ruling class, who wish to regain control of the government and feel threatened by these forces they do not fully control. That is the essence of their ‘defence of democracy’.

Sometimes they use alarmist and grand sounding rhetoric, like Minnesota governor Tim Walz who in Barcelona said: “We need to call that what it is. That’s fascism”, referring to the Trump administration. But what they really stand for is the defence of their own brand of capitalism and imperialism. 

Pedro Sánchez is also attempting to use the conflict between the US and China to secure advantages for the Spanish economy. Thus, Spain is the only European country that trades more with China than with the US; China has made some significant investments in Spain in the sectors of electric vehicles, electric batteries, telecommunications infrastructure, and renewable energy. The Spanish Prime Minister has made four official visits to China since 2023, to which must be added the visit by the Spanish King and Queen in November 2025.

Statement against the blockade of Cuba

It is also worth mentioning the declaration against the US blockade of Cuba signed in Barcelona by the leaders of Mexico, Brazil, and Spain. Both Sheinbaum and Lula made strongly worded statements against the blockade of Cuba and against any threat of military intervention by Washington against the largest island of the Antilles.

The Barcelona summit in general, and the communiqué on Cuba in particular, clearly reveal the limits of ‘progressivism’ / Image: Lula Oficial Flickr

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stated: “I wish to propose a declaration against military intervention in Cuba. May dialogue and peace prevail,” adding that Mexico has “continued to provide aid” to Cuba and “has managed to uphold its principles even in isolation”.

The reality is somewhat different. Since 9 January, the Mexican state-owned oil company Pemex has suspended oil supplies to Cuba, and although Mexico has sent humanitarian aid to the island, it has fully bowed to Trump’s threats not to send crude oil to Cuba. 

In reality, Mexico’s policy has, in practice, been one of submission to its powerful northern neighbour on all manner of issues: migration policy, tariffs against China, military cooperation, the fight against drug trafficking, critical minerals, and also in relation to Cuba.

The joint statement on Cuba, full of appeals to international law, sovereign equality, and the peaceful settlement of disputes, does not mention Trump’s oil blockade even once. It is also striking that the Colombian President, Petro, refused to sign the statement and, when journalists asked him directly whether the Barcelona meeting was an ‘anti-Trump summit’, he evaded the question.

The limits of ‘progressive’ rhetoric

In reality, the Barcelona summit in general, and the communiqué on Cuba in particular, clearly reveal the limits of ‘progressivism’. Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico are all oil-producing countries. If they had the political will to challenge Trump in practice, and not just in communiqués and statements, they would have to send the necessary fuel to Cuba. That could have consequences and lead to reprisals. But can the US really invade Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico and kidnap their presidents? Even the threat of such an aggression would have revolutionary consequences across the entire continent, quite apart from the obvious military difficulties it would face.

The central problem that determines the limits of liberal and social-democratic ‘progressiveness’ is this: Trump and the populist right are a symptom of the crisis of the capitalist system, not its cause. Progressives and Liberals limit themselves to wanting the restoration of the status quo ante, a return to a ‘normal’ bourgeois democracy, without any fuss, in which imperialism invades countries, but does so under the umbrella of the UN or under the guise of ‘defending democracy’ and in the name of ‘human rights’. They want to smooth over the sharpest edges of capitalism, through a tax on the rich, to prevent a social explosion from those at the bottom.

But it is not possible to return to the welfare-state capitalism that existed in some advanced capitalist countries after the Second World War, because the economic boom that sustained it no longer exists.

It is the capitalist economic crisis, a symptom of its senile decline, that determines the attacks on pensions, public healthcare and education, and the living conditions of the working class – not a ‘neoliberal’ political choice by some evil rulers.

The only way to combat the ruling class – not just its ‘right wing’ but also its ‘liberal’ wing – is by tackling the root of the problem: the existence of the system of private ownership of the means of production and private profit. The problem is capitalism; the solution is the struggle for its abolition.