Who is responsible for the mass migration of Moroccans into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta?

Some 72,000 migrants swam around a border breakwater to Ceuta beaches. Seventy thousand have been returned. 181 drowned. 1,100 unaccompanied minors have been taken to mainland Spain. A handful remain at large.

Some blame the Spanish Supreme Court which ruled that illegal immigrants arriving by sea should be treated differently. Others say it was simply another example of the power of social media. Some conspiracy theorists are pointing an accusing finger at Donald Trump and Europe’s far-right anti-immigration lobby.

The most credible—but far from certain—villain is the Moroccan government. For a start, it has form. In 2021, during a diplomatic dispute over Madrid’s decision to give medical treatment to Polisario leader Brahim Ghali, Moroccan border controls suddenly became extraordinarily porous. Up to 10,000 people entered Ceuta. The European Parliament subsequently explicitly accused Morocco of using migration as political pressure.

There is also the fact that Morocco claims the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla as well as cluster of Spanish-owned islands off the coast of Morocco. And although have moved close to an agreement on the former Spanish colony of the Western Sahara, Spain still officially recognises the UN designation of “Unresolved Territory.”

Trump and Europe’s far-right parties may not be the dark shadows behind the Ceuta crossing, but they were quick off the mark to exploit it. The most inflammatory statement came from Elon Musk who said the crossing “looked like World War Z.” He also added the wholly false claim: “Spain’s entire budget will be destroyed by illegal immigrants.”

Trump immediately dubbed the crossing an “invasion” and warned that the same thing would happen in America if the Democrats won the mid-term elections.

Within days of the crossing, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, launched its proposed “Operation Fortress” which called for the Royal Navy to be mobilised to stop small boats crossing the English Channel.

Seventy-two thousand people headed for the same stretch of water at roughly the same time. The question for Spanish investigators is whether social media created a stampede—or somebody fired the starting pistol.

You cannot bank on a Donald Trump promise. Ukraine’s Vlodomyr Zelensky discovered that this week—if he didn’t already know it.

Ukraine desperately needs America’s anti-aircraft Patriot missiles protection against Russian missiles. That is why Zelensky was ecstatic when Trump told him at the recent NATO summit that he would allow Ukraine to manufacture the missiles under license.

Trump repeated the offer when Zelensky flew to Washington for Senator Lindsey Graham’s funeral.

Then he changed his mind. On 30 July he told “The Financial Times” that he was “not sure” about the deal. The following day he told a Camp David meeting of the cabinet that nothing has been agreed. “We are talking about it.” He then added that America had to be “very careful” because advanced technology could one day be turned against the United States.

Back in Kyiv, Zelensky was left scratching his head and wondering: What happened?

No one knows for sure. How the presidential brain cogs turn. It is an international mystery. A hurried phone call from Russia’s Vladimir Putin appears to have been ruled out. A more likely explanation is that Trump spoke before he knew all the details such a deal involved.

The Patriot PAC-3 interceptor is among America’s most sophisticated missile technologies. Granting a production licence requires agreement from the Pentagon, export-control authorities and companies such as Lockheed Martin and RTX. Manufacturing the missile involves a network of around 400 subcontractors and the transfer of highly sensitive military technology.

Only one other country—Japan—currently produces Patriots under license and that deal took several years to negotiate and another four or five before Mitsubishi Industries could start production. Germany is likely to be the next country to produce the interceptors. It started negotiations in 2024 and hopes to start production in 2028.

No, the most likely scenario is simply that the president spoke out of turn–again.

Donald Trump may rue the day he decided to take on the BBC. His decision to sue the Beeb for $10 billion over the bad editing of a Panorama report could seriously backfire.

Trump claims that the broadcast caused serious damage to both his business and his reputation. His claims threat to open a pandora’s box he would desperately prefer to keep tightly closed.

Two things Trump has fought to keep secret are the full details of his actions surrounding the January 6 Capitol Hill riots and his business dealings. One can only speculate about the reasons for the secrecy.

His case against the BBC threatens to expose both to courtroom scrutiny.

As a result, Trump’s lawyers are already starting to retreat. When Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett ruled that the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust had to produce extensive financial information, the lawyers said that, on second thoughts, they had decided to sue only for reputational damage and not business damage. They still want, however, $10 billion.

Not so fast, responded the BBC lawyers. Donald Trump has always claimed that his business success is founded on his reputation as a successful businessman. So, prove that he lost money.

The arguments are now being considered by Judge Roy Altman, who has temporarily stayed disclosure of Trump’s financial documents.

But the BBC is also fighting on another front. It has issued 47 subpoenas seeking January 6 material from Jack Smith, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, Stephen Miller, Michael Flynn and a number of other figures and government agencies.

The BBC’s argument is quite clear: Trump is suing over the proposition that it falsely implied that his January 6 speech incited the attack on the Capitol, while at the same time attempting to prevent the BBC from obtaining evidence bearing directly on whether he anticipated, encouraged, exploited or deliberately failed to stop the attack.

Finally, there is the fact that Trump will almost certainly face a sworn deposition. And if the trial—currently scheduled for February 15—goes ahead in Miami, the BBC will have every reason to seek his testimony. That could expose him to questioning under oath about precisely the subjects he has spent years trying to keep out of public view. A knowingly false material answer could expose him to perjury proceedings; an answer contradicted by the evidence could destroy his credibility before a jury.

Donald Trump wanted his day in court. He may yet get it. The problem is that the BBC gets its day in court too.

…

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”