In addition to the session of participation in the assembly, the anti-militarist group KEM-MOC took another action on Saturday to symbolize that the bank’s benefits are “blotted with blood”. Thus, two members of the costumes group threw red paint through the head at the door of the financial institution's headquarters in Calle Mayor. Entrepreneurs report that BBVA has earmarked “at least” €5.421 million in recent years to finance the arms industry.

Participated in the Shareholders' Board. What was it like?

I entered as a campaign companion of the Armed Bank with another colleague, Koldobi Velasco. Every year we enter the campaign to the assembly to denounce BBVA’s links with the arms industry before them and to demand that the policy they have with the arms industry be modified or, rather, eliminated.

The activity of the Armed Bank took place last Friday in the Euskalduna of Bilbao. KEM-MOC is also part of the campaign and always collaborate. They usually perform the same day in front of the palace, but this year they have done so the following day, on Saturday, at BBVA’s headquarters.

In our case, as always, we enter the assembly. Inside, we represent the voting delegations of the critical shareholders and on their behalf we read two statements at the time of the speeches. First, the president of BBVA explains the economic benefits gained, etc. Those of this year have been very good for them, and it should be mentioned that they do a lot of money laundering, as they broadcast a lot of videos explaining the work they do with the benefits. So far this year, they have stressed that they have sent a donation of EUR 1 million to Ukraine. We, in our participation, have denounced that this is pure cynicism, as in two years, between 2019 and 2021, EUR 5.421 million has been allocated to companies engaged in the arms or arms industry. Well, Ukraine has been given a million nothing more, and yet that had a long space in the assembly. However, its involvement in the tree sector did not have any margin until the interventions took place.

In the case of Ukraine, once the war reaches Europe, can the consequences of the link between the banks and the arms industry be more visible?

The case of Ukraine may be an opportunity to highlight the consequences of the war, but there are many conflicts in the world. For example, as we mentioned, in the conflict in Yemen, Spain sells arms, purchased with the financing of BBVA. This year, above all, we have denounced the links they have with the militarisation of the southern borders. Companies such as the Eulen Group, ATOS and Accentoure are contracted to install video cameras and implement deterrence systems for migrants and refugees.

On the other hand, they have a close relationship with the nuclear arms industry. These are seven companies that are funding this business and that is very denounceable, but even more so since last year. Last year, the Pact for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was launched. It is therefore no longer legal to fuel the question of nuclear weapons; it reads as follows: “It is forbidden to cooperate with any kind of prohibited act with nuclear weapons.”

Of course, their answer was that they have very marked red lines and never pass through them. They say they don't invest in countries in conflict. That is not a lie, but, as we denounce, the war begins here. These weapons are produced here.

The companies involved in this field are well known: Airbus, Boeing, General Dynamics, Honeywell International, Jacobs Engineering, Leonardo and Thales.

However, the most serious issue related to the nuclear weapon is that the investment has been huge from 2019 to 2021. Public coffers have reached EUR 5300 million, an increase of 66% over the previous period.

In addition, we stress that without funding there are no weapons. There are studies that say that three out of four weapons would not exist without funding. So the banks are responsible for this account.

As BBVA is one of the most important banks in the world, is it difficult to bring this type of practice to light?

Yes, it's very difficult. We represent 24 critical shareholders, but we think they're a lot more, even though you may not know about the action. And on the other hand, when we publish the information, many media outlets have their hands tied and can't make the information known. There are many interests at stake here. BBVA ranks second in state-level armed banking. The first is the Santander. Well, we will also go to the general meetings of Banco Santander, Caixabank and Sabadell, which will be held shortly. And we will continue to denounce their links with the arms industry.

Each year, before March, we launch a call to call on critical shareholders to go to the assemblies on their behalf to denounce the investments. These large banks are usually not open and have no change. It is coordinated mainly by the Centre Delàs d’Estudis per La Pau, from Barcelona. The coordinator is Jordi Calvo, who says that, after meeting with the small banks, they have a different attitude, and that some have been able to make progress. Depending on the size of the bank, the attitude varies.

Just next week we will have two activities in Vitoria-Gasteiz to talk to Jordi Calvo about armed banking, a talk and a workshop.

Do you intend to continue to denounce this situation?

Yes, provided that the position of the banks does not change, we will have to do so. Since the pacification process, we have to make proposals. We are aware that the position is not going to change easily, but at least they will have to listen to the message. He disagrees with what they sell at their party, because they were celebrating the benefits they had earned, and at that time perhaps it was not very nice to hear the reality, that is, how their profits are stained with blood.

He referred to the tendency to justify the implications for the arms industry. Is there a communication strategy to conceal it and continue to benefit from war?

Yes. We said in the House that this is cynicism, in front of them. And a double standard. We find it unacceptable, a great deal of money laundering. Solidarity is not the reality of the bank. Their reality is to feed the business of war and make profits from it.

As an activist, denouncing the case of the arms industry may pose a risk of penalisation. For example, in 2019, a trial was launched against two KEM-MOC activists for the action of throwing red paint from the head at the door of the BBVA Shareholders' Board. They have recently received a favourable judgment, which says that action falls within the scope of freedom of expression.

It can be said that this draft complaint has two parts. On the one hand, what we do within the Board, which cannot be considered illegal at all because we act as representatives of shareholders. And on the other hand, there's a complaint that's being made outside. In this respect, we know what consequences this hasty law tends to have. Koldobi Velasco filed an internal complaint about BBVA’s war business last Friday, but when in 2019 he performed a symbolic external action, without doing anything illegal to anyone, it had consequences until recently. That is how a deterrence system is being implemented.

Could I add something?

In bringing savings to these kinds of banks, we may have to ask ourselves whether or not we are consistent. And if we don't feel consistent, we have alternatives. We always encourage ethical banking. If we introduce our savings into ethical banking, we can be sure that they are not going to be used for the arms industry. On the other hand, if we have at BBVA, we know that they will be used in war, at least in part.