Afghanistan — a heavy legacy for Generation Xbox

Max Benitz plunges into life with a company of Scots Guards on the front line in Helmand Province. 

Spring arrives for each of us in different ways: the realisation that it is still light at six in the evening, birdsong, a freshening of the air.

For the British army, spring means changing the guard in Helmand. One brigade leaves and another arrives. The men on their way out have faced the damp and danger of a winter tour. Those arriving know that they are in for the summer "fighting season", against a tough and innovative insurgency.

A year ago, I joined the 1st Battalion Scots Guards, who were making their way to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire for the flight to war. At Camp Bastion, the main British base in Afghanistan, they noted the contrast between their own pristine desert combats and the stained clothing of the men heading home.

I had been given permission to spend time reporting on the Scots Guards, a regiment that dates back to the 17th century, and I was elated. My father, Bryan, had served with the regiment and I had grown up in a house decorated with prints of pipers and guardsmen. The war in Afghanistan, which began when some of the guardsmen serving today were just nine years old, fascinated me. This generation, so frequently written off as feckless, Xbox-addled and more likely to urinate on war memorials than pay homage to them, was going to Helmand. I wanted in.

Barred by constitution and temperament from being a soldier, I decided to go to war as a witness. A subtle distinction from going as a journalist - I had no news editor barking for headlines. I was allowed the time to dwell among the men of the Scots Guards and write a book about them in return. What I saw was the best of this generation going through an experience that was unique to them, though redolent of what their forefathers had done.

There's not a lot of God talked by Britain's Armed Forces but there is ancestor worship. Guardsman Glen Murray, a South African, put it well one night in Helmand: "What we're doing out here, it's the closest [thing] our generation will have to the Second World War. When I get home, I'm going to wear my campaign medal every day. People in South Africa, they might not know what it means, but I will and my family will. I'm going to wear it every day."

These young soldiers are fighting a war that was caused by mistakes that the generation before them made. You gave these guardsmen the Afghanistan war. This is what they did last summer. This is what the men heading out this spring will contend with.

"Was that a petrol bomb?"

“Hang on - rewind and freeze it."

The lance corporal paused the feed from the CCTV camera monitoring a primitive road through this dusty patch of Helmand. As an armoured personnel carrier chugged along, part of a routine convoy, a flying object from behind a wall described a lazy arc towards it. In the next frame, a cloud of grainy flame leaped over the vehicle. "Little fuckers. It is. What do I put up on the net?"

On the radio network, news of the petrol bomb - harmless though it turned out to be - flew up the chain of command. Brigadier Richard Felton himself expressed interest in it at that evening's conference between battle groups in Lashkar Gah, capital of the southern Afghan province of Helmand.

The petrol bomb marked something new. British soldiers are generally more worried by roadside bombs, known as "improvised explosive devices" or IEDs. Yet it fitted with an emer­ging pattern. Quite a few of the brigadier's men had been (relatively) lucky in the early months of the year, treading on IEDs that failed to detonate fully. The theory was that the insurgents were running out of bomb-making materials.

There was hope that this meant UK and US troops were finally making progress in Afghan­istan but cynics said that it might also be related to floods in Pakistan disrupting insurgent supply routes across the border. The truth was more complicated - another part of the shifting story of our long and often unhappy involvement in the country.

By the time of the petrol bomb in August 2010, I had been in Helmand for two months. It was a tumultuous summer. At night, from a high spot in the province, you could look south-east towards Pakistan, with its huge pillars of lightning, and dream of cool rains rather than relentless heat. Then you would dismiss the idea - rain would turn bases into quagmires and ground the army's helicopters. No helicopters would mean no casualty evacuation, less fire support, no mail and no way out. On balance, the heat was preferable.

Digging in

Left Flank, a rifle company of 141 men from the 1st Battalion Scots Guards, arrived in Helmand in March 2010. Almost until the moment the soldiers left their families in Catterick, North Yorkshire, there was confusion over where they would be sent. Eventually they ended up a few kilometres north of Lashkar Gah.

Though Britain decided in 2005 to concentrate its troops on a triangle of land between Camp Bastion, Lashkar Gah and the smaller town of Gereshk, the area that Left Flank moved into within the triangle was still near-virgin territory to the allies in 2010.

Troops were sent there because the region's governor, Gulab Mangal, had asked the British to help increase freedom of movement between Lashkar Gah and Gereshk. To do so, they needed to create a string of checkpoints along the road between the towns. Once the route was safe, engineers could move in and turn it from a dirt track into something more modern. Not exactly tarmac, but at least closer to level.

Rebuilding a road may not sound very strategically important in the context of a country with as many problems as Afghanistan but it is vital. Due to restricted movement, locals can't get to the market and their children can't get to school. A decent road also makes it easier for the allies to "link up", simplifying logistics and taking pressure off helicopters.

Left Flank was given a seven-kilometre stretch to hold. Its success would rely on winning the support of local people. Most of these were farmers with little or no education, from a broad range of tribal backgrounds, and they had received little by way of leadership from the Afghans since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. The area was also a known insurgent base.

In early April, within days of arriving, Left Flank took its first casualties. A foot patrol along a road hit an IED, depriving the lance sergeant who triggered the bomb of two legs and an arm and causing severe head injuries to the colour sergeant (a non-commissioned officer) behind him. Their lives were saved by first aid from three very young guardsmen, who were on one of their first days in a war zone.

It was clear to Left Flank's commander, Major Rupert Kitching, that the road would have to be cleared, inch by inch, by specialist teams. The question was how to ensure that it would remain IED-free afterwards.

In May, he decided to put in a new checkpoint on the road's "choke point" to monitor it, and perhaps establish a "protected community" there. The creation of such communities, according to military doctrine, acts like an ink spot on a piece of blotting paper, gradually spreading the message of security and governance and drawing farmers on to the Afghan government's side. The theory had worked elsewhere in Helmand, although usually after a bloody fight with insurgents.

Starting on 3 May, it took nine days to clear just 2.5 kilometres of road. Once the people living around the new checkpoint got their homes back, others began to be brought onside with a key tool - money. In four months, Left Flank spent approximately $70,000 of its budget (or roughly $10 per metre of road that it had to keep clear) on projects for the locals.

The company was in a "new" area so it could not hope, at first, to put in set-piece projects such as schools. Instead, it tried to get the farmers' goodwill by digging wells and improving irrigation systems. British officers have a term for the support they and the Afghan government can give to people - the "offer". First comes security and, once this is established, the provision of basic services - health clinics, schools, agricultural projects - follows.

But how to keep the road secure while the offer was completed? Kitching decided to put further checkpoints along the road, with a hand­ful of guardsmen alongside numerous Afghan soldiers or policemen in each. This was a risky and largely untested idea.

In the early years of the war, large numbers of Afghan forces had been "mentored" by relatively small groups of British soldiers, but this idea had been dropped in favour of more even ratios by the time Left Flank reached Helmand.

With only so many men available to him, Kitching had to take the risk that these small bases could fend for themselves in order to keep a mobile reserve to continue foot patrols - the key to getting to know the people and dominating the area. He had to take the risk that his men would get on with their Afghan partners in cramped quarters over long periods. The ratios that Left Flank lived with were an extreme version of the new orthodoxy of having high ratios of guardsmen to locals at each place, especially once casualties and R&R - a fortnight of rest and relaxation at home in Britain - took men away from the fight.

Presented with ten static targets, the insurgents responded with persistent attacks on the checkpoints. Sometimes it would be a single shooter with an AK-47, which the troops largely took in their stride. A more worrying scenario was a group of gunmen, with several using the noise of their clumsy automatic fire to mask the direction of accurate shots from a rifle.

When things were quiet, though, life at the checkpoints could be grindingly dull. There was little to do during the heat of the day apart from smoke cigarettes and drink water. As the temperature cooled, the men took turns in the open-air gym.

I once watched a sergeant named Tony Gibson sitting at Checkpoint Said Abdul in Helmand in 40-degree heat playing Call of Duty, the ultra-realistic video game that is partly set in Afghanistan. You might imagine that, as a platoon sergeant on the front line, the last thing you would want to do in your precious time off was revisit the country in virtual form. But the game is astonishingly popular.

Meals were a welcome distraction. Often the guards took turns to cook for each other. They were on ten-man ration packs; once the three-foot-long cardboard boxes were opened and the range of basic ingredients assessed, it was the chef's choice every night. The contents varied from pack to pack - some were stuffed with tins of chicken supreme, others with boil-in-the-bag packs of minced beef.

Everyone had their speciality: deep-fried sausages and Spam fritters brought a taste of a Scottish chip shop one night, or there would be Thai noodles or Fijian curries (reflecting the multi-ethnic make-up of the modern British army) on another. The Afghans chipped in with home-made bread and, on special occasions, lamb stew.

It was notable that at night the guards would sit talking about The Inbetweeners rather than geopolitics. If a "whys and wherefores" discussion did crop up - and it rarely did, because retaining a sense of normality is more important than politics - there was an anecdotal division in opinion. Lads from Glasgow broadly thought the war was about drugs, boys from Blackburn broadly thought it was about terrorism. Like anyone else, guardsmen relate their present predicament to their previous experience.

There was some respite. "Operation World Cup" aimed to get TV sets into every checkpoint by kick-off in the Rainbow Nation last summer. The many Scottish soldiers were delighted with England's poor performance. (When David Cam­eron, newly elected as Prime Minister, arrived in Lashkar Gah on 10 June, he sought out a group of Scots Guardsmen. "And what would you say is your greatest fear over here?" he asked earnestly. "Well, sir, I'd have to say England winning the World Cup," replied one Lance Corporal John-Paul Barnes.)

The odd sort of freedom felt in the checkpoints is hard to express. You're trapped in a small fortified position, sleeping head to toe, and you have no choice but to get on with it. Yet this lack of choice liberates.

There are no worries about renewing your car insurance or the weekly shop - nearly every decision is made for you. There's the obvious worry about death or injury, but as one senior non-commissioned officer explained to me: "Afghanistan's one of those places where it doesn't matter how safe a place you're in, if you're going to get shot it doesn't matter if you're in Bastion or wherever - it will happen."

When guardsmen rotated back to the comparative luxury of Left Flank's headquarters in a larger checkpoint (showers, gas cooker, cold drinking water) many pined for the counterfeit domesticity of the little prisons up the road they had turned into homes.

Returning to a main base held other risks for men used to surviving on long-life rations. "I went down to Lashkar Gah yesterday and had, like, normal food. I was fucking violently sick this morning because I'm not used to it," Lance Sergeant Steve Wood told me. "Milk, too. We're used to drinking whitener. I don't like milk any more: I like whitener."


In the summer of 2010, the insurgents tried to, in the military jargon, "separate the people from the offer". Sometimes this took the form of intimidation - beatings, snap-taxation of food and cash - to demonstrate insecurity. On other occasions, the insurgents would offer a history lesson to the villagers, which was eventually relayed on to the soldiers.

It went like this: in the days of the shah, Helmand's land was parcelled out to rich land-owners whose ownership was registered with the government. Then the godless communists invaded in 1979 and there was jihad and chaos. Many people were killed and others fled their land. During the Soviet occupation and the civil war that followed in the 1980s, others settled on these lands and remain there today. (The insurgents glossed over how those who had remained throughout were made to eat their land registry documents and ID cards by the Taliban in the 1990s.)

Now a new Afghan government, this time supported by the infidel sons of Obama, was trying to establish control again. These people, the insurgents would tell the farmers, will take the land of anyone without documentation and also stop you growing poppy.

It was a powerful message in some communities. Others ignored it, and some actively helped the British by, for instance, flashing a torch just before a night-time shoot on a checkpoint began. The attacks still intensified, especially after the poppy harvest.

Then, on 12 July - while I was back in Britain for a short break - came a series of bombings, starting with an insurgent attack that mistakenly blew up a minibus full of civilians travelling behind a British vehicle. The experience of dealing with the aftermath was so traumatic that two young guardsmen had to be flown back to Britain; they bear scars that can't be seen. The bomber killed seven Afghans and his colleagues shot at the rescue helicopter.

A week later, a Viking armoured vehicle hit another IED on the same spot, although this time the detonation caused only minor injuries. When specialists came to clear this new choke point, the insurgents struck again. A guardsman was shot in the face, then the commander of the Viking that came to rescue him was shot dead. The gunner of a Scots Guards vehicle sent to retrieve the casualties was killed by the same sniper. (Both servicemen won posthumous Military Crosses for their bravery.)

As more soldiers tried to help the wounded get away, one took a ricochet to the helmet. He dusted himself off, continued firing - and then was shot in the abdomen.

After the casualties were evacuated, their commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Lincoln Jopp MC, went to Camp Bastion to see them repatriated. The first guardsman to be hit couldn't speak; his jaw was shot through. Instead, he gave Jopp a note. It read: "I don't want to go back to UK. I want to go back to Left Flank."

Taken together, these incidents were a clear threat to "the offer". The response was robust. Reinforcements arrived to strike into insurgent-held areas and pushed troop numbers in the area to 450. This would give Left Flank space to concentrate on protected communities. Additional manpower and cutting-edge resources flooded in.

Left Flank then set about reshaping the area. To provide security on the road, it would now have to watch each metre, so more walls were pulled down. Local people were paid to cut down trees to deny snipers and IED planters any cover. But every action, however well intentioned, has a consequence, and the "claims clinic" that Left Flank organised was overrun with farmers demanding compensation for the destruction of their property.

Larger claims had to be settled in Lashkar Gah, but the trip there was hazardous and - at $2 - expensive. On arrival, the farmers would be asked for ID and documentation that proved land ownership. Sometimes, if any documents were missing, an "arrangement" could be made with an official - but would the cost of the arrangement be larger than the claim? And maybe the insurgents were right about this new government wanting the land? To subsistence farmers these concerns added up, and they examined the offer again.

"Was that a petrol bomb?"

“Hang on - rewind and freeze it."

What happened on that day? Was it a disgruntled local men showing his frustration with the offer? Or was it a young boy, paid a few dollars by the insurgents to have a go? In some ways it doesn't matter. The petrol bomb was just one incident of the hundreds that one rifle company had to deal with on one tour among many in a long campaign.

Left Flank suffered another fatality before it came home in October; a hugely popular sergeant was shot while trying, like the others, to protect comrades. But despite further IEDs, the road remains more open than closed.

Major Kitching had always told his men that they wouldn't solve every problem in the area during their six-month tour. Instead, success or failure would be measured by the state they left the place in - for the locals, for their Afghan partners and for the next set of troops.
Reports show that, in the six months since then, Left Flank's successes have been built on - a police precinct and government outreach office has opened, wheat seed and fertiliser were distributed to farmers to sweeten the offer further, and the security situation has improved so markedly that checkpoints are closing even as the road upgrade reaches completion.

The area Left Flank held for half a year was a previously ungoverned space, one of many in Helmand. The plan is that company will succeed company and brigade will succeed brigade until Helmand - and beyond - is ready to move to complete Afghan control. It's uncomfortable for the soldiers to think that this will only happen in the wake of a political settlement that will almost certainly include at least some of the men who fought against them last year.

Major combat operations are slated to come to a close in 2014, after full transition to Afghan control - though timelines in wars don't work. In terms of resources, however, the 10,000 or so British troops stationed in Afghanistan today and the billions of pounds spent annually on the mission must represent the high-water mark of this country's involvement. In the summer of 2010 that involvement was working - at least where I witnessed it - admittedly at significant cost.

Sitting on an IED cordon one day, I saw an experienced lance sergeant look at one of the guardsmen in his care as if for the first time. "Young Ritchie Carr from Durham. Eighteen years old and you've already done an Afghan [tour of duty]. What have you got planned for the rest of your life?" he asked.

“Guess I'll just keep coming back here," said the guardsman.

Max Benitz's book, "Six Months Without Sundays: the Scots Guards in Afghanistan", will be published by Birlinn later this year

This article first appeared in the 02 May 2011 issue of the New Statesman, The Firm

Show Hide image

The Catalan cauldron

The prospect of the break-up of Spain poses yet another challenge to Europe.

As Britain prepares to mark the centenary of the bloodiest battle in the First World War, the Somme, in July, Spain is bracing itself for an even more traumatic anniversary. In July 2016 it will be 80 years since the start of a civil war that tore the country apart and continues to divide it today. In the four decades since the return of democracy in the mid-1970s, Spaniards slowly inched towards rejecting the extreme violence of the Francoist right (and elements of the opposing left) as well as acceptance of various federal arrangements to accommodate the national sentiments of the Basques and Catalans, whose aspirations Franco had so brutally suppressed. In recent years, however, this consensus has been called fundamentally into question, with severe potential consequences not only for the unity of Spain, but the cohesion of the European Union.

On 27 October 2015, after the Catalan elections, the new parliament in Barcelona passed a declaration requesting the start of a formal secession process from Spain, to be in place in 18 months. The immediate reaction of Spain’s prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, was to announce that the state was entitled “to use any available judicial and political mechanism contained in the constitution and in the laws to defend the sovereignty of the Spanish people and of the general interest of Spain”. The preamble to the constitution proclaims the Spanish nation’s desire to “protect all Spaniards and the peoples of Spain in exercising their ­human rights, their cultures and traditions, languages and institutions”. Probably the most disputed articles are 2 and 8, which state, respectively, that “the constitution is based upon the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation, common and indivisible patria of all Spaniards” and that “the army’s mission is to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Spain, to defend its territorial integrity and the constitutional set-up”. Rajoy’s implication was clear: the unity of the country would be maintained, if necessary by military means.

It was Madrid, however, that broke with the federal consensus some years ago and thus boosted secessionist sentiment in Catalonia. José María Aznar’s government (1996-2004) failed to respond to demands for greater autonomy for Catalonia, at a time when secession was not even mentioned. This led to an increasing awareness among Catalans that the federal transfer system within Spain left them with an annual deficit of 8 per cent of Catalonia’s GDP because of the financial arrangements established by the Spanish state, an issue aggravated by the effect of the global financial crisis. Catalan nationalism thus became a matter of not only the heart, but also the pocket. Even more important was the Spanish legal challenge to the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 2006 and its subsequent dilution, after it had been sanctioned by the Catalan parliament, and by both the Spanish congress of deputies and the senate, not to mention the Catalan people in a legally binding referendum.

According to the Spanish high court of justice, some of the statute’s content did not comply with the Spanish constitution. This outraged many Catalans, who could not understand how the newly approved statute – after following all the procedures and modifications requested by Spain’s political institutions and constitution – could still be challenged. Four years later, the Spanish high court finally delivered its verdict on 28 June 2010. It removed vital points from the Statute of Autonomy 2006 and declared them non-constitutional. All this led to a revival of Catalan nationalism, culminating in a symbolic, non-binding referendum in November 2014, which was boycotted by opponents and produced a majority of 80 per cent in favour of independence.

The roots of this antagonism go deep, to the civil war that broke out on 17-18 July 1936 when some sectors of the army rebelled against the legitimate government of the Second Republic. The rebels rejected democracy, the party system, separation between church and state, and the autonomy of Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia. Their primary objective was to re-establish “order” by eliminating all vestiges of communism and anarchism, then quite strong in some parts of Spain.

High on the list of General Franco’s targets was Catalan nationalism, which had been growing since the late 19th century. The industrialisation of Catalonia and the Basque Country left the most economically developed parts of the Spanish state politically subject to the less prosperous Castile. By the end of the 19th century and influenced by German Romanticism, la Renaixença – a movement for national and cultural renaissance – prompted demands for Catalan autonomy, first in the form of regionalism
and later in demands for a federal state.

Catalan nationalism did not emerge as a unified phenomenon. Diverse political ideologies and cultural influences gave rise to various types of nationalism, from the conservative nationalism of Jaime Balmes to the federalism of Francesc Pi i Margall, to the Catholic nationalism of Bishop Torres i Bages and the Catalan Marxism of Andreu Nin, among others. Catalonia enjoyed some autonomy under the administrative government of the Mancomunitat or “commonwealth” from 1913 onwards. This was halted by the 1923 coup d’état of the dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera. Autonomy was granted again during the Second Spanish Republic from 1931-39 – but abolished by Francisco Franco’s decree of 5 April 1938.

Franco’s victory led to the suppression of Catalan political institutions, the banning of the Catalan language and proscription of all the symbolic elements of Catalan identity, from the national flag (the Senyera) to the national anthem (“Els Segadors”). In February 1939, the institutions of the autonomous Generalitat went into exile in France. In 1940 the Gestapo arrested the president of the Generalitat, Lluís Companys, and handed him over to Spanish officials. He was interrogated and tortured in Madrid, then sent to Barcelona, where he was court-martialled and executed at Montjuïc Castle on 15 October 1940. The most important representatives of the democratic parties banned by the regime went into exile, or were imprisoned or executed. The authoritarian state designed by Franco crushed dissent and used brute power to suppress the historical nations included within its territory. The regime’s aim was to annihilate the Catalans and the Basques as nations.


After almost 40 years of Franco’s dictatorship, Catalonia recovered its government, the Generalitat, in 1977 – before the drafting of the Spanish constitution in 1978 – and sanctioned a new statute of autonomy in 1979. The 2006 statute was expected, at the time, to update and expand Catalans’ aspiration for further devolution within Spain: never secession.

At present, a renewed nostalgia and enthusiasm for Francoism can be found among some sections of the Spanish right. One of the main challenges of the newly democratic government from the mid-1970s onwards was to get rid of the symbols of Francoism that had divided Spaniards between “winners” and “losers” in the civil war. It was only in 2007 that the then prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, guided the Law of Historic Memory through parliament with the aim of removing hundreds of Fascist symbols reminiscent of the Franco era from public buildings. It also sought to make reparations to victims of the civil war and the ensuing dictatorship.

There still exist hundreds of other references to the Fascist regime, however, with streets, colleges and roads named after Franco and his generals. The most controversial of these is the Valle de los Caídos (“Valley of the Fallen”), near Madrid, commissioned by Franco as his final resting place. It supposedly honours the civil war dead, but is primarily a monument to the general and his regime, housing the graves of Franco and José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the founder of the fascist Falange political party. Roughly 450,000 people visit it every year, and while most of them are foreign tourists, groups of Falangists and supporters of the old regime who come to pay tribute to the dictator have frequented it. Nostalgics for Francoism, though still a small minority within modern Spain, are becoming vociferous. They find common ground with far-right-wing conservatism, particularly in their shared aversion to federalism.

On 3 August last year Artur Mas, the then president of Catalonia, called an extraordinary parliamentary election after all attempts to negotiate and agree on a legally binding referendum with the Spanish government failed. Supporters of independence immediately announced that the forthcoming Catalan elections would be regarded as a plebiscite on independence.

On a turnout of more than three-quarters of the electorate, supporters of outright independence gained 48 per cent of the vote, while those backing a unitary state secured 39 per cent. On 9 November 2015 the Catalan parliament formally declared the start of the process leading to building an independent Catalan state in the form of a republic. It also proclaimed the beginning of a participative, open, integrating and active citizens’ constituent process to lay the foundations for a future Catalan constitution. The Catalan government vowed to move forward with its secession process. Immediately, the Spanish Constitutional Court suspended the Catalan law setting out a path to independence and warned that defiance could lead to criminal charges.

Worse still for Madrid, secessionism is gaining strength not only in Catalonia but also in the Basque Country, whose premier, Iñigo Urkullu, demands a “legal consultation” on the northern region’s future in Spain. He supports a new statute for the Basque Country and defends its status as a nation in the EU. Similarly to Catalonia, the Basque Country has a distinct language and culture, and benefits from the so-called concierto económico, an advantageous financial deal with the Spanish state.


The Spanish government’s refusal to engage constructively with Catalan nationalism contrasts markedly with London’s more relaxed and ultimately more successful response to Scottish nationalist aspirations. The “Edinburgh Agreement” between the British Prime Minister and the then first minister of Scotland to allow a binding referendum on Scottish independence stands in sharp contrast to the Spanish government’s outright opposition to a similar vote in Catalonia. Basques and Catalans find deaf ears regarding further devolution and binding referendums on self-determination. This highlights the distance between various conceptions of democracy that coexist inside the European Union, rooted in the diverse political cultures of nations with varying historical backgrounds.

All this matters, not only to Spain but to the EU, because it is part of a broad trend across the continent. In mainland Europe, demands for self-determination are running strong in Flanders as well as parts of Spain. In turn, tensions between Italy and Austria over control of South Tyrol (Trentino Alto Adige, to the Italians) remain high, as do demands advanced by the South Tyrol­ean secessionist movement. Bavarian regionalism is critical of the present German (and European) political order. Further to that, modern Venetian nationalism and its long-standing demands for independence have prompted a renewal of Venetian as a language taught in schools and spoken by almost four million people.

Matters are now coming to a head. Catalonia and Spain are in flux following two inconclusive elections. In January, after a prolonged stand-off, the sitting Catalan president, Artur Mas, made way for a fellow nationalist, Carles Puigdemont. He was the first to take the oath of office without making the traditional oath of loyalty to the Spanish constitution and the king. Felipe VI, in turn, did not congratulate Puigdemont.

The new president has announced that he plans to draw up a constitution, to be voted on in a referendum “to constitute the Catalan Republic” at the end of an 18-month consultation process. Puigdemont’s strategy envisages not a dramatic unilateral declaration
of independence, but a more gradual process of disconnection in constant dialogue with the Spanish government and Catalan political parties. Let no one be deceived by this “softly-softly” approach: it is designed to culminate, in a year and a half, perhaps sooner, in a vote on establishing a separate, sovereign state of Catalonia.

Meanwhile, Spanish politics are in flux. The elections to the Cortes on 20 December 2015 resulted in a victory for Conservatism, but also the most fragmented Spanish parliament ever and, as yet, no government. Almost the only thing the Spanish parties can agree on is opposition to Catalan independence, yet even here there are divisions over whether more autonomy should be granted and what response to make to unilateral moves by the Catalans.

The stakes are high for both sides. By pressing too hard, too early, Catalan nationalists may provoke Madrid. This would be a mistake. Strategy is important and recent events in Catalonia will weaken the Catalans’ democratic, peaceful and legitimate desire to hold a referendum on independence. Likewise, a heavy-handed response from Madrid will not only destroy the residual bonds between centre and periphery in Spain, but put the central government in the dock internationally. A confrontation will also cut across the only possible solution to this and all other national conflicts within the eurozone, which is full continental political union. Full union would render the separation of Catalonia from Spain as irrelevant to the functioning of the EU, and the inhabitants of both areas, as the separation of West Virginia from Virginia proper in the United States today.

In a nightmare scenario, radicalisation and unrest could emerge in Catalonia, with division between Catalans and memories of the Spanish Civil War coming to the fore. In this context, it might become very difficult to prevent violence.

This is the last thing that Brussels wants to hear as it grapples with the euro crisis, Russian territorial revisionism, Islamist terror, the migrant question and the prospect of Brexit. A meltdown in Catalonia will create dilemmas for Europe, starting from problems with Schengen, and raise questions about continued membership of the EU. It will also work against Catalans’ expectations of receiving EU support in their quest for independence, as turmoil in Europe will prompt nation states to close ranks. The EU will not be expected to intervene, because this scenario would – at least initially – be defined as an “internal affair of Spain”. Conflict between Barcelona and Madrid would shatter one of Europe’s biggest member states.

In that event, the peninsula will become the hottest point in an emerging “arc of crisis” across the southern flank of the EU, stretching from Portugal across Spain, an Italy struggling along with everything else to cope with the flow of migrants, the troubled Balkans, to Greece, which is perpetually perturbed. This highlights yet another flaw in the EU. It has no institutional framework for dealing with Catalan demands to become a nation within the Union, or those of other populations. Merely insisting on Spanish state sovereignty will not make the problem go away for Brussels, or for Europe as a whole. This is a potential matter of life and death not only for Spaniards and Catalans, but perhaps for the EU itself.

Brendan Simms is the director of the Forum on Geopolitics at the University of Cambridge and president of the Project for Democratic Union Montserrat Guibernau is a visiting scholar in the Department of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge and a member of the Forum on Geopolitics

This article first appeared in the 21 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Shakespeare 400 years Iater