Speech by the President of the Government of Spain at the opening of the La Toja-Vínculo Atlántico Forum

SPEECH BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN, PEDRO SÁNCHEZ

Sir; former President of the Portuguese Republic; President of the Xunta; Minister; President Rajoy; President González; Government Delegate; President of the Galician Parliament; Mayor; President of the La Toja Foundation, dear Amancio - congratulations on the consolidation of this important forum for Galicia and for Spain -; authorities; ladies and gentlemen.

It is a genuine honour for me to return to this forum, which has established itself as a key event for strategic reflection and for considering the international role our country should play. This eighth edition, as the presenter rightly pointed out, challenges us with a revealing theme: 'A world in disarray', and so I would like to begin this speech with a question: who stands to gain from a world in disarray?

Because disorder is not neutral. When international law loses its force, the winner is whoever has the most weapons. When markets abandon the rules and, consequently, open the door to what has come to be known as - and let us remember the financial crisis - deregulation, the winner is whoever has the most power to impose their conditions. When labour rights are weakened, the winner is the one with the best negotiating hand. And when technology advances without limits - as the president unfortunately pointed out is happening with artificial intelligence - the winner is the one who controls the algorithms.

Therefore, disorder has its beneficiaries, and they are almost never those who need that protection the most. That is why I wish to appeal today to the opposite value: order - a word that has for far too long been mistakenly associated with conservative thinking, and which we must also champion on the basis of the values of advancement and progress.

Because order does not mean imposing on people how they should live, nor does it mean treating rules as sacrosanct, nor clinging to an idealised past out of nostalgia. Was everything better in the past? Well, that's very relative. And certainly not about preserving a status quo that merely perpetuates injustice. Order is about establishing rules - ensuring these rules are fair - preventing others from deciding for us simply because they have more power, and updating those rules in keeping with the spirit of the times.

That is what labour rights, for example, do. That is what the welfare state achieves. That is what market regulation is for. Ultimately, that is also the essence of democracy. That is the perspective from which we must view the world to come - or the world we live in - and I would also like to spell it out in four areas which I believe will feature prominently in the debates at this forum.

The first - and probably the most obvious, because it is, after all, dominating all public and published discourse - is the deliberate dismantling of the international order and the multilateral system. Earlier, the presenter spoke of the old world order. Sometimes the term 'old' carries a certain connotation; it may seem pejorative, but it is quite the opposite: it is an international order that needs updating, yet it has undoubtedly brought us decades of peace. We see this in Ukraine, in a conflict that has lasted longer than the First World War. We see it in the devastation of Gaza, which can only be described as one thing: genocide. We see it in the war in Iran, which has thrown international trade into disarray and is driving up the cost of living for societies - not just in Spain, but also in Galicia and across the globe - which are already weary of seeing the cost of living rise, first with the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis, and now with the war in Iran and its impact on gas and petrol prices. And we see it in the dozens of conflicts that punctuate the news today.

To give you a figure that I think sufficiently illustrates the gravity of the situation the world is facing, last year alone wars claimed more than 150,000 lives worldwide - more than 150,000 lives. That is seven times more than in 2002. There were 117 million people forcibly displaced - 117 million people forcibly displaced - three times as many as at the start of this century. Many of these were clearly displaced by conflict, whilst others were simply fleeing poverty and the inequality that exists not only within our societies, but also between our countries.

The tragedy of irregular migration serves as a reminder of this, and the events in Ceuta this summer are proof of it. Because no wall or barrier, however high or insurmountable it may be, can stem people's desperation to build a better life.

Because no one should forget that it is conflict, inequality and a lack of opportunities, above all, that drive people to seek a better life. And that is yet another consequence of undermining what we have called the multilateral order.

Turning international law into a sort of à la carte menu, where everyone chooses which parts to comply with and which to ignore. Deliberately undermining the United Nations system, the best tool we have ever known - and probably ever will have - for resolving global challenges and preventing present and future conflicts.

Last week I defended precisely that system at the United Nations General Assembly, not because it is perfect - which it certainly is not. In fact, those who wish to destroy the international order are, in fact, benefiting from the lack of reforms to that multilateral order. Therefore, not because it is perfect, but because it is absolutely necessary. Clearly, it needs far-reaching reform to reflect today's world rather than remaining a snapshot of 1945. A Security Council that is far more representative of today's world. Organisations that must be far more agile and far more effective, and an international justice system capable not only of identifying a crime, but also of ensuring that there are consequences and that, consequently, there is no impunity.

Because a rule that only the weak have to obey is not a rule; it is simply another form of power. And we are seeing this too when we discuss and analyse some of the conflicts I mentioned earlier.

That is why, ladies and gentlemen, it is so important to defend multilateralism, because it is the only way to govern a globalised and interdependent world. A world in which the law of force is now seeking to prevail over the force of law. This is not the case in other countries like ours, nor can we allow it to be so in the international community we all share.

Today, as I said earlier, we are paying the price for unjust, utterly unjustified and also illegal wars, which Spain has firmly opposed. We have done so in the face of Putin's invasion of Ukraine; we have also spoken out against Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of the rest of the Palestinian territory; and we have condemned the immense mistake of a war in Iran. We therefore raise our voices because remaining silent would have made us accomplices.

The second area in which this global turmoil is playing out relates to the economy and trade. Whilst the global economy is going through years of uncertainty and upheaval, I believe it is also important to emphasise that our country, in relative terms, continues to grow and is demonstrating what is now described as quite commendable resilience. This year, growth stands at around 2.6 per cent.

To give you an idea, this will be almost triple the figure forecast for the euro area, where we are creating no less than 85 per cent of total salaried employment across all these major countries within the euro area. As you know, we now have over 22.5 million national insurance contributors, whilst at the same time - thanks to the labour reform we agreed with the social partners - we have reduced temporary employment, which had always been the Achilles' heel of our labour market, to 12.3 per cent. In other words, there are more jobs and they are of a higher quality, and this is also thanks to the business leaders in our country.

I believe that, if these figures illustrate anything at all, it is a model of success achieved under very adverse conditions; however, they must not distract us from the serious difficulties that still persist and which have previously been mentioned by other speakers in our society.

The top priority is probably to guarantee access to housing and thus tackle the housing crisis. That is the aim of the agreement we reached on Tuesday, which is the result of dialogue with the parliamentary groups and also within the progressive coalition government. And so, what I ask of the Lower House of Parliament and also of the parliamentary groups is to take the high road and ratify the decrees at tomorrow's sitting. In short, I ask that we set aside ideology, that we set aside partisan confrontations, and that we focus on an issue that is one of pure humanity.

There are, of course, other challenges, such as rising fuel prices and their impact on the cost of living. This week we saw the preliminary inflation figure, at 4.9 per cent, due, unsurprisingly, to the impact of energy prices, particularly those of petrol and gas. This is also the price we are all paying - Spanish society included - for the turmoil we are currently facing, and it is therefore up to us to do whatever we can from within the Executive power, as well as through the other regional and local institutions. That is why we have just extended, until the end of the year, the protection for families, businesses and industries against the price rises caused by the war in Iran.

We did it during the pandemic, we have also done it during the invasion of Ukraine, and we will do it again in each and every crisis. To give you an idea of the scale of this third Royal Decree-law, we are mobilising a total of more than 12 billion euros. Over 12 billion euros: no other government in Europe has mobilised this amount of resources to protect its economy and households, and, in particular, the most vulnerable people in our country. And this is enabling us, amongst other things, to prevent half of the price rises that would have occurred had the Government and Parliament not approved a package of economic and social shield measures.

What we are saying, therefore, is not just 'no' to war, but 'yes' to social safeguards. Others, well, they do the opposite.

Nor are we oblivious to the growing use of tariffs as a tool of coercion. That is the chaotic world that some others are also promoting, and it is worth remembering that in a trade war there are never any winners - we are all losers. Businesses lose out, workers lose out, consumers lose out too, and, without a doubt, both the American and European continents lose out as well. That is why Spain has always championed a rules-based multilateral trading system, managed by the World Trade Organisation, which particularly benefits the countries most in need, and we do so out of conviction.

And we do so without any naivety. For example, in the current framework of trade negotiations between the European Union and China - and as the President of the Xunta mentioned earlier, thank you for your cooperation - I believe it has been more than just cooperation, but in any case we can leave that for another discussion; last year - and I do think it is important to highlight this figure - Europe's trade deficit with China stood at nearly one billion euros a day. This year it has risen again by almost 10 per cent. We are talking about Europe's trade deficit with China exceeding 360 billion euros.

That cannot be taken for granted; it is not something that any economy can cope with, not even governments such as the Government of Spain, which undoubtedly wishes to maintain the best possible relations with the Chinese giant.

That is why I believe it is important to welcome trade and investment that bring jobs and technology, but it is essential to restore the balance in trade relations between Europe and China.

In short, in the face of protectionism on the part of some, more agreements, more partners and more regions that are also Europe's allies - approached with balance and common sense - this, too, represents order in the face of disorder, and clear and predictable rules.

The third area I would like to address is the climate emergency. If there is one area where it is urgent to reverse this state of affairs - or rather, this global disorder - it is this one, because it is unacceptable that some people are seeking to backtrack in the face of this threat, given all the scientific evidence in favour of accelerating this transformation and this ecological transition. Climate change, as I have said on many occasions, kills - as we in our country, unfortunately, know only too well - but it also impoverishes, and above all it impoverishes the middle and lower classes of our societies.

Europe, as we have seen this summer, is not prepared for the climate emergency we are facing; it is warming at twice the global average rate, and its dependence on fossil fuels - exacerbated by wars - makes our continent doubly vulnerable. The bill proves it. To give you an idea, since the start of the war in Iran - which was just a few months ago - Europe has paid, and bear this figure in mind, an extra 100 billion euros for the fossil fuels it imports. An extra 100 billion euros for the fossil fuels we import. That is to say, over 3 billion euros extra every week. This figure is equivalent to a quarter of all the direct aid we have received from the Next Generation funds.

In other words, what Europe built to emerge from the pandemic has been snatched away from us by the turmoil of a single war, in the space of a few months. Spain, clearly, has a clear view on this: we must rely less and less on decisions made by others on our behalf, and that is the basis of our commitment to clean energy. That is sovereignty, that is strategic autonomy and, incidentally, it is a wise move because it is saving a great deal of money for households, our industries and our businesses.

Earlier, the president of the Regional Government was, in fact, referring to the total amount of renewable energy produced in Galicia. Well, in Spain it now accounts for 60 per cent of our electricity generation. This commitment has, well, made us more resilient; it confirms that the green transition is not only a driver of prosperity for Spain, but also a competitive advantage for our businesses, and we are seeing this reflected in the price of electricity, which is much lower than the European average - far lower than in Germany, a country that had always been more competitive than us in terms of energy. In short, if you'll pardon the pun, 'as opposed to Hormuz, we have sun, water and wind'. We need to continue along this path because the acceleration of climate change is already revealing its most devastating consequences.

Bear this figure in mind too: the extreme temperatures we have experienced in Europe could reduce European gross domestic product by more than 1 per cent. Between 2021 and 2024, the cumulative losses associated with disasters and extreme weather events are estimated at over 200 billion euros for European countries. Over 200 billion euros for European countries.

That is why we argue that the policy on adaptation and resilience, which we are promoting from Spain, should also form the second pillar of European climate policy, alongside decarbonisation. And we in Spain have called for the next European budget to include a substantial package of resources for adaptation - not just mitigation, but adaptation to the effects of the climate emergency on our continent.

In short, we need the order provided by reason and science - which are currently under discussion - to counter the chaos that is leading to the disaster of the climate emergency. And that same order, to conclude, is essential for tackling the fourth area I wish to highlight, namely the responsible deployment of artificial intelligence.

A few days ago, we learnt that an employee of one of the leading artificial intelligence companies managed to bypass the security barriers of the Australian public healthcare system and gain access to sensitive information about its citizens. It took the company responsible almost three months - almost three months - to report the incident. We cannot, therefore, wait for every new boundary to be crossed before asking ourselves how we should respond.

I know that it is very difficult to implement legislation and regulation - both at national level and at European level, which we did under the Spanish presidency of the European Union - and, of course, at multilateral level, in the face of a technology that is advancing exponentially. But the rules must not only keep pace with technology; we must also make an effort to ensure they stay one step ahead.

Artificial intelligence can improve medical diagnoses, boost productivity, accelerate scientific progress and save millions of working hours. It would be absurd to respond to this revolution out of fear when it offers so many opportunities - provided that democratic authorities exercise responsibility and have the capacity to govern it. Let us be clear: yesterday we saw a photograph which, to me personally, seemed clearly inadequate on the other side of the Atlantic: the president of the United States telling the big tech oligarchs that they must regulate themselves. I believe it is a mistake to put the fox in charge of the hen house. This is not about voluntary agreements between tech oligarchs and self-regulation; it is about legal obligations, public scrutiny, social control, government oversight and also - why not say it - the assumption of responsibility, including criminal liability, should they be manipulating the algorithm precisely to do something that has nothing to do with democratic coexistence - to which Amancio referred earlier -

Spain has long been leading by example. We were the first major power to establish an artificial intelligence supervisory agency - my dear President of the Regional Government - based here in La Coruña. We were also the country that, thanks to our presidency of the European Council, spearheaded the world's first European-level regulation on artificial intelligence. We have just presented the Artificial Intelligence 360 Plan, which is a roadmap focused on responsible - and I emphasise, responsible - deployment to make the most of all the opportunities it offers and, well, I believe that gives us a certain authority to advocate for an AI with a humanistic approach, because we took action long before anyone else.

What we need now, as I said earlier, are robust regulatory frameworks at national level. I believe we have a bill currently going through Parliament, which not only proposes banning social media - or rather, its use - for under-16s, but also paves the way for many of the legal measures I mentioned earlier regarding these major platforms taking responsibility. We must also do this at European level, and I believe we should welcome the proposal put forward by the President of the European Commission, which takes on board not only the demands of the Government of Spain, but also those we put forward jointly with the French Presidency and its government a few years ago.

I believe that progress has never been about doing away with rules; it has been about establishing rules that are appropriate to the circumstances of each society at any given time, and everything I have mentioned so far leads us to the same conclusion as I bring my speech to a close, namely Europe.

Look, the powers we are trying to govern have taken on a global scale. If you speak to experts and academics, and look at the records, there has probably never been a level of inequality in the history of humankind quite like the one we are seeing right now. The fact that a single person in the United States possesses wealth equivalent to that of 20 per cent of the entire US population is indicative of the inequality and power imbalance that currently exists between a handful of techno-oligarchs and democratic societies - and, by extension, their governments. Consequently, the powers we are trying to govern have taken on a global scale, and for that reason, I believe that attempting to respond exclusively at the state level is entirely insufficient.

In the face of the forces of disorder, Spain advocates a Europe with a greater capacity for action. But we cannot ask Europe for greater security, greater autonomy, greater competitiveness, greater adaptation to the climate emergency and greater technological capacity, whilst at the same time cutting back on the tools needed to achieve them. We therefore need a European budget that is far more ambitious than what is currently being proposed, one that is commensurate with the challenges we face, and which enables us to jointly address the funding of what we have termed European public goods - security is one, defence is another, the climate emergency should be one, science - as Draghi tells us - should also be one - and many other things. And, of course, cohesion, the CAP and social policies. The social pillar has, unfortunately, always been neglected in the European debate in recent years. Because if Europe renounces its model and its values, we will be renouncing its soul and what it stands for in a world that is also in great need of that moral compass from Europe.

And, at this point, allow me to offer a reflection. What national interest, foreign policy objective or vision of Europe is being upheld when a decision is taken to reject a Treaty of Friendship with France?

To conclude, let me return to the original question. Who stands to gain from a world in disarray? The answer, in my view, is clear. Those who know that when those rules disappear, they can impose their own. And society needs fair rules.

On many occasions, when you speak to some of these tech oligarchs, they say: technology is neutral. No, technology is not neutral. If history has shown us anything throughout human civilisation, it is that technology is power and, therefore, we must govern it in accordance with the democratic values we stand for.

As I have said before, society needs fair rules because the vast majority of people have a job, a business, a family and a life plan they wish to realise, and they want certainty. And, more importantly, if I may say so, when a crisis strikes - and we have, unfortunately, been through quite a few by now - or when there are those in the world who try to impose a new order by force, we must show them that they are not alone. And that is what the rules are for, that is what public institutions are for, that is what Europe is for, and that is also what the multilateral order is for. So that no army is stronger than international law, so that no monopoly is stronger than the market, so that no algorithm is stronger than our democracies, so that no crisis leaves a family to face forces on its own against which it could never defend itself. That is the order worth building.

That is all, thank you very much.

(Transcript edited by the State Secretariat for Communication)