Food for Spain? Propaganda, civil society, and the humanitarian debate in Oxford during the Spanish Civil War

On 25 February 2025, the ESC hosted a seminar examining the role of food, humanitarianism, and political mobilisation in the Spanish Civil War. The discussion centred on the research of Ainhoa Campos Posada, St Antony's Ramón Areces Visiting Fellow. Her work focuses on the civilian experience of the civil war, and explores how food was weaponised, how the conflict shaped British attitudes, and how Oxford became a hub for supporting Republican Spain.

The Spanish Civil War, fought between 1936 and 1939, was a deeply polarising conflict between the Nationalists and Republicans. Beyond its military aspects, food became a tool of war, used to inflict damage as effectively as arms. In agricultural regions, particularly in conservative strongholds, controlling food production and distribution was crucial. The Republicans relied on supply lines to sustain both soldiers and civilians, encapsulated in the phrase, “tanto un arado como una ametralladora” – a plough is as important as a machine gun. Food shortages and targeted disruptions of supply routes played a decisive role in the war’s outcome.

British attitudes towards the Spanish Civil War were shaped by the government’s official non-interventionist stance. While the Labour Party also promoted non-intervention, it expressed empathy for the Republican cause. Within British society, especially in academic and intellectual circles, the war ignited intense debates and spurred efforts to aid Republican Spain. Oxford, with its politically engaged student body and vibrant intellectual culture, became a key centre of mobilisation. The war left a lasting imprint on the city, with university students and local residents actively involved in campaigns.

Europe and Middle Powers: EU's relations with India, Brazil and Turkey

The seminar, held on February 18, 2025, at the European Studies Centre at Oxford University, brought together experts to discuss how non-European actors and the “middle powers” – India, Brazil, and Turkey – fit into the evolving new global order. Chaired by Dr Dimitar Bechev, Director of the Dahrendorf Programme at the European Studies Centre, the panel featured Dr Kira Huju, Fellow in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Rodrigo Fracalossi de Moraes, Researcher on Public Policies and International Relations at the Department of International Development at Oxford University, and Galip Dalay, Senior Consulting Fellow at Chatham House.

The discussion began with a reflection on the importance of moving away from a Eurocentric viewpoint. The speakers examined how historical legacies, power dynamics, and past relationships continue to shape the role of non-European countries in global affairs. There was a strong emphasis on understanding how different regions engage with global institutions and major powers while also navigating their own internal political landscapes.

Huju, a former Oxford student and an expert on India, highlighted two key signals in the evolving relationship between the European Union and India. The first was the EU’s increasing eagerness to deepen ties with India, reflecting a shift in strategic priorities. The second was an implicit acknowledgment that the EU has significantly underperformed in its engagement with India, leaving much of the relationship’s potential unexplored. While the EU aspires to establish itself as a geopolitical player in the Indo-Pacific, this effort is largely confined to individual member states, such as France, which has prioritised defence cooperation with India. However, these national efforts do not necessarily translate into a coherent EU-wide approach.

The new European Parliament and European Commission: Who won the 2024 power-play in Brussels?

On February 11, 2025, the European Studies Centre at University of Oxford hosted an insightful seminar featuring Klaus Welle, former Secretary General of the European Parliament, and Anthony Teasdale, visiting professor in Practice at the European Institute of the London School of Economics. The event, chaired by Catherine Briddick, Andrew W Mellon Associate Professor of International Human Rights and Refugee Law at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, focused on the shifting power dynamics in Brussels following the 2024 European elections, highlighting governance challenges, parliamentary realignments, and the future direction of European integration.

Klaus Welle opened the discussion by emphasising the unique structure of the European Parliament. Unlike national systems where power is fused within a parliamentary majority, the European Union (EU) operates through a diffusion of power. This federal-style system ensures that no single party dominates; instead, the EU is governed by a complex web of institutions—the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council—where alliances are essential to achieving legislative goals.

A key takeaway from Welle’s remarks was the changing composition of the European Parliament. The 2024 elections resulted in a divided assembly, with one-third of members aligned with left-wing parties, a strong centrist faction, and a growing presence of right-wing representatives. The steady rise of right-wing populist parties across member states, such as Le Pen’s National Rally in France and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), mirrors the broader European political landscape. Notably, the so-called “progressive majority” that had characterised the previous Parliament has now disappeared, with left-leaning parties falling below the 45% threshold necessary to form a stable coalition.

Traumerland: How Poland's WWII past shapes its collective mentality and politics today

Poland's history is deeply marked by the trauma of World War II, a period that continues to influence the nation's collective mentality and political landscape. The concept of "war trauma" is central to understanding the psychological and social dynamics in Poland today. On February 4, 2025 European Studies Centre hosted a seminar on this topic featuring Michał Bilewicz, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Warsaw, and was chaired by Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies at the University of Oxford. It looks into the lasting effects of this trauma, exploring how it manifests in contemporary Polish society, politics, and attitudes toward historical events.

The trauma of World War II left an indelible mark on Poland, not just in terms of physical destruction but also in the psychological scars it inflicted on the population. Stefan Baley, a psychologist, observed the profound changes in the minds of young people after the war. He described them as "suspicious, irritable, anxious, and mistrusting of institutions," with a pervasive sense of injustice. This generation, traumatised by the war, developed a mentality of breaking norms and rules, often feeling that everything was a lie. This "war complex" has been passed down through generations, influencing how Poles react to crises and perceive the world around them.

The trauma of WWII didn't end with the war; it lingered, manifesting in symptoms akin to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Anxiety, flashbacks, and hypervigilance became common among those who lived through the war. This trauma was also transmitted to subsequent generations, who, while not directly experiencing the war, inherited the psychological scars of their ancestors. This phenomenon, known as secondary traumatic stress, means that younger generations are more reactive to events that echo the traumas experienced by their elders.