Eloise Horsfield
SPAIN has made an official complaint to the British government after accusing Gibraltar of performing a ‘U-turn’ over the fishing ban.
Outraged officials in Madrid sent a memo to London reiterating their stance that the waters around the Rock were not ceded to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht.
The protest comes just days after Gibraltar’s government announced it would be maintaining the ban on commercial fishing with nets in its waters.
After receiving the results of a preliminary report by marine experts, it claimed there were a number of ‘serious gaps in the data’ which were hampering further analysis.
It also said the report had identified a number of species that ‘may be over-exploited’ and that it was affecting catches.
The fallout led to long delays at the frontier, while a number of reports over the weekend suggested Spanish fishing boats had continued to flaunt the restrictions by fishing in Gibraltar waters.
La Linea mayor Gemma Araujo described the announcement as a ‘disappointment’ and called for negotiations to continue between the Spanish fishermen and officials in Gibraltar.
A spokesman for the fishermen slammed the findings of the report, accusing the commission of lacking ‘anyone with knowledge about fishing’.
Typical! You commission a report which costs Gibraltar tax payers money to deliver its findings on the sustainability of continuous fishing with what Gibraltar considers illegal nets etc. You get a Spanish fisheries expert to input into that report. Yet when the report comes in, and both the Spanish and the British experts say data is missing, like the provenance of the catches where and when and how and how many were immature and how many were adults, which would have put the lid on the whole thing, and the experts (both Spanish and British) recommend the ceasing of all fishing until such time as this data is available,out come the Spanish fishermen and their government crying “nobody but me knows how much fish is in the sea and how much we can take.” The Spanish Government sent a “note verbale” to the Government in UK, complaining about Gib’s implementing the recommendations and now allowing fishing with nets.
And the interminable queues continue, and young, old and elderly are kept in sweltering heat in closely confined areas for hours on end waiting to cross the border.
A group of young Gibraltarians have been issuing fliers to the long suffering people in the queues informing them that this is an oppressive measure taken for political reasons by the Spanish Government and urging those affected to contact their MEP’s about this abuse of power.
A cameramen who was taking pictures of the goings on at the Spanish area of the frontier whilst all this was going on was apparently threatened by one of the Guardia Civil agents if he didnt stop filming, even though it was being done from the Gibraltar side of the frontier (its all on film anyway and doing the rounds under “Experience of a Yanito at the Frontier on 17th August 2012”)
All great democratic stuff worthy of a democratic nation.
This a.m. a spanish fisherman who has been “outstanding” in his continued breaches of Gibraltar laws, raking the sea bed in British Territorial Waters just off the runway and after so many warnings, has been served with a summons in situ by the Gibraltar Courts to attend the Courts in Gibraltar on the 21st September, 2012. The fisherman in question says he doesnt know whether he will comply with the legally served summons on not.
Yesterday The Government of Gibraltar announced that,in accordance with the requirements of the Nature Protection Act of 1991 and the EU Habitats Directive, the designation of the Rock of Gibraltar Site of Community Importance (SCI) as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This has been effected through the publication of a Legal Notice.
Lets see where it all goes from here.
Here we go again. If the Spanish are so good at maintaining the fish stock levels of waters they control surely their fishermen would be better served fishing those waters and not the areas around Gibraltar which the same Spanish fishermen are always complaining are polluted.
I saw that article Inthename. Interesting. Surely the thing to do is record the Guardia Civil everyday with an HD camera and post the highlights daily on a very popular video sharing site?
Ben – “Surely the thing to do is record the Guardia Civil everyday with an HD camera and post the highlights daily on a very popular video sharing site?”
It’s an important issue, but kind of a niche. I have a feeling that next to videos of cats some footage of the Guardia Civil isn’t going to get very many hits.
About sixteen years ago the government in power then, put signs up on every lamp post on the road next to the border informing tourists of the same oppression that we are seeing today. People went around collecting signatures from the drivers of the cars and their passengers which were later compiled and send to the European Union as a protest that freedom of movement was being impaired by Spain at the Gibraltar Frontier. There were cameras, like Ben suggests, filming the precinct of the Aduana and the time wasting of the guards causing endless queues and hardships. There was even one death of an elderly person from the heat. Ambulances could be seen coming and going from the frontier with people who were either overtaken by the heat or were in need of medication like insulin and such. The answer of the Spanish Government at the time was to shield the area of the Frontier with large canopies. Then the Cordoba agreement and meetings came about, which was basically to create an atmosphere of cooperation and good neighbourliness and the queues eased, only to come back again sporadically whenever things were not going quite the way Spain wanted, until with the present government the talks have been discarded. Almost twenty years later we are back to square one. Gibraltar and its people will not be forced into any agreement they are not happy with, basically we do not want British Gibraltar to be taken over by Spain.
The Gibraltar government has sparked the current dispute by unilaterally terminating a long standing arrangement that allowed Spanish fishermen unimpeded access to the Bay of Algeciras.
Spain does not recognise the British colony of Gibraltar. It also does not recognise UK claims to sovereignty over the Bay of Algeciras.
Spain will continue to protect its fishermen and enforce Spanish and EU laws over those waters. If the current occupants of Gibraltar have a problem with Spain’s actions then they should encourage their British over-lords to honour their commitments under the Brussels Agreement and heed the numerous UN General Assembly resolutions and enter into discussions with Spain over the decolonisation of Gibraltar.
References by some contributors to democracy are simply red herrings designed to obfuscate the need for the UK to enter into meaningful discussions with Spain to resolve the underlying sovereignty issues.
FurtherBeyond – “Spain will continue to protect its fishermen and enforce Spanish and EU laws over those waters.”
Territorial disputes aside, the Spanish aren’t exactly “enforcing EU laws” when it comes to fishing. I live in a fishing community and every night I see boats fishing illegally – and destructively – dragging the nets across the sea bottom and destroying the ecosystem. I think most people are familiar with this process, how destructive it is and why it is illegal (under Spanish law).
It’s a topic of daily conversation here, “Ah you caught so-and-so-fish, great. I remember years ago… but now you just don’t catch fish like that.”
And like in many things, the Spanish police enforce the laws, but only selectively. They turn a blind eye to much of the illegal fishing within Spain. Because, well, the fish must flow.
So Spain isn’t exactly acting as a beacon of justice and enforcing the law. It’s, at best, a selective reliance on the law; “We have a legal right to fish in these waters, so we’re going to assume that right and fish illegally.”
Oh leave off FurtherBeyond!
Spain may say it does not recognize the British colony of Gibraltar, but the British Territorial Jurisdiction as per UNCLOS which it signed together with 163 other nations as well as the European Union itself, it has no other recourse but to recognize. To say that it does not recognize the BTW of Gibraltar is conducive to Morroco not recognizing the spanish territorial waters of Ceuta and Melilla, because they too are colonies, although you may want to call them enclaves, not only in another country but in another continent.
Whether Spain continues to protect its fishermen in waters which are legally not theirs as per UNCLOS/CONVEMAR remains to be seen, tried and tested in an international court of law, which UK will be forced to take the matter to if Spain continues to breach its jurisdiction.
The Brussels agreement is dead and buried and it stinks, there is no way you are going to revive it.
Democracy is when people respect laws and the human rights of others, whether in their own country or abroad.
The current fishing “problem” created by Spain is a massive red herring to distract from the very REAL and Serious problems which Spain has internally. That is for sure. There have been quite a few red herrings splattered about already to destract from internal problems and there will probably be many more to come. All you need is to look at independent tv channels and newspapers to see the real dismal picture of the internal problems Spain has.
And whether you believe me or you dont, I am not glad that the People of Spain are in dire straits, contrary to what you might think. Because we, the people of Gibraltar, are truly democratic and do not feed or rejoice on the hardships of others.
In any event Gibraltar will remain British whether you like it or not! Not so sure about the current Spanish Government’s staying powers though.
@ FurtherBeyond
Once again you spew forth verbal diahrrea.
1. The fishing agreement you refer to also had the Spanish fisherman recognising the jurisdiction of Gibraltar over the waters, so it clearly did NOT allow unimpeded access, as you wrongly say…have you actually read the agreement or are you just guessing what it says?
This was fine by Spanish fishermen whilst they were allowed to fish, but as soon as they are asked to stop by the Royal Gibraltar Police (as well as the Royal Navy) they decided to breach the agreement by ignoring Gibraltar’s jurisdiction (which, as I have explained, is something they originally agreed to in writing).
It is called the Bay of Gibraltar. Only, in the last few years or so, Spain has changed the name to suit its colonialist/imperialist aspirations towards Gibraltar and make it seem the area has always belonged to Spain. Politics, after all, is the art of the possible…sometimes to the detriment of democracy…as can be seen.
Of course Spain recognises that Gibtraltar is a British territory, it has done so since it was ceded in perpetuity. It is recognised by Spain in many EU treaties, not to mention the 300 year old Treaty of Utrecht which Spain still recognises, as it sets out the only way Spain could recover Gibraltar (i.e. if the UK relinquishes control, which it will not do against the wishes of Gibraltar).
2 It is a matter of EU law that every territory is allowed to legislate over areas of its jurisdiction. EU law is a minimum, but Member States and their territories are certainly allowed to make stricter laws than the EU. This is part of the agreement made with each state before accession to the EU as well as being a fundamental principle of EU law. This is elementary stuff for anyone familiar with EU Law as well as the rule of law (an inherent part of democracy I should point out).
3 Spain has a poor history of fishing in waters which belong to other countries, Moroccan waters, Canadian waters and USA waters (not to mention all regions included as EU waters, i.e. UK). Spanish fishermen have had to be confronted with military ships (i.e. in Canada)because otherwise they will take no notice of fishing rules.
In the UK, Spanish fishermen registered in UK have a greater quota of fish than the entire Scottish fleet! The UK is worried as it should have a surplus of cod and haddock but is having to import from China because of the Spanish fishermen overexploitation.
These fishermen know how to fish very well, but when it comes to sustainable fishing they clearly haven’t got a clue as they have already exploited their own reserves and are now ‘invading’ the stocks belonging to other nations and territories.
No one seems to highlight the fact that these same fishermen are not allowed to fish in some of the Spanish territorial seas immediately adjacent to Gibraltar because their own Government has prohibited fishing in an attempt to to protect their own dwindling fish stocks. But, when it comes to other territories, they do not care if they exhaust all the supplies…and will certainly do so if not kept in check!
The Guardia Civil is a paramilitary force and this is a fine example of the vicious fishing policy persued by Spain – they use this force to try and protect their fishermen whilst they exploit the fish in other regions. If you doubt that the Guardi Civil is a paramilitary force, please check history. It was the Guardi Civil who attempted to stage a coup d’etat in Spain during the transition to democracy, and the Spanish King had to intervene directly to stop this (this was in the 80s).
4 The resolutions you quote are highly suspect, and are directly contradicted by the UN Charter on Decolonization itself as well as numerous other UN resolutions which state opposite objectives to the ones Spain seeks to rely on. Spain, as a nation, is very selective on the ‘international’ tools it seeks to rely on to pressurize Gibraltar. The Cordoba Accord, immediate successor to the Brussels Process, has now been shelved unilaterally (by Spain) to the disappointment of the UK and Gibraltar…oh well, we don’t need Spain anyway!!
By the way, the appropriate forum for these disputes is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Spain adamantly refuses to take this dispute to the ICJ…I wonder why!!
5 Democracy is not a red herring! Gibraltar and the UK have both been democratic ‘nations’ for far longer than Spain. And Spain has a huge democratic deficit (no pun intended). Democratic principles are inherent to sovereignty disputes because we are dealing with people and their nation…we cannot just push democracy to one side because it is incovenient to Spain’s imperialist and colonial aspirations – democracy exists to protect people who would otherwise become the victims of, for example, fascist policies.
PS the ‘current occupants’ of Gibraltar have been the only occupants for over 300 years.
And by the way FarBeyond it is called the Bay of Gibraltar, just like the Bay of Cadiz is called that and not the Bay of the Algarve which it also includes. Calling it by any other name than what is on all maps, from as far back as when Gibel Tarik first set foot on Calpe in 710 AD, is a fallacy created about 20 years ago when Algeciras, trying to pump up its own importance in the area and without consulting anybody, changed the name for its own convenience because almost nobody knew where Algeciras was, and everybody knows where Gibraltar is situated. You just have to come into the Bay to see what is more prominent and sticks out in it to realise why it was named Bay of Gibraltar. Algeciras didnt even exist then.
Well John he cant say we have read each others comments and that we are in cahoots to present the same view of things. Things are what they are and calling them by another other name would be laughable if it werent so sad.
Inthename – “Democracy is when people respect laws and the human rights of others, whether in their own country or abroad.”
I agree with you in everything you said regarding Gibraltar and the whole situation going on. Just pointing something out regarding democracy:
Democracy is actually only a form of government where the government is determined or elected by the populace. You can actually have a democracy where not everyone has equal rights, or where there is no respect for human rights, etc. The original Athenian democracy is an example – only a selection of military men were allowed to vote. Women could not, there were slaves, etc. And this was a true, pure, direct democracy. Most countries we refer to as democracies today don’t have real direct democracies like the original Athenian democracy. And that is probably a good thing.
What I find inexplicable is how it is possible that some, not to say all, of the 7,000 plus spanish workers who come to work in Gibraltar, on a daily basis, can still continue to procrastinate against the very people who are welcoming them into their midst and offering them a means to make a living that they cannot find in their own country.
I put this to the brain washing they have been subjected to from a very early age at school. Gibraltarian children are not taught in schools about how nasty spanish politics can make what should be normal neighbourly interaction with the people across the border. Those born forty odd years ago have had to learn this by themselves through experience,just as younger generations now find that what used to be a ten minute wait to cross a frontier to have a bit of fun or go to a little town or big city to see the sights, suddenly becomes a gruelling ordeal. How do you explain to a five or ten year old why they have to sit in a car for two hours when before it took ten minutes?
I would put all the “patriotic” ministers and their families, children, grandchildren and grandmothers in a car with no air conditioner for a couple of hours under the July or August sun, and let them swelter in it, just for the experience!See how they would like it at the other end of the stick.
Agreed Reality. Good thing though there has been an evolution of what the Athenians first started. Socrates would agree with you that Democracy in those times was not all it was supposed to be.
Democracy in my mind, the real thing, is much like Communism, theoretically it should be the best form of government if, like democracy, people weren’t so egoistic and egotistic.
Sadly, Tony Blair recently visited Gibraltar and he did not have to wait in the hours long que imposed by Spain as he was given permission to drive straight through.
Unfortunately, this way politicians will never experience first hand the reality of things. This may help explain why most politicians do not fully appreciate (or care about)what normal people have to suffer.
Just close the Verge forever!!! and no more queues!!!
I say close the verge and throw the key to the sea.
Admiral Lezo,
Reality and I were talking about Greeks and democracy funnily enough and Alexander The Greek or the Great or the not so great depending on the surname of the incumbent comes to mind as a greater icon than Admiral Lezo as a conqueror across Frontiers. And even he came back defeated. His ideas of democracy were just as flawed as yours.
Just so we get things straight, especially the woodpeg Basque Admiral’s namesake, I would like to point out that the 64 Algeciras fishermen are already getting subsidies from the European Union for not being allowed to fish in Moroccan waters, where they are not wanted due to the over fishing they tend to do in most waters, but their own, where the fish stock have depleted considerably. Is it a wonder?
They are receiving, together with fishermen from Barbate and Conil the grand sum of 100 euros each per day for the skipper and that is depending on the length of their fishing boats it could be more, and 45 euros each per day per fisherman sailing on those boats. These subsidies which have been granted since last December, were reviewed and granted again in June, due to Morocco’s negative response to allow them back into their waters, and will last until this December, when it will be reviewed again no doubt, depending on whether Morocco allows them to come in and fish again.
“http://www.europasur.es/article/maritimas/1230175/pescadores/algeciras/recibiran/ayudas/por/cese/marruecos.html”
Not so for the La Linea fishermen who dont normally fish in Moroccan waters. But these La Linea fishermen and the remaining six from Algeciras are allowed to fish in BGTW with certain tackle which is not considered illegal. So who is going hungry, the fishermen or the Dolphins seemingly cant find enough fish to sustain themselves in their waters and coming into ours lately?
Admiral Lezo
Estoy contigo que se cierre para siempre y se acaben los problemas.Veo que el pequeño inthe ya ha empezado a llorar y despotricar sin mencionar nada de las cosas que hacen sus amigos invasores como traer submarinos nucleares.
El problema de los españoles en esto es que diferencian inglés de gibraltareño y no deberían mientras los ingleses sigan aquí.
Guasa tiene. Normally it is considered a bit rude since in an english newspaper it is highly improbable that a lot of non spanish speaking people would understand what you are saying, but for the benefit of these readers, let me translate for you.
brujo
August 22nd, 2012 10:02 pm
“Admiral Lezo
Estoy contigo que se cierre para siempre y se acaben los problemas.Veo que el pequeño inthe ya ha empezado a llorar y despotricar sin mencionar nada de las cosas que hacen sus amigos invasores como traer submarinos nucleares.
El problema de los españoles en esto es que diferencian inglés de gibraltareño y no deberían mientras los ingleses sigan aquí.”
“Brujo” says
“I am with you, lets close it for ever and end all the problems. I can see that little inthe has already started to cry and complain without mentioning anything of the things our invading friends do, like bringing nuclear submarines.
The problem that the spanish have is that they diferentiate between english and gibraltarian, and it shouldnt be so whilst the english remain here”
( I am assuming that the “here” is Gibraltar he is speaking about)
Brujo it goes without saying that your intents of treating the “english” as you are treating “gibraltarians” is pathetic. Be careful of promulgating your twisted sense of patriotism by hitting on anybody else just because they speak the same language and have the same principles. Like someone else says in here “It ain’t Cricket”.
One Tireless many years ago as opposed to the contamination we are suffering from across the border is a drop in the sea. Would you have preferred the limping “Tireless” to have continued on its way up the Portugese Coast past yours and not knowing whether it would have caused a major accident along the way?
All that was needed was a part which they repaired, the minute it was fixed they left.
Gibraltar has been and will always be a British Port, home to all HM Services, their ships, their aircraft and their crews, and we have been here through thick and thin for them and with them.
Sorry Bruji but that is what being British is all about, though I doubt you would understand.
Inthe,
First of all, I am very please to see you are into history and know whose nickname belongs, same goes with me and british naval history. Though Lezo more than a conqueror fits on the arquetype of Sea Wolf.
Back to topic, you just can´t get rid of a this people s way of life, in one day. We are talking about whole famillies who make a leaving on fishing, and have done it for the last 300 years. Sometimes is not about doing it, but the way you do it.
As usual gibbie government has done things in a very abrupt manner. For instance why not conceed some fishing cuotas to start with, or just allow net using during some periods of the year.
Regards
Inthe,
My ideas about democracy aren´t flawed. If it is the general idea of the people of spain to close the verge, then just close it. It would solve so many problems.
John
You’re mistaken when you state that the resolutions that I quote: ‘…are highly suspect, and are directly contradicted by the UN Charter on Decolonization itself as well as numerous other UN resolutions which state opposite objectives to the ones Spain seeks to rely on’. Those resolutions are neither ‘highly suspect’ nor ‘directly contradicted’ when interpreted correctly.
You have obviously failed to note that the UN has specifically observed in these resolutions that the principle of territorial integrity complements and constrains the right to self-determination.
Please note in particular the following words from the latter resolution: ‘…any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations’.
This means that the current occupants of Gibraltar cannot lawfully undermine Spain’s territorial integrity by seeking to exercise a right of self-determination.
This is the reason why the UN adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), which observed that the referendum conducted by Gibraltar in 1967 was invalid.
Please also note that all UN General Assembly resolutions on Gibraltar mention the ‘interests’ but not the ‘wishes’
of the current occupants of Gibraltar. This is not accidental. Any exercise of a right to self-determination by the current occupants of Gibraltar is highly dubious for the following reasons:
They do not constitute ‘a people’, and only ‘a people’ is entitled to self-determination under international law.
They are not ‘a people’ because they are not a population indigenous to Gibraltar, but were settled there by Britain after it had expelled a Spanish population that previously existed there. Moreover, they are not sufficiently distinct from the British metropolitan population to be considered ‘a people’.
As previously mentioned, even if they were a people, this would not give them a unilateral right to self-determination that could override Spain’s original title to Gibraltar. Under international law they have a right to have their ‘interests’ considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in.
In addition to the several UN resolutions requiring Gibraltar’s decolonisation, there is also the fact that the current trend in international State practice is for colonial enclaves to return to the mainland, irrespective of a valid treaty cession (see the following recent examples: Goa; Hong Kong; Macau; and Walvis Bay).
This trend is supported by current ICJ case law. For example, in the Western Sahara case the ICJ found that some pre-existing legal ties of a third state to the territory colonized by some other state could in principle affect the decolonization of the territory (see para. 162 in particular). On the facts of that case, the Court did not find that such legal ties existed between Morocco and the Mauritanian entity and Western Sahara, and therefore it did not specify what the precise effect of such ties could be.
In this regard, you might like to have a look at the following reference by an eminent British international lawyer, and Cambridge University Professor, as just one authority which nicely sets out the relevant international law principles: James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) at 377-85.
I wonder if FurtherBeyond thinks people here are stupid or too lazy to read. Everyone here has the Internet, obviously. You wrote – “This is the reason why the UN adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), which observed that the referendum conducted by Gibraltar in 1967 was invalid.”
The 2353 actually is a non-binding resolution. And nowhere does it claim anything is “invalid.” This simply isn’t in the text at all. Actually, it works against your entire argument. I would pay special attention point 3:
“Invites the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume without delay the negotiations provided for in General Assembly Resolutions 2070 (XX) and 2231 (XXI), with a view to putting an end to the colonial situation in Gibraltar and to safeguarding the interests of the population upon termination of that situation.”
Note that in the resolution “invites” is actually italicized. There is no legal requirement for the governments of Spain and the UK to do anything. They’ve been “invited” to do something in a non-binding resolution. They are not required to do so. Spain and the UK can both refuse – and, in fact, they both have.
You should also understand that this is, as a non-binding resolution, not actually a law. In fact, because it is a non-binding resolution it cannot even progress into a law. Not every resolution that the UN spits out is international law.
You are aware of this fact, correct?
@ FurtherBeyond
The Resolutions directly contradict the UN Charter itself.
The UN Charter is paramount.
The UN Charter: “http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml”
The opening statement of the charter reads as follows:
“Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories…”
The relevant UN Member is the UK. The UK has a duty to protect Gibraltar under UN law – in fact, it has ‘a SACRED TRUST’ to carry out this function. This is a responsibility it takes very seriously, and it has modern democratic principles at heart in excercise of this duty.
The resolutions you quote, as the rest of the democratic world knows, were passed when many Latin American countries (at the time run by dictatorships sympathetic to Franco’s Spanish fascists) such as Venezuela, Nicaragua etc were sitting on the UN chair. It was opposed by real democracies like Canada, Australia, USA and New Zealand. This may help you understand why those resolutions are, quite rightly, ignored by the UK. Remember, according to the UN it is the UK that has the duty to protect Gibraltar, not the UN itself!!!
Legally, Spain has no direct say in the matter, thankfully, because look at the fiascos it has been involved in…the Western Sahara is a factually different (but good) example of a situation which was largely fueled by Spain’s maladminstration of that region when it was a Spanish colony.
You try to draw a distinction between ‘the interests’ and ‘the wishes’ of the people. Well, the wishes and interests in this case are the same. It is certainly not in Gibraltar’s interests to become Spanish…even less is it a wish. So, the only way for Spain to acquire Gibraltar is by ignoring both the interests and wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Even according to you, this would go against the UN Charter.
The ICJ is the relevant authority to determine this case. You, sir, are not a judge and cannot determine what the ICJ would deecide. Each case, as a matter of law, is subject to its own particular merits and must therefore be dealt with on a case by case basis. As a matter of fact, Spain refuses to go to the ICJ to see what it says. No prizes for guessing why.
A lawyers opinion is only an opinion, it is not, as you say, an ‘authority’. Clearly you are a master of spin and misinformation…are you sure you do not work for the Government of Spain??? I hear you have been accused of this on other forums.
PS Hong Kong and other colonies were LEASED to the then colonial powers, Gibraltar was CEDED to the UK IN PERPETUITY. That is the difference!!
Brujo
You either are too bogged down by your ideas or you havent read anything that has been explained to you umpteen times.
The Spanish fishermen are being used by the politicians for their own political agenda. Even the Spanish La Linea Mayoress has come out saying so. This is not about fishing or their going hungry. This is about Spain wanting to pull one over Gibraltar’s legal British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.
Gibraltar allows fishing with tackle that is legal by Gibraltar laws and will be considered illegal by the EU itself from 2013.
The spanish fishermen are receiving subsidies, not only because they are not allowed to fish in Moroccan waters, they are also receiving subsidies to “renew” their fishing tackle to comply with EU law.
The Spanish Foreign minister and the British Foreign minister, after a meeting in London, came out saying it was up to the Gibraltar Government and the fishermen to “fix” the dispute.
A report on the levels of fish stock was ordered in which both Spanish experts and British experts would come back saying whether they could continue fishing with nets or not and the Spanish fishermen agreed to comply with the findings of this report as did the Gibraltar Government.
The Chief of the Algeciras fishermen has misrepresented what was told him by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.
The Chief Minister of Gibraltar has come out repeatedly saying that what he had told the fishermen was that they had to wait until the report arrived, when the findings would indicate which way to proceed. In the event the report compiled by both Spanish and British experts pointed out that they advised there be no fishing with the illegal tackle until such time as all the data, which was missing, could be added to the report.
The La Linea Fishermen who were, in the beginning, agreeable to observing Gibraltar laws until grafitti appeared on their walls calling the chief of the fishermen “a dog” and other niceties, changed their minds. Goodness knows what else happened there.
You as well as other Spaniards who cannot see through what is being told you by the, lets say “friendly” press, just like you have been brainwashed since school age that Gibraltar was “stolen” from Spain because that is the way Franco wanted to rewrite history.
Since you seem to have a reasonable understanding of English you have no excuse for not informing yourself of both sides of the story, history as it actually happened, and not just what you are being served now and have been served for years.
And as to the ECJ’s ruling surely there is something not quite right here:
“http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25806”
“http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25805”
“http://www.panorama.gi/”
Gibraltar’s EU appeal had a Spanish Judge and Registrar, shouldnt they have recused themselves?
Correction of second paragraph above. Apologies.
Gibraltar allows fishing with tackle that is legal by Gibraltar laws and not those that will be considered illegal by the EU itself by 2013.
John
You seem to be more of a legal eagle, would you care to share your opinion on the, lets say, “impropriety” of a Spanish Judge ruling in a case in which there is, what could be considered a conflict of interests?
I wouldnt be allowed by law to sit as juror in any case where the case being judged was someone I know, let alone judge it.
John
You state that the UK has accepted ‘a SACRED TRUST’ to protect its non-self governing territories and that it takes this ‘responsibility … very seriously’. You also state the UK ‘…has modern democratic principles at heart in excercise (sic) of this duty’.
Is this the same ‘SACRED TRUST’ that it exhibited when it forcibly relocated the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago?
Surely, given your fawning obsequiousness with all things British, you must be familiar with this recent example of British duplicity and rank hypocrisy?
No? Well let me help you out here then. In 1971 all the inhabitants of Diego Garcia (a British non-self governing territory), regardless of ancestry or employment status, were involuntarily, and in some cases forcibly, relocated to other islands in the Chagos Archipelago, or to Mauritius or Seychelles by Britain in 1971 to satisfy the requirements of a UK/US Exchange of Notes signed in 1966 to depopulate the island so that the US could construct a military base upon it.
The Chagossians have been fighting an uphill battle to obtain justice through the courts sine then. Verdicts in the English courts had gone in favour of the Chagossians in 2000, 2006 and 2007 until the House of Lords overturned them all and ruled in favour of the British government (so much for British justice).
The Chagossians have now petitioned the European Court of Human Rights. Possibly as a pre-emptive action in case they win at the European Court, the last British Labour government declared the Chagos Archipelago a “marine protection area”, which would restrict fishing and therefore human re-settlement. Sound familiar?
By the way, although you’re correct when you infer that I am not a judge of the ICJ, However, I am familiar with the relevant international law principles.
UN resolution 2354 (XXII) confirms that the current occupants of Gibraltar cannot lawfully undermine Spain’s territorial integrity by seeking to exercise a right of self-determination even through a referendum.
This is the reason why the UN adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), which observed that the referendum conducted by Gibraltar in 1967 was invalid.
The current trend in international State practice is for colonial enclaves to return to the mainland, irrespective of a valid treaty cession whatever the nature of the treaty.
Inthename
La convención de los mares grán invento inglés-américano que en 1982 se inventa cuales son las aguas de Gibraltar.
Ese es el último robo pero no nos engñemos esto es una invasión de trescientos años y sigue ese es el problema.
Por eso estoy en contra de esto por que no ha acabado dentro de treinta años vendr otro requisito gibraltareño.
Los siglos hblan por si solos y con hechos no palabras tuyas o mías.
Seguro que dices que no estamos en esa época bueno no hace ni 70 años ocurrio el aeropuerto ahora las aguas y dentro de un tiempo otra cosa.
Es la actitud británica de invasión pasiva y mientras no saquemos a la soberanía británica de España no podremos estar tranquilos.
Me dices que tenga cuidado con mi retorcida forma de pensar y que no confunda inglés y gibraltareño ,pero ya he visto muchos británicos cabreados y he tenido problemas con alguno ,así que bueno es lo que hay además son ellos los que os apoyan y con la otra negocian si va muy mal la cosa.
Y mira que paradoja puede que pienses que nunca estarás en la situación del pueblo de San Roque hace trescientos años ,pero eso es algo que está unido a la economía británica.En que posición crees que dejaría a la actual Gibraltar si ocurriese esto.
@ Inthename
Unfortunately the judges appointed by EU Member States are taken to be neutral, even if in reality they are not. Accordingly, a state’s ‘neutral’ judge is ‘independent’ and ‘impartial’. It is all a load of rubbish as clearly judges who are appointed by a state are answerable to their government. There is no such thing as impartiality in the EU and this latest incident just proves this very point.
Perhaps this just goes to show why the EU is in the mess it is in. In reality its every member state for themselves. Spain is presently trying to milk the EU (after having already squandered billion of euros) for all its worth and is holding the other states to ransom.
I only hope that the UK government makes a big issue out of this obviously bias Spanish Judge, whose father, by the way, was one of Fascist Spain Franco’s generals and a founding member of the right-wing PP party (the party presently in power in Spain).
@ FurtherBeyond
You do realize that Diego Garcia is completely different. It was bought by the UK, and only had plantations as opposed to settlements. I think at the time there were only a few hundred people living there, and they were relocated as they were not Diego Garcians – basically there was no native population.
But don’t just take my word for it, i did some research for you (as you always get your facts wrong…or are you just trying to mislead people?)
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia#Settlement_of_the_Island”
John
Thanks for your views, I didnt want to put you in a spot, but what the hell it is what we are all thinking as well as saying. Let’s hope UK does make a lot of noise and take it further.
And by the way your answer about Diego Garcia will have you being accused of double standards, having been faced with the same question and given the same answer.
One feels for these people, but they had no infrastructure to speak of and am sure are better off where they were housed back into civilization. I wonder how happy they would have been if the situation they were in had suddenly deteriorated due to food shortage, lack of rain, or a tsunami. UK would have been accused of leaving them defenceless by those who seem to truly have double standards themselves.
Brujo are you trying to tell me that you intend to re-conquer the Rock? Nullis espugnabilis hosti remember.
Oh and by the way your San Roque population must have been extremely rich as they bought up a lot of land right down to the sea on either side of them, even more than Algeciras had, so dont come telling me that they were slain and robbed and violated..they seem to have done quite well for themselves with everything the British and Dutch troops allowed them to take with them.
Inthename
No pero me intentas decir que Gibraltar no va a pedir nada más que estaría definida.Que Inglaterra u Gibraltar no pueden tomar una decisión bélica en contra de España o ir más allá.
Otro ejemplo conseguís la independencia y teneis un conflicto bélico ni siquiera planteo el quién cualquiera que no seamos nosotros que piensas de eso.
Además hablas de Gibraltar como si fuese inexpugnable tú sabrás respecto a eso.
Y de paso cuantos crees que hacía falta matar para expulsar a la población de San Roque cuantos crees cuantos justificas tu que eres realmente democrático y dudo que esa gente haya prosperado por los soldados británicos y holandeses.Y que derechos tienes tú por encima de esa población, 300 años de historia la misma o más tiene ellos.
Todo tiene dos lados.
Gibraltar back to Spain, Belice back to Guatamala Northern Ireland back to Ireland Malvinas back to Argentina and
Australia a republic……
FurtherBeyond – “UN resolution 2354 (XXII) confirms that the current occupants of Gibraltar cannot lawfully undermine Spain’s territorial integrity by seeking to exercise a right of self-determination even through a referendum.”
Beside failing to address the fact that it is a non-binding resolution, you also seem to selectively quote the parts that fit your argument. Here is what it actually says:
Resolution 2354 XXII – “Considering that any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country…”
It isn’t sufficient simply to undermine its “territorial integrity” as you claim. It must also partially or completely destroy the ‘national unity’ of a country. Gibraltar simply doesn’t fit that description. Even if Gibraltar suddenly sunk into the ocean it wouldn’t impact the national unity of Spain.
John – “The relevant UN Member is the UK. The UK has a duty to protect Gibraltar under UN law – in fact, it has ‘a SACRED TRUST’ to carry out this function.”
What you said here sums it all up. A state has a duty above all to its people. In fact, a state does not even have rights. The people within the state do – the state only exists to protect the rights of those people. If the UN passed a resolution that essentially said (as a random example) “Syria is now Jordan” it would be completely legitimate for Syria to ignore that and, if necessary, go to war. Any time a UN resolution – especially a non-binding one, as in the case of Gibraltar – is not in the best interest of the given people of a state then said state has an ethical – and legal – duty to ignore it. Or fight against it by any means necessary. That’s international law – both on paper and how it actually plays out in the real world.
FurtherBeyond – “Is this the same ‘SACRED TRUST’ that it exhibited when it forcibly relocated the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago?”
I don’t know if you realize this, but you’re actually making John’s point. The forceful relocation of the British inhabitants of Chagos was wrong. It was a violation of the sacred trust – a democratic principle – that a state is to act in the best interests of its population. It doesn’t matter how many English court rulings or UN resolutions have come along to justify it. If a government wants to oppress or abuse a people it certainly has the power (the physical force) to do so. And since it also controls the laws it can make anything ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’.
Just to double check – you’re trying to advocate that some 30,000 people be forcefully relocated (to where?), their lands stolen, property taken? How is this even logistically feasible? Where are they going to go? How will they be re-compensated for the losses?
FurtherBeyond, it seems like your entire position is based on a naive misunderstanding of a handful of 50 year old, non-binding UN resolutions. Not only is there no solid legal basis for what you are endorsing, but it isn’t even logistically feasible on any level. Even people who say, “Spain should just take Gibraltar by force!” have a more realistic position.
Final thought @ FurtherBeyond – “However, I am familiar with the relevant international law principles.”
Are you familiar with the relevant principle that a state can ignore international law if it is not in the best interest of that state? This, too, is international law. No state has ever given up its absolute right to sovereignty to the United Nations. If a state cooperates with a non-binding resolution it is by choice (or coercion – war, sanctions, etc.). Not because the UN has more authority than state sovereignty.
Gibraltar can (and will) remain British as long as the United Kingdom desires it to be so. Kind of like how Israel can keep building settlements and no one can do a thing about it despite passing resolutions that have no more force than the actual paper they are printed on.
Welcome to the real world. International law isn’t decided by the UN, EC, or ICJ. It’s decided by individual UN member states according to their best interests.
But the real kicker is that you have 30,000 people doing just fine in a tiny stretch of land. None of them are Spanish. They aren’t ethnically Spanish. They aren’t culturally Spanish. They don’t want to be governed by Spain. Aside from playing armchair lawyer (“I think a non-binding UN resolution that was never resolved 50 years ago means…”), how could you possibly justify delivering 30,000 people into a foreign country that they have no part of – or worse, expelling them and suffering the logistical consequences.
“But it’s international law” (even if it isn’t) simply isn’t good enough. You have to be able to justify it ethically. And I’ve yet to hear a good reason why Gibraltar should be Spanish, why the population should be expelled or why it is worth starting an armed conflict over.
Brujo the houses that the people who lived in Gibraltar and were asked whether they wanted to stay in Gib or go from Gib, belonged to the Arabs, they built them over the 700 years they were here. The people left with all their belongings, their animals, their furniture, their monies their flag and their saints. Spain has owned Gib on and off about 200 years. They sold it once to the Jewish Community but then about twenty years later during the Spanish Inquisition they expelled them from their homes and took the homes they had built and Gib back. The Spaniards who came here then, and then left after England and Holland took over, whether you like it or not, some returned and swore allegiance to the British flag.
Gibraltar with Great Britain and Spain are members of NATO. Are you planning to leave NATO and attack Gibraltar? What are you talking about killing, killing who?
What you are saying is nonsense. Why would Gibraltar want to take over any more land? Trust me La Linea is safe. Many I have read say they wouldnt mind if the Frontier was situated as far back as Puente Mayorga and then they would all be Gibraltarian no unemployment no problems, but unfortunately for them, it cannot be, they missed their chance to be part of us three centuries ago.
Brujo take a couple of Locatils and go to bed, I think you need to give your worked up brain a rest from so many battle scenarios.
aussiesunshine – “Gibraltar back to Spain, Belice back to Guatamala Northern Ireland back to Ireland Malvinas back to Argentina and”
Jamaica back to Arawak. South Africa back to Zulu. Benin back to Dahomey.
John
You’re the one that needs to do some research. Unlike you I’ve done mine. Here is a summary of British actions on Diego Garcia sourced from the Guardian for your enlightenment:
‘The story of Diego Garcia is shocking, almost incredible. A British colony lying midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean, the island is one of 64 unique coral islands that form the Chagos Archipelago, a phenomenon of natural beauty, and once of peace. It is the word “uninhabited” that turns the key on the horror of what was done there. In the 1970s, the Ministry of Defense in London produced this epic lie: “There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation.”
Diego Garcia was first settled in the late 18th century. At least 2,000 people lived there: a gentle Creole nation with thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a prison, a railway, docks, a copra plantation.
During the 1960s, in high secrecy, the Labor government of Harold Wilson conspired with two American administrations to “sweep” and “sanitize” the islands: the words used in American documents. Files found in the National Archives in Washington and the Public Record Office in London provide an astonishing narrative of official lying all too familiar to those who have chronicled the lies over Iraq.
To get rid of the population, the Foreign Office invented the fiction that the islanders were merely transient contract workers who could be “returned” to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away. In fact, many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in January 1966, “is to convert all the existing residents … into short-term, temporary residents.”
What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir Paul Gore-Booth, permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: “We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls.” At the end of this is a handwritten note by D.H. Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill: “Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays …” Under the heading, “Maintaining the fiction,” another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as “a floating population” and to “make up the rules as we go along.”
There is not a word of concern for their victims. Only one official appeared to worry about being caught, writing that it was “fairly unsatisfactory” that “we propose to certify the people, more or less fraudulently, as belonging somewhere else.” The documents leave no doubt that the cover-up was approved by the prime minister and at least three cabinet ministers.
At first, the islanders were tricked and intimidated into leaving; those who had gone to Mauritius for urgent medical treatment were prevented from returning. As the Americans began to arrive and build the base, Sir Bruce Greatbatch, the governor of the Seychelles, who had been put in charge of the “sanitizing,” ordered all the pet dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. Almost 1,000 pets were rounded up and gassed, using the exhaust fumes from American military vehicles. “They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked,” says Lizette Tallatte, now in her 60s,” … and when their dogs were taken away in front of them, our children screamed and cried.”
The islanders took this as a warning; and the remaining population were loaded on to ships, allowed to take only one suitcase. They left behind their homes and furniture, and their lives. On one journey in rough seas, the copra company’s horses occupied the deck, while women and children were forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertilizer. Arriving in the Seychelles, they were marched up the hill to a prison where they were held until they were transported to Mauritius. There, they were dumped on the docks.
In the first months of their exile, as they fought to survive, suicides and child deaths were common. Lizette lost two children. “The doctor said he cannot treat sadness,” she recalls. Rita Bancoult, now 79, lost two daughters and a son; she told me that when her husband was told the family could never return home, he suffered a stroke and died. Unemployment, drugs and prostitution, all of which had been alien to their society, ravaged them. Only after more than a decade did they receive any compensation from the British government: less than £3,000 each, which did not cover their debts.
The behavior of the Blair government is, in many respects, the worst. In 2000, the islanders won a historic victory in the high court, which ruled their expulsion illegal. Within hours of the judgment, the Foreign Office announced that it would not be possible for them to return to Diego Garcia because of a “treaty” with Washington – in truth, a deal concealed from parliament and the U.S. Congress. As for the other islands in the group, a “feasibility study” would determine whether these could be resettled. This has been described by Professor David Stoddart, a world authority on the Chagos, as “worthless” and “an elaborate charade.” The “study” consulted not a single islander; it found that the islands were “sinking,” which was news to the Americans who are building more and more base facilities; the U.S. Navy describes the living conditions as so outstanding that they are “unbelievable.”
In 2003, in a now notorious follow-up high court case, the islanders were denied compensation, with government counsel allowed by the judge to attack and humiliate them in the witness box, and with Justice Ousley referring to “we” as if the court and the Foreign Office were on the same side. Last June, the government invoked the archaic royal prerogative in order to crush the 2000 judgment. A decree was issued that the islanders were banned forever from returning home.
However, the islanders are going to the European court of human rights, and perhaps beyond. Article 7 of the statute of the international criminal court describes the “deportation or forcible transfer of population … by expulsion or other coercive acts” as a crime against humanity.
So much for your assertion of British ‘sacred trust’.
FurtherBeyond – you’ve shared an interesting bit of history that I think many of us (myself at least) were not aware of. I have to commend you for that. Britain absolutely did violate the sacred trust of the inhabitants of that island. And, apart from that, it was a crime against humanity. Not in a “ICJ say so” sense, but a violation of what most of Western culture recognizes as innate human rights that we all share.
You just told us that these people were committing suicide because the forced evacuation made them lose everything – home, family, finances and who knows what else of tangible or irreplaceable value.
How can you tell us this – then turn around and advocate the same thing for the people of Gibraltar? You said The British government said it was fine to expel these people because they were “transients” or “not permanent workers.” Then, in an earlier post, you said that the population of Gibraltar is not actually a “people.”
How do you decry the treatment of the former peoples of Diego Garcia on one hand and then endorse what is tantamount to the same for the peoples of Gibraltar?
Well said Reality, couldnt agree with you more. And if the history lesson FurtherBeyond has given us here were accompanied by a link of the provenance of this lesson it would be a plus. I’ve read different, but maybe he has a better search engine than I have.
@ Aussiesunshine
I was wondering when you would join the party and pass your traditional inflammatory comments. Typical of you!!
@ Furtherbeyond
Surely you must see how there are different views on Diego Garcia, and there are arguments both ways. You rely on one source of information only (the Guardian), but there are many others.
Nonetheless, you overlook the fact that these ‘colonies’ were originally leper colonies (people abandoned to their fate/death) and the workers of some coconut plantations. You also hide the fact that Diego Garcia is a remote atoll with very limited resources. If the population had been left alone many would have been isolated from the rest of world and most/all would have been killed or devastated by any number of natural disasters. Also, by remaining isolated the inhabitants would have had a very poor standard of living without proper nutrition or medication for common diseases.
Also, are you aware of the Pitcairn Islands? This isolated community ended up abusing its own population by taking advantage of its remoteness and lack of contact with civilization. Check it out and compare: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands”
Notwithstanding the above, I admit that Great Britain, like any other country, is not perfect. This MAY be an example where they turned a blind eye to the rights of some people, albeit on a possibly justified basis.
However, at least these people were able to go to court in the the UK and can appeal to the ECJ or even the ECHR. The UK will be bound to respect the decision of these ultimate courts of appeal and compensate the people if that is what is decided. But at least the parties will all go to court and a final decision reached (they may well be compensated for losses, then again, they may lose their case as well).
What is ridiculous is that in Gibraltar’s case Spain will not consent to any court dealing with this issue, let alone agree to provide any compensation which may be due to the people of Gibraltar.
Also, you seem to defend the rights of the supposed people of Diego Garcia. You do realize that that population was only about 3.3% of the Gibraltar population, and yet you feel the Gibraltarians have no rights at all.
You, sir, are a hypocrite.
John
You’re the hypocrite. You were the one proclaiming how Britain allegedly acts under a ‘sacred duty’ to protect people living in its non-self governing territories.
You also ignore the fact that the displaced inhabitants of Diego Garcia found no justice in the UK but have had to resort to the European Court of Human Rights for a remedy.
I would also appreciate if you could stop verbal-ling me. At no time have I ever suggested that the current inhabitants of Gibraltar should be displaced (even though that’s exactly what the UK did to the Spanish population they forcibly displaced in 1704 – and the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in 1971).
What I’m saying is, that as a matter of common sense and international law, a coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonising. In cases such as these, the inhabitants of the territory have no right to UNILATERALLY DETERMINE THE NATIONALITY OF THE LAND THEY OCCUPY.
Since you are obviously having problem s with the logic try thinking of it this way – what if a group of people from say Ireland established an Irish colony on the eastern coast of England and then claimed a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they are occupying declared a part of Ireland. Can you see the absurdity of the proposition now?
@ Furtherbeyond
Please get a life mate.
The ECJ is part of the UK legal system, in fact, the ECJ is the final court of appeal for the UK. Thus, as it can be seen, the UK is allowing justice to take its natural course (unlike Spain with Gibraltar, which you conveniently continue to ignore).
You are also ignoring the entire history of the modern world!!! USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru…well the list is practically endless. They ‘unilaterally’ declared the nationality of the land they occupy. Gibraltar has existed for longer than many of these places – but you would apply different rules to my ‘country’ simply because of convenience for your arguments.
Lets not forget the Basque country, Catalonia and Galicia. Spain sent very many colonizers to the Basque country so as to balance that population with their own. The land remains Spanish despite the fact that the majority of the true natives would rather be independent, in fact they are considered terrorists (and Spain will not even negotiate with them, unlike the UK with the IRA).
Please note that I have not even discussed Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands (to name only a few of the Spanish colonies/enclaves).
You really do not know what you are on about. And I repeat, not only are you a hypocrite, so are many Spanish politicians (not to mention the Spanish judges appointed to the EU).
I do not worry though, eventually (with the economic crisis) Spain will show all its true colours for the world to see. I sit and wait (and laugh).
John
I have a great life, but thanks for your tongue-in-cheek concern.
The European Court of Human Rights is not a UK institution. It is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe and all of its 47 member states are parties to the Convention.
Your blatant hypocrisy on this is astounding. The various UK governments have done everything in their power over a number of years now – including resorting to the royal prerogative – to deny any semblance of justice to the Chagossians.
My argument concerning the status of Gibraltar is based on the critical fact that Gibraltar continue to be listed by the UN as a territory that still needs to be decolonised.
This is no Spanish conspiracy nor an accident of history, the UK specifically requested that Gibraltar be included on that list. It is also nub of the issue.
This fact can be used to distinguish Gibraltar from all the other territories you have mentioned (Ceuta, Melilla, Yugoslavia etc). It also challenges the validity, in international law, of the Treaty of Utrecht.
That treaty might have validity otherwise, although there is a valid argument that British occupation of the isthmus and its failure to implement all of its provisions means that the UK is in breach of the treaty.
However, the fact that the UN still identifies Gibraltar as one of a number of territories that still need to be decolonised means that the treaty’s validity today is even more questionable. This is because that Treaty was itself the basis for the establishment of what is by modern law standards an illegal colony.
Neither I nor any reputable international lawyer accepts your inference that treaties are the only basis for international law. For example, under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that conflicts with a peremptory norm is void: ‘… a treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.’
The number of peremptory norms is considered limited but not exclusively catalogued. They are not listed or defined by any authoritative body, but arise out of case law and changing social and political attitudes. Generally included are prohibitions on waging aggressive war, crimes against humanity, war crimes, maritime piracy, genocide, apartheid, slavery and torture.
As an example, the ICJ has ruled that it is impermissible for a State to acquire territory through war as a peremptory norm.
By the way, the UK also has the option of referring Gibraltar’s sovereignty to the ICJ if it so chooses. However, the UK is unlikely to do so for a number of reasons.
Apart from the uncertainty inherent in the outcome of any legal decision, equity requires that a party must approach a court ‘with clean hands’ when seeking an intervention or remedy.
However,the UK has failed to comply with international law by not decolonising Gibraltar. It has also failed to honour its commitments under the Brussels Agreement on this issue.
It would be a complete embarrassment, as well as the height of hypocrisy, for the UK to seek the ICJ’s intervention on the application of UNCLOS to the waters of the Bay of Algeciras, given its intransigence in not complying with its international law obligations to meet with Spain to discuss Gibraltar’s decolonisation.
The fact remains that Spain does not recognise the British colony of Gibraltar nor UK sovereignty over the Bay of Algeciras. Spain will therefore continue to protect its fishermen and enforce Spanish and EU law in the Bay of Algeciras.
If the UK has a problem with this then perhaps it should finally heed the many requests of the UN General Assembly, and its own commitments under the Brussels Agreement, and sit down with Spain to discuss the decolonisation of Gibraltar.
FurtherBeyond – “You’re the hypocrite. You were the one proclaiming how Britain allegedly acts under a ‘sacred duty’ to protect people living in its non-self governing territories.”
I don’t think anyone claimed that any country always acts perfectly according to a sacred duty. That would be naive Rather – that sacred duty exists as duty of a state government to its population.
And violation said duty (or treaty, agreement, law, etc.) does not make it disappear. A thief doesn’t get free reign to steal just because they stole once the first time. And a government doesn’t get free reign to abuse its population simply because it has in the past
Far Beyond – “The fact remains that Spain does not recognise the British colony of Gibraltar nor UK sovereignty over the Bay of Algeciras. Spain will therefore continue to protect its fishermen and enforce Spanish and EU law in the Bay of Algeciras”
Dont look now but, isn’t that the signature of legal Spain’s rep in the UNCLOS legal binding document?
And whose signature is that on the Utrecht document giving Gibraltar in Perpetuity to England?
Could have sworn in was Spain’s legal representative last time I looked.
Bay of Gibraltar, Baye du Gibraltar, Gibraltar Bay, Bahia de Gibraltar. Look
“http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/9200109/CBB5A86C38F8FF0DFE07955D4A77C0E8E7661D90.html”
I would like to warn the Olive Press and its readers of another onslaught against Gibraltar already underway
Spanish Headlines are screaming “500 Spanish workers have been sacked from their jobs in Gibraltar since the beginning of the year!!” “Discrimination!!”
The fact that the bulk of these are construction workers who have been laid off due to the halting of the works which were being carried out to construct a tunnel under the airstrip which was stopped mid way, and that construction companies engage and disengage labourers depending on demand doesnt seem to have hit those who are proclaiming this so called “discrimination.”
Of these 500 nearly 200 extra workers, of all nationalities, Gibraltarians and UK personnel included, were engaged in a bid to finish the new airport in time for the new elections in December last year.The job finished, the workers were paid and that is it. Happens in Spain too doesnt it?
Since the PP Government came into power 800,000 workers in Spain have found themselves without a job and the majority have nothing to do with construction and much less Gibraltar.
From what I hear there is a huge probability that new cuts are on the way again…in Spain.
Makes you think Gibraltar is being rattled again in an attempt to distract attention from what may be just over the horizon.
You think the Spanish really want Gibraltar? What would they do without it as it is?
Just to make some corrections (I see FurtherBeyond doesn’t usually like to respond to these):
FurtherBeyond – “It is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights.”
It’s actually an “inter-national” court, not a “supra-national” one. If an international law conflicts with a state law the state law takes legal precedent and superiority. There is no “supra-national” authority that supersedes the sovereignty of individual states.
This is one reason that Interpol, for example, can almost never make arrests on its own. Instead, the actual authority to make an arrest lies within an individual country. Similarly, the ICJ, EC, etc. has no actual authority to force a country to comply with a treaty. It can cajole, coerce, beg, request, plead, or sanction. But it can’t send any actual body or group to enforce its decisions.
FurtherBeyond – “That treaty might have validity otherwise, although there is a valid argument that British occupation of the isthmus and its failure to implement all of its provisions means that the UK is in breach of the treaty.”
A treaty between nations has validity unless it is terminated. Even if one state violates – intentionally or unintentionally – a treaty, it does not terminate the treaty. There are formal processes to ending treaties, but simply breaking one isn’t one of them. I agree that the UK is in breach – but the treaty is still actually international law regardless. (And, as international law, it carries more ‘legal’ weight than the non-binding UN resolutions you like to cite).
Imagine a hypothetical situation regarding the Biological Weapons Convention (a treaty, and international law). One day country X proliferates biological weapons. They violate the treaty. If they continue – are they still violating the treaty? Or does the initial violation make the treaty disappear (thus meaning they can legally proliferate such weapons – no treaty, no violation)?
FurtherBeyond – “Neither I nor any reputable international lawyer accepts your inference that treaties are the only basis for international law.”
Kind of a mixture of the appeal-to-authority and no true Scottsman fallacies. Aside from the fallacious nature of the point, it’s also untrue factually. A number of academic and legal experts on international law argue that treaty is, in fact, the core basis of international law. Important figures who take this position – Malcolm Shaw (Keele Univesity), Harold Koh (Yale University), Jack Goldsmith (Legal Prof., Harvard Law School), Eric Posner (Chicago School of Law), Jan Klabbers (Directer of International Law at Finland).
I could go on and on; I would do a quick journal search on treaty as the basis of international law. It is a very basic principle. They are not the “only” basis – again, you’ve made an argument based on a half-truth – but they are the single most important, and fundamental, core of international law. The belief in “basic human rights” or “equality of peoples” is also a principle in international law. But when it really comes down to the actual application and force behind international law, it comes down to treaty agreements between nations and their willingness to abide by – and enforce – said treaties.
Also, major treaties of note that are international law: Kyoto Protocol, UN Framework on Climate Change, Convention Against Torture and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Note that, although these are all international law, not every country is a signatory of the treaty. The law does not apply to every single country in the world.
In fact, even the same treaty does not apply to every country equally. It only applies insofar as the actual states interpret the treaty. Finland, India, and the United States are all signatories to the Kyoto Protocal – they are ‘bound’ by this international law – but they all apply it differently based on their own interpretation of the treaty.
Another example: The Convention Against Torture. This is treaty-based international law. Not all countries are signatories – it does not apply to a non-signatory country. Some countries can go right ahead and torture people if they wish. And what is considered ‘torture’ in one country is not considered ‘torture’ in the next. In the United States, certain techniques are legal that are illegal in the United Kingdom. The USA has determined according to their interpretation of the treaty that they are in accordance. That, waterboardig or stress positions, for example, do not constitute torture.
Algeria – another signatory country of the treaty – has a definition of ‘torture’ that allows much harsher treatment. All of them are in accordance with the treaty, but the way the treaty is actually interpreted and applied by the individual states is done under the authority of state sovereignty. Thus, the exact same treaty (see: international law) can mean one thing in country A and a different thing in country B.
This is the way it has to be – otherwise you would have one country saying “they are violating the treaty” and expecting the next sovereign nation to conform to their own standards. In essence, it would be an attempt to apply the law of one country to another. You would have one country – or one non-state government – enforcing laws upon the entire world. And that isn’t what happens. And it certainly isn’t what anyone wants.
FurtherBeyond – “It would be a complete embarrassment, as well as the height of hypocrisy, for the UK to seek the ICJ’s intervention on the application of UNCLOS to the waters of the Bay of Algeciras, given its intransigence in not complying with its international law obligations to meet with Spain to discuss Gibraltar’s decolonisation.”
It might be embarrassing – but, if you want to play armchair international lawyer – this is actually the ‘legal’ thing to do. Either both states agree to submit to the current findings of the ICJ or they continue interpreting the treaties as they see fit. If you don’t want an ICJ ruling and you also don’t want to accept the way sovereign states apply the treaties – what source of authority do you expect to decide the issue? Your own personal interpretation?
Also, if you’re referring back to 2353 (XXII) – there is no current legal requirement to meet with Spain and discuss decolonization. That time has long passed and gone. The un-resolution (again – and the emphasis is important – a non-binding resolution) simply requested “a referendum of 10th September 1967.” Neither Spain nor Gibraltar had a legal requirement to abide by this non-binding resolution, be it if you believe that international law is based on treaty or that it came from God Himself. It’s 2012, neither Spain nor Gibraltar complied with the resolution demandin a referendum in 1967. The time has long passed. You need to find a legal solution for 2012.
Inthename
No va a llegar el día en que me veas nervioso.
Acabas de decir si España ataca Gibraltar y lo pones en mi boca te diré como antes tú a mi con lo de nazi que yo no he dicho exactamente eso.Te he dicho que no puedes conocer la situación política del futuro y que tu roca no es ni de lejos inexpugnable que no es lo mismo.
Me respondes que por que Gibraltar iva a querer algo más bueno pues solo tienes que leer la historia de tú roca.
@ Reality
Oh but we did comply with the resolution, the only problem was that once the referendum was held Spain declared it illegal! Seems Spain, when confronted with the blatant stark truth that the People of Gibraltar do not want to intergrate with Spain, simply chooses to ignore it or declares it illegal.
Spain would find it embarrasing to go the International Court of Justice because it knows that it would most likely be defeated on the British Jurisdiction of the waters.
Gibraltar did hold a Referendum in 1967 and another one on Joint Sovereighty Proposals in 2002.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_1967”
The options presented to Gibraltarians in the 1967 Referendum were:
(a) To pass under Spanish sovereignty in accordance with the terms proposed by the Spanish Government to Her Majesty’s Government on 18 May 1966; or
(b) Voluntarily to retain their link with Britain, with democratic local institutions and with Britain retaining its present responsibilities.
Gibraltarians voted by 12,138 to 44 to remain under British sovereignty.
Spain declared the 1967 Referendum Illegal.
The 2002 Referendum was held with the following question being put to the People of Gibraltar:
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002”
“On the 12th July 2002 the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in a formal statement in the House of Commons, said that after twelve months of negotiation the British Government and Spain are in broad agreement on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement of Spain’s sovereignty claim, which included the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar. Do you approve of the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar?
Gibraltarians voted 98.48% NO and 1.03% votes YES
International Observers who were invited to witness the intergrity and the process of the casting and counting of the votes said:
“ The observers were extremely impressed with the organisation of the referendum and particularly welcome that the role of the observers was integral to the process, as distinct from the more passive role of observers in other elections. The meticulous way in which votes were counted exceeded requirements and went beyond requirements adopted for UK elections”
The Spanish Foreign Minister at the time declared the Referendum as Illegal.
Mr. Straw declared the fact that Gibraltar had gone ahead and held a referendum on proposals of joint sovereignty as “eccentric.”
In his evidence to the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee in 2008, Jim Murphy MP, Minister of State for Europe, stated:
“The UK Government will never — “never” is a seldom-used word in politics — enter into an agreement on sovereignty without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar and their people. In fact, we will never even enter into a process without that agreement. The word “never” sends a substantial and clear commitment and has been used for a purpose. We have delivered that message with confidence to the peoples and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. It is a sign of the maturity of our relationship now that that is accepted as the UK’s position.”
Inthename – “Oh but we did comply with the resolution, the only problem was that once the referendum was held Spain declared it illegal! Seems Spain, when confronted with the blatant stark truth that the People of Gibraltar do not want to intergrate with Spain, simply chooses to ignore it or declares it illegal.”
Ah I actually was not aware of that. Like I said before – I’ve actually never even been to Gibraltar. This is a political situation that I haven’t been following extremely closely. (I’m not even 300 years old yet; I’m way behind the people of Gibraltar on this) I just pop in and try to correct some ideas (perhaps misconceptions) people have about international law. Personally, I think Gibraltar should have the right to determine its own destiny.
Inthename – “Gibraltarians voted 98.48% NO and 1.03% votes YES”
That says it all to me. It wouldn’t matter to me if Gibraltar was legal or illegal – you’ve got a population of 30,000 people in a tiny space who want to be left alone the way they are. What more is there really to say? Kick 30,000 people out, ruin their culture, change their government, take away their identity for 6KM(2) of land that is just a bunch of mountains? Sounds like an awful plan.
Yesterday I saw my uncle (Spanish professional fisherman) walking down the street and I called him over. And I asked him what he thought of Gibraltar. And I said that there were these long debates about it in English and Spanish news forums online. And he basically said, “What? Gibraltar? What about it? I remember when we went fishing over in so-an-so and caught a tuna, blah blah blah…”
He was only vaguely aware of the situation. I asked him if he thought it should be Spanish or stay the way it is and he said, succinctly “What? This is stupid. For a crate of sardines? Just leave it alone. It’s all political posturing. We don’t need Gibraltar.”
Now this is an old man, a professional fisherman (former captain of a professional boat, today just recreational deep-sea fishing). And he’s really what you could describe as ultra-conservative. If he didn’t care about Gibraltar – or even give legitimacy to the claim aside from it being Spanish nationalist political posturing – I have a hard to believing this is an important issue for Spain. Aside from perhaps more fertile waters (that will quickly be depleted); what is there to gain?
And people are talking about closing the borders and even invading?
I am sure that the people of Gibraltar will send us some of their Barbary macaque monkeys if we ask nicely.
Inthename – “Oh but we did comply with the resolution, the only problem was that once the referendum was held Spain declared it illegal! Seems Spain, when confronted with the blatant stark truth that the People of Gibraltar do not want to intergrate with Spain, simply chooses to ignore it or declares it illegal.”
Oh I forgot to add something – what you’ve described is completely normal. If two states agree on some form of mediation, be it a referendum with the Secretary General, a hearing in an international court, etc. and it doesn’t come out in the favor of one they almost always just ignore it. The one who ‘won’ says “but we won, it’s international law” and the one who loses shrugs and says, “but it was illegal; we interpret it differently.”
That’s why international law really has no teeth. It can’t be enforced or assert any authority that is greater than the individual states involved. In fact, we can’t even catch African warlords or Somali pirate kings even tough everyone knows where they are – simply because the governments aren’t handing them over. Charles Taylor is a good example. He ran around relaxing until he ruffled the wrong feathers. And it wasn’t Team International Law that got him in the end. It was the plain, old Liberian police who picked him up at the airport and sent him to the Hague.
@ Reality
In a Spanish survey 60% of Spaniards who were asked about Gibraltar said they couldnt care less. So basically they are saying the same as your uncle.
I said somewhere that Spain doesnt really want Gibraltar, they just rattle it when they find it convenient, Franco did it, and so many other subsequent governments have done it to distract from other issues. The problem with the “rattling” is that they use their own people to destroy any attempts at good relations there may be between both cities and in the process destroy in no time at all what has taken years to recreate, any feelings of trust which may have cautiously flourished between the two communities. You have read the comments made by the La Linea Mayor, Mrs. Gemma Araujo from the PSOE, a breath of fresh air, whose continous efforts and Gibraltar’s to have a “normal” relationship, is being continously undermined by the previous mayor PP who wanted to charge a toll for people entering Gibraltar. When he was told that was illegal and that he couldnt he had the beginnings of a toll lane built to get them to pay as they were entering Spain. Unbelievable between two european countries. This was soley so he could refill the cobwebbed coffers in the Ayuntamiento with Gibraltarians and innocent visitor’s money. Wont go into any details, but you can imagine whatever you like and you wouldnt be too far away from the truth. Some research will bring you news of that as it was all published.
If you are saying that Spain would again ignore the ICJ’s even if UK took the case to it for resolution, then why does Spain fear going? The Chief minister has publicly challenged Spain to do so.
We are a patiet people, and very resillient. It must be in our genes from 300 years ago. So, we will wait and see how things go. However no amount of wooing or threatening will change our minds…not now and not in the foreseeable future. I cant say about the future generations..it will then be their call.
;) About the Macaques..Quite a few have been shipped to various destinations,you may have read, Spain being one of them.
But the best way to see the is in their home ground. Sad to see the one in Jerez in a cage, broke my heart the saddness in that poor little chap’s eyes.
Inthename – “If you are saying that Spain would again ignore the ICJ’s even if UK took the case to it for resolution, then why does Spain fear going?”
It’s probably better not to have anything at all hanging over your head than to have to make excuses if things don’t go in your favor. That’s my guess. Why risk it, basically. Like you said – Spain doesn’t really want Gibraltar. It’s actually more strategic to keep it as a talking point than to have a ruling against Spain, or to have the ICJ say Spain has a right to a colony the people don’t actually want.
Basically, it’s an intentional strategy to keep a bit of controversy between countries. Give the Spanish ultra-nationalists a talking point.
Reality
You’re the one that doesn’t like to respond to substantive points. Firstly, the fact remains that various UK governments have done everything in their power over a number of years now – including resorting to the royal prerogative – to deny any semblance of justice to the Chagossians.
The fact that the Chagossians have had to turn to the European Court of Human Rights is evidence that the UK has completely failed them, as the European Court of Human Rights is not a UK institution.
The UK is required by its own domestic law to enforce decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, as implied in your last response, the UK could again choose to ignore the rule of law and resort to the royal prerogative to again ignore judicial decisions, but this would only serve to highlight its primitive constitutional arrangements and belie its claim to be a State governed by the rule of law – acclaim that it often likes to make.
You do not need to lecture me about international law. I am fully aware of its limitations. Of course only a nation State or a collection of nation States can actually enforce international law. But that does not detract from its legitimacy. Moreover, CIVILISED nations do respect it, if only because acting in compliance with it confers a measure of legitimacy.
Legitimacy is important in at least two regards – the external legitimacy of the action, i.e. the views of the rest of the civilised international community. One cannot argue for one’s rights under international law if one is unwilling to recognise its validity when it doesn’t suit you.
Internal legitimacy is also important, i.e. domestic perceptions as to the rightness of the action. Acting lawfully is a defining characteristic of a civilised State and this puts internal pressure on governments. Also international law may be important to the government because those that the government requires to carry out or support its actions (i.e. the military and the civil service) regard it as important. The point is important because it emphasises that it is erroneous to regard the State as a unitary entity and to regard it as one distinct from the individuals involved. What is classified as State interests will be what emerges from the decision making process of a group of individuals and entities internal to the State. The views of those individuals on what is legitimate is therefore of importance.
Thirdly, and this is a relevant consideration for the UK, international law matters because it is internalised not only in the public consciousness but also in UK law, in this case, in UK soft law. The Ministerial Code (Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers issues by the Prime Minister, 1997) specifically requires Ministers to comply with the law, including international law (see p. 10) and requires Ministers not to ask civil servants to act in a way which would be contrary to the Civil Service Code.
You appear to have missed my point about my reference to the ICJ. I’m also an advocate for international disputes to be resolved by that court. In the case of Gibraltar the ICJ will obviously have to rule on the limits of the right to self-determination. In this regard you should note that the ICJ has already stated that there are limits in cases analogous to that of Gibraltar. For example, in the Western Sahara case the ICJ found that some pre-existing legal ties of a third state to the territory colonized by some other state could in principle affect the decolonization of the territory (see para. 162 in particular). On the facts of that case, the Court did not find that such legal ties existed between Morocco and the Mauritanian entity and Western Sahara, and therefore it did not specify what the precise effect of such ties could be. Arguably, however, if a third state had title over the territory, which was usurped by the colonizer, this would have an effect of limiting the right of a people of that territory to internal, rather than external self-determination, as is indeed normally the case.
All I was saying was that the UK also has the option of referring Gibraltar’s sovereignty to the ICJ if it so chooses. However, the UK is unlikely to do for the reasons I have provided.
You also have completely missed my point with respect to the referendum conducted by Gibraltar in the 1967. UN adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), noted that the referendum conducted by the people of Gibraltar was contrary to the various resolutions which had been adopted by the UN General Assembly requiring the UK to decolonise Gibraltar and therefore invalid. That resolution serves to reinforce that the right of self-determination is limited and does not apply to transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where a pre-colonial claim of sovereignty exists. This is the case with Gibraltar.
FurtherBeyond – “Moreover, CIVILISED nations do respect it, if only because acting in compliance with it confers a measure of legitimacy.”
“…this would only serve to highlight its primitive constitutional arrangements.”
“Moreover, CIVILISED nations do respect it…”
“…the rest of the civilised international community…”
Why is it that whenever a country doesn’t conform to the standards we expect we say “Oh, but the ‘civilized’ countries do this…” I see this in reference to Spain a lot; contrasting Spain as uncivilized versus the “civilized” UK. But the UK is not one of the civilized countries suddenly because of Gibraltar? Which are the civilized and uncivilized countries exactly? It’s something I hear frequently on colloquial speech from the British (and in comments here) And it is disturbing – because it was the, “Oh, but they aren’t civilized. We must civilized them” argument that was a key justification for colonization (and worse) in the history of the Great Britain.
So who exactly are these civilized nations? France, that has secret special-ops militias of foreigners stationed in countries all around the world? The USA, with its huge prison population, death penalty and unilaterally invading countries? China, with its 20x higher pollution levels despite being a signatory? Russia, with a president/dictator/KGB agent assassinating political dissidents?
Surely not the majority of UN member nations – the vast majority of which are totalitarian regimes, oligarchies, dictatorships, theocratic states, or military regimes.
So who are these majority of ‘civilized’ nations respecting – and creating – international law?
FurtherBeyond – “You’re the one that doesn’t like to respond to substantive points. Firstly, the fact remains that various UK governments have done everything in their power over a number of years now – including resorting to the royal prerogative – to deny any semblance of justice to the Chagossians.”
If you’ve made some point I missed that you want me to respond to just ask and I will. I think every post you made referenced resolution 2353 as the core claim, which I’ve responded to – and the resolution doesn’t say what you have been claiming it says.
And as far as I know regarding the Chagossians, I agree with you. But what exactly does this have to do with the current state of Gibraltar? How does this fit into the debate here? “The UK was bad in the past, so it is bad here?” This is the fallacy of poisoning the well. How do you justify the decolonization of Gibraltar based on the UK forcefully decolonizing Diego Garcia – which we all seem to agree was a bad thing (an understatement). It seems like you are essentially endorsing the same thing for Gibraltar that happened in Diego Garcia.
And here is one thing I’d really like your option on, FurtherBeyond. I’d like to know this more than anything – since a majority of the Spanish don’t want Gibraltar and a majority of the inhabitants of Gibraltar don’t want to be Spanish, does that mean anything to you?
The gift of the gab in action.
Fred, are you enjoying the debate? I would say its democracy in action, thanks to the Olive Press for allowing differing views to expose them.
Cheers.
@Reality
Ceuta and Melilla are two enclaves/colonies which were artificially populated by Castillians and were subjected to a referendum a few years later, Do you want to be part of Portugal (Ceuta belonged to the Portugese King and was taken over by the Castillians) or do you want to stay with Spain? Guess what the answer was? No points for guessing. Portugal must have been then more democratic, as it respected the will of the people and the results of that particular referendum, which wasnt what Portugal wanted to hear am sure, and not subject to the United Nations resolution of 1967 either. (Might be worthwhile for you to take a look at who was sitting at the UN at the time and voted against the rights of Gibraltarians to self determination, might throw some light into the matter.)
The fact that both Ceuta and Melilla had belonged to Mauretania and then the Kingdom of Fez, and was not part of any treaty conceding the territory in Perpetuity so on and so forth, (no mention of waters or airspace either for that matter obviously), does not seem to alter the fact that Morrocco wants it back and has for years made noises about it. The last time by the Moroccan Foreign Minister this spring in Madrid itself. I can provide a link, but am feeling a bit lazy today.
I wonder what FarBeyond would say in the event that Morocco took Spain to the ICJ over these colonies/enclaves?
Would he champion the people who lived in the Chagos islands too then and place them as an anchor piece in his arguments against the People of Melilla and Ceuta not wanting to revert to Morocco and denying them self determination? Like Gibraltar’s flag has the colours and the shield that the Queen Isabella herself embroidered, a copy of course, the original was taken by the people to San Roque after the Anglo/Dutch fleet took over Gib), the flag of Ceuta too has the colours and the shield of King Pedro II of Portugal, former conquistadores of the the land, which I might add does not form of the intergrity of spanish territory.
Reality
The ‘primitive constitutional arrangements’ reference refers to the fact that under the British constitution the royal prerogative can trump a judicial decision. This is what the UK government did when several British courts ruled in favour of the Chagossians (see my earlier posts for full details).
This is consistent with my other comments that ‘civilised’, or if you like ‘more advanced, less primitive’, governments accept the rule of law as well as respect international law even when there is no one there to enforce it.
My reference to the UK’s abysmal treatment of the Chagossians was in turn a response to a number of posts by clearly biased contributors who were attempting to trumpet how the UK, unlike Spain, acted like a ‘civilised’ State.
I’m definitely not advocating that the Gibraltarians be treated in the same way that the UK treated the Chagossians. That is simply a slur that some of the less scrupulous contributors are attempting to ascribe to me in order to undermine and obfuscate my substantive arguments.
My exact words in response to these slurs were: ‘I would also appreciate if you could stop verbal-ling me. At no time have I ever suggested that the current inhabitants of Gibraltar should be displaced (even though that’s exactly what the UK did to the Spanish population they forcibly displaced in 1704 – and the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in 1971). What I am saying is, that as a matter of common sense and international law, a coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonising. In cases such as these, the inhabitants of the territory have no right to UNILATERALLY DETERMINE THE NATIONALITY OF THE LAND THEY OCCUPY’.
My reference to UN Resolution 2353 is only meant as further evidence in support of my central point that the right to self-determination is limited.
To summarise for your benefit from my previous posts – under international law there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where a pre-colonial claim of sovereignty exists. This is the case with Gibraltar which is listed by the UN as a territory that needs to be decolonised by the UK.
A coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonising. In cases such as these, the inhabitants of the colonised territory have a right to have their ‘interests’ considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in.
Gibraltarians’ right to self-determination is dubious for the following reasons:
They do not constitute ‘a people’, and only ‘a people’ is entitled to self-determination under international law. Their status as ‘a people’ has never been recognized by the UN, who have consistently called them a ‘population.’
Moreover, they are not a population indigenous to Gibraltar, but were settled there by the UK displacing the Spanish population that previously existed there (after the capture of Gibraltar by Anglo-Dutch troops, only 70 out of the original 5,000 Spanish inhabitants remained in Gibraltar).
The UN General Assembly has passed two resolutions on the issue (2231 (XXI), ‘Question of Gibraltar’and 2353 (XXII), ‘Question of Gibraltar’). The resolutions on the decolonisation of Gibraltar focused on the ‘interests’ and not the ‘wishes’ of the Gibraltarians. The latter resolution states that:‘any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly’.
When the current occupants of Gibraltar conducted a referendum in 1967 declaring their wish to remain British, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), questioning the validity of the referendum noting that the referendum was contrary to the various resolutions which it had previously adopted. Thereby confirming the view that the right to self-determination is limited in the case of the current occupants of Gibraltar.
In response to your final question, I suggest that you refer to my comments above. All Spanish governments since 1704 have without exception continually called for the UK to decolonise Gibraltar. The current democratically elected government has again called for the UK to honour its previous commitments to discuss the decolonisation of Gibraltar.The UN continues to call for the UK to decolonise Gibraltar.
Perhaps the UK should honour its commitments under the Brussels Agreement and heed the UN’s calls for it to meet with Spain to discuss how Gibraltar can be decolonised while fully protecting the interests of its current inhabitants.
@ FurtherBeyond
I will try to make make this short and sweet lest I risk the wrath of your words once more.
1) Although the House of Lords/Supreme Court is the final national court of appeal in the UK, the European Court of Justice is the final court of appeal to the UK (even though it is an EU institution)- it has this official status in the UK. The UK has always followed these rulings and accepted them even when not satisfied with the outcome.
2) The European Court of Human Rights is a different entity, although it is also indirectly linked to the EU and the member states. The UK usually follows these findings, but can make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ if there are good reasons not to follow a decision (in reality these are very are, and usually for good/valid reasons).
3) Please, please address the Ceuta and Melilla point – is there anything you can say on this that will not make you sound hypocritical? Oh, let me guess…there are no UN resolutions on these territories so Spain is acting in accordance with the law, how convenient!!
(But seriously, I look forward to your thoughts on the Spanish colonies/enclaves, or whatever you want to call them to make them seem different to Gibraltar).
FurtherBeyond – “My reference to the UK’s abysmal treatment of the Chagossians was in turn a response to a number of posts by clearly biased contributors who were attempting to trumpet how the UK, unlike Spain, acted like a ‘civilised’ State.”
I apologize – I believe I misconstrued what you said completely then. We’re definitely in agreement at least on this one point. The UK certainly has a history of taking equally abysmal – or worse – actions than a lot of the countries criticized as being “uncivilized.” You’re example with the Chagossians is certainly one of those.
Anyway, we’ve gone back and forth over international law enough by this point I think we’re both just repeating ourselves. Maybe we can switch the theme and discuss Gibraltar from a slightly different view. Because there are a few things I want to understand:
Let’s say it is completely illegal for Gibraltar to remain a colony, or for them to be independent because they are not technically a “people.” I’m not necessarily sure this is true, but just for the sake of discussion let us assume it is. And let us assume everything else you’ve said is correct in respect to international (and domestic) law from this point forward.
Although not a “people” legally – there are some 30,000 individuals there. And they don’t want to be Spanish. And the Spanish don’t want them to be Spanish. Culturally they are completely distinct. So, even if legally they are required to decolonize, should they actually do so? Even if legally required under international law is it the moral, the ‘right,’ thing to do?
Because, in my opinion, it is fine to ignore or violate a bad law. And it seems like – assuming international law requires decolonization and disallows independence for this group of 30,000 individuals living on the rock – that is just a bad law. There is no benefit for them to be Spanish. They don’t want it; the Spanish don’t want it. It’s basically bad for everyone.
Now, there is an ethical position that would state it is morally ‘right’ simply because it is the law. “We must respect the law. Respecting the law is moral. Breaking the law is immoral.” But then to be consistent we must assert that we are required to respect any law, at any time (that is applicable to us). And that includes bad laws. What if a law is bad or just plain evil? In this ethical framework, we would still be required to abide by it. In fact, we couldn’t even say “that’s an evil law” because, by definition, it is “good” because it is the law.
Just one exception – one bad law – demonstrates that “it’s the law” really isn’t a very good ethical foundation for our morality.
Instead, we make laws to enforce what we believe to be an innate, utilitarian or at least conceived “good.” The “good” isn’t birthed into existence due to the creation of a law. We assume it is evil to murder because murder is inherently evil, not because there is a law that says it is illegal. If all laws against murder disappeared and we were all free to kill at will, People would still say “murder is evil.” (Although you can bet people would start killing each other left and right.)
So basically what I don’t understand is, even if we assume all of your arguments are correct legally, why do you actually support the decolonization of Gibraltar? Do you really want to see it decolonized or is this just an intellectual argument on it being illegal? Is decolonization really a good thing for anyone? What are the benefits and the consequences, both for the people of Spain and of Gibraltar? These Gibraltar fellows seem like they are pretty happy living in their little colony. How can we ethically – not just legally – justify taking that away from them?
Reality
As previously mentioned, at no time have I advocated the removal or displacement of the people of Gibraltar. In a decolonised Gibraltar they would of course be free to live where they do now.
A decolonised Gibraltar would be treated by Spain like any other Spanish autonomous region. The Gibraltarians would continue to have their own regional government much as they do now. The regional government would be elected by the people of Gibraltar. That government would be responsible for the administration of schools, universities, health, social services, culture, language, urban and rural development and policing. The people of Gibraltar would also have separate representation in the European Parliament.
The only substantive difference, apart from the fact that Gibraltar would once again be formally part of the Kingdom of Spain, would be that Spain rather than the UK would be responsible for defence and foreign policy.
Of course a decolonised Gibraltar would also allow complete freedom of movement between Gibraltar and the rest of Spain. It would also result in significantly improved relations between Spain and the UK.
It’s worth noting Between 1984 and the early 2000s, discussions over sovereignty took place in the framework of the Joint Communiqué Agreed by the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom and Spain of 1984 (‘Brussels Declaration’). Gibraltarian representatives participated in the Brussels process as part of the UK delegation, until December 1987, but did not do so after that date.
The aim of the Brussels process is to resolve all differences between the governments over Gibraltar, including sovereignty.
In 2002 the UK and Spain agreed on a tentative plan for sharing sovereignty over Gibraltar. In exchange, Spain would guarantee enhanced local autonomy to Gibraltar, protect its local culture, and tax regime. Also under the plan, Gibraltarians would retain British nationality.
The Report of the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Parliament ([12 July 2002] [2002] 408 House of Commons Parliamentary Debates 1166) stated that even though no final agreement had yet been reached, the government was in broad agreement with Spain on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement.
For FurtherBeyond – Thank you for clarifying the motivations and giving me an insight into your point of view on it If all of that is true, it sounds to me like life really would not change much for people of Gibraltar were it to become Spanish. So just to sum up, basically they would still keep their British citizenship (and assume Spanish citizenship as well I am guessing), elect their own government as an autonomous region in Spain, continue with the same tax regime, etc. Based on this – it doesn’t sound like much would change or they would have anything to lose. Or much to gain (except for improve international relations / cross the border).
There was one point that I am not sure you addressed that is important to me – isn’t it true that is that the people of Gibraltar don’t want to be Spanish (and most Spanish don’t want Gibraltar)? How do you feel about that?
From the other side (Inthename, John, etc.) perhaps a rebuttal. Again, aside from any legal issues, what are the arguments against Gibraltar becoming Spanish? In what ways would this be bad for the people of Gibraltar? And why don’t the people of Gibraltar want to be Spanish?
Short and simple
Do you Reality want to be. say, Chinese against your wishes?
Inthename – “Do you Reality want to be. say, Chinese against your wishes?”
No, and good point. But I am sure there is more than just that. Would you be willing to go a bit more in depth, perhaps some other ways life would change for the people of Gibraltar, or other motivations behind it?
Because I don’t even know anyone from Gibraltar to ask them how they feel or what life is like in Gibraltar. So I assumed maybe – aside from having suddenly acquiring a new nationality, which is a big issue – they didn’t want to be subject to certain controls of the Spanish government, perhaps financial/tax issues, property laws, etc. Maybe a risk of cultural loss. I am aware that we’ve got 90%+ of people in Gibraltar who don’t want to be Spanish, so I just want to kind of put myself in their shoes and understand where they are coming from.
@ Reality
There are many non-legal reasons, a non-exhaustive list is as follows:
1. The Gibraltarian people are not Spanish and many have no Spanish roots at all, those that do don’t want to be Spanish either.
2. Gibraltar (the territory) is not Spanish (and has not been for over 300 years).
3. Our culture is not Spanish (although it has a Latin flavour).
4. Gibraltarians do not want to be Spanish.
5. Due to historical reasons (as well as modern Spanish politics) Gibraltarians do not trust Spain, or its agenda toward Gibraltar.
6. Spain has traditionally harassed Gibraltar in any way it can, from challenging Gibraltar legislation in the EU, to proclaiming to other states that Gibraltar is a drug haven and fiscal paradise – if we become Spanish, Spain will no longer have to go through these channels and will be able to dictate what we can and cannot do (as it presently tries to do).
Spain, also, is a financially corrupt country with much poorer governing standards than the UK. Gibraltar would actually gradually become everything they wrongly profess it to be at present.
7. The surrounding Spanish lands are, in fact, the poorest and most backward in the whole of Spain. By a process of osmosis Gibraltar’s high standard of living would be eroded away over time until we become the same. Our education etc will probably be tied to Spain instead of UK, and this is not good for Gibraltar.
8. Spain will gradually try to claim more and more rights off the Gibraltarian population, until they have none left at all. As Gibraltarians leave Gibraltar, Spaniards will then legally transplant the locals. (See the history of the Basque country).
9. In times of peril (i.e. 1st world war, 2nd world war and other modern conflicts) 9 out of 10 times Spain backs the undemocratic and losing side. At present Spain is supposedly a modern democracy…but, as of yet, she has not actually stood the test of time.
10. Even in modern times, if there is a dispute between Gibraltar and Spain, Spain either creates delays at the frontier or closes it off altogether. This cuts off Gibraltar from the rest of the world. If it actually owned the territory of Gibraltar, what recourse would the British Gibraltarians have?
11. Have I already said that Gibraltar does not trust Spain, and even if it did, given Gibraltar’s history and identity, it still would never want to be Spanish.
12. There is no way that Gibraltarians would want to change their nationality – why would a citizen with a great respect for his/her nationality ever want to change it?
13. Gibraltarians live in a British Gibraltar, why would they want to live in a Spanish one instead?
14. Gibraltar’s finance center reputation would be totally destroyed (instead of being financially linked to the UK it would be linked to far less successful Spain), and with it the hard work of many generations of Gibraltarians.
Maybe I have repeated myself, but I think you get the jist of the arguments.
Thanks John,
Wasn’t up to expanding on the answer. But the “Hong Kong” issue which Farbeyond keeps exposing as “similar,” which it is not, comes handy in this case. Why did thousands of Hong Kong citizens prefer to flee the country rather than stay, even for the time it took to formally hand over Hong Kong to rhe Chinese?
Culturally, they were much akin to the Chinese, yet they preferred to pack up their things and leave their homeland for the very same country whose flag they had been under for so many years.
Asking yourself why, would give you the same answers John has kindly exposed. We might look alike, we might also speak the language, to what an outsider would sound the same, but the difference in culture and everything else is abysmal. We are tourists in Spain, Reality. Home is when we cross the frontier back into Gibraltar. The feelings of relief, well being and safety in your own home ground needs to be experienced to be understood, no matter what a jolly time you had in Spain. No outsider would ever be able to understand this fully.
Reality, if you like, ask yourself this question. What does being British mean to you. Surely its not the colour of your skin, the colour of your hair, whether you hate or love the weather, whether its cheaper to buy a villa in Spain than it is to buy an attic in Picadilly? Surely above all these things, if you scratch below the skin, there is something else that binds you to your country that you wouldnt change for anything in the world?
If you can find those sentiments and ideals I am speaking of, I am sure you will, look no more. You have solved the riddle.
John
UK treatment of the Chagosians
The UK has done everything in its power including
using the royal prerogative to trump decisions of its own courts that have gone in favour of the Chagossians.
The fact that the Chagossians have had to turn to the European Court of Human Rights is evidence that, contrary to your assertions above, the UK has completely failed them, as the European Court of Human Rights is not a UK institution.
Ceuta and Melilla
As previously mentioned, under international law there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where A PRE-COLONIAL CLAIM OF SOVEREIGNTY EXISTS.
This is the case with Gibraltar which was colonised by the UK while it was an integral part of Spain but not with Ceuta and Melilla which were Spanish hundreds of years before the Moroccan State existed.
Good posts and points John & Inthename.
FarBeyond
Well, there are those who feel that Ceuta and Melilla should be returned to form part again of the territorial integrity of Morocco, and they dont think, like you that the “transplanted” population of these colonies have a say in the matter either, as you can see from this news item on yesterday’s Spanish press. See how you can convince these activists who represent a movement with your same thinking about Gibraltar and its People. Maybe you will use our same arguments and just change the name of the territory.
“http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/espana/noticias/4211297/08/12/Detenidos-cuatro-activistas-marroquies-que-asaltaron-con-banderas-el-Penon-de-Velez.html”
Its not the first time its happened that activists from Morocco have moved in with flags and all into what they consider to be “stolen” territory, first there was Perejil now its Penon de Velez in La Gomera. And you may remember that it always happens when Spain starts to get stroppy about Gibraltar. Strange isnt it?
I just found out recently that there were these native inhabitants of what we now know as North and South America. They used to live all over. Then some Europeans came over and started creating territories.
Maybe we need to return these places to their rightful owners. Or at least switch the government and administration over to control of the Native peoples.
In all seriousness – what is done is done. You’ve got a 300 year old population in Gibraltar. Transplanted or not – it was 300 years ago. Most of the world’s population has been transplanted to where they are at some point in the past. So you’ve got a stable community, an actual distinct “people” by anthropological definition (regardless of what the UN may classify as a “people”) and a consistent history of such over the last three centuries. This was all well and in place before the UN even existed.
FurtherBeyond, all of your arguments seem to center around international law and the legal status of Gibraltar. I know we do not all agree on the interpretation of the law here (you’ve cited at least one attorney on it, I have as well in previous posts). You can debate if it is legal or not, under international law, or if a 300-year-old treaty that was valid 300 years ago is in fact “illegal” today, but you’re missing the forest for a tree.
There must be an ethical and moral reason behind it, in my opinion – simply saying ‘Resolution X” doesn’t tell me if something is right or wrong. Example: Resolution 914 in Rwanda, which reduced security presence (preceding the Rwandan genocide) or Resolution 819 which facilitated the Srebrenica massacre. So saying “it is law” is not enough. Especially if it is non-binding law from an organization with blood on its hands.
Why does Spain really deserve that 6KM(2) stretch of land more than the people who have lived there for the last 300 years?
Right lets go back into recorded history for the sake of those that think of themselves as the indigenous people of Iberia. No disrespect intended, just facts.
Who were the first Iberians?
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians”
Who were the Visigoths
“http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/visigoths.html”
From the Visigoths to 1492 (The Christian Reconquista)
(Note that they did not call themselves Spanish but Christian against Moors)
“http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ecs”
The Napoleonic era
“http://countrystudies.us/spain/13.htm”
The Peninsular War
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War”
The Duke of Wellington?s involvement in throwing the French out of Spain.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington”
Spain becomes a Nation in 1812
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutions_of_Spain”
The Treaty of Utrecht which gave Gibraltar over to England in Perpetuity was signed in 1714, even before Spain constituted itself as a Nation.
If legally we went by the year Spain became a nation, then Gibraltar has been British for longer than Spain has be known as such.
Simple but factual.
Reality
I have already answered this question. But, because you have asked nicely, I will try to do so again, as clearly as I can.
Firstly, no person with any knowledge of history could possibly deny that Gibraltar was Spanish before it was colonised by the UK (I’m aware that some contributors stubbornly and somewhat perversely continue to do so, however).
Morally and legally one cannot allow any nation or group to forcibly occupy another nation’s territory, displace its population, confiscate that populations’ property, transplant its own population and then proclaim that it has a right either moral or legal to declare the occupied territory to be part of nation responsible for the occupation.
Why don’t you try to put yourself in the shoes of the other for once and see were logic takes you. It is not just a matter of international law and simple morality but also common sense.
The reason why there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves is precisely because otherwise it would be lawful (but never moral unless you believe that theft is okay) for a group of people from say Ireland to establish an Irish colony in a town on the eastern coast of England, displace that town’s population by force, confiscate that populations’ property (both real and personal) and then claim a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they have occupying declared a part of Ireland.
Can you see the absurdity of the proposition(both from a moral and legal perspective)now? Oh, by the way, the passing of time does not excuse, or sanitise the crime.
Further Beyond
What crime for goodness sake? Why are others contributions “perverse”? And as for stubborness I must say you take the prize!
I have tried, without the least intention of being disrespectful, to point out to you and those that think like you that Spain itself could be considered a transplanted population with my last post. The same could be said for England if you go through history. The English queen hails from Germanic royal blood, her husband is a Greek Prince. Spain’s own royalty is another example. French royalty mixed with Greek making their descendants what? Do we only apply your “law” from 1704 onwards? What makes Spain different to Gibraltar? How many ethnic groups make up what Spain is today? Why are people in the north of Spain lighter in the colour of their hair and there are more blue eyes than down the down in Andalucia? (barring the tourists of course.) Australia is a transplanted population and so are so many other countries as is USA which is younger in its roots than Gibraltar itself. Do we apply your law there too?
As Rolf Harris said in his song ..”My boomerang won’t come back” and like the veritable boomerang Spain threw it away 300 years ago, and it too, won’t return to them that threw it away by Treaty, not by theft, no matter in how many commentators would wish it so. Isn’t accusing somebody of theft “illegal” when they have a signed document in their hands which is public knowledge?
This will be my last contribution to this Item:
Let me try to give Mr. FarBeyond a lesson in what a truly Gibraltarian People went through during the Second World War Evacuation of the “useless mouths” of Gibraltar.
Let me point out that, unlike the Ilois people of the Chagos archipelago, there was NO COMPENSATION, or BUYING OUT of copra plantations.
Those that were forced to leave Gibraltar, left with one suitcase each.
ALL the women, the aged, the infirm and the children were forced to leave their homes, their possessions, the tombs of their loved ones unattended, and what is more important, their husbands, their sons and their fathers, except those not required for the war effort, who were also forcibly evacuated.
All of 16,000 tearful, frightened souls. I have no option but to post links here, or else the post would be interminable, so I hope the moderators will allow again and I thank them in anticipation.
These 16,000 Gibraltarians were not slaves brought in by the French in the late XVIII, they were not a leper colony, they were not a French fishing industry, they were a People from different ethnic backgrounds,just like most countries today, who had been living in Gibraltar for generations, since 1704.
They were forced to leave on ships, crammed to the holds, sailing through U-boat infested Atlantic waters into unknown and unfamiliar territory. They DID NOT GO ON SHOPPING SPREES REGULARLY to those territories, in fact most had never left Gibraltar, and much like the Greek and Romans leaving their Beloved Bay of Gibraltar was like entering Hades.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Gibraltar_during_World_War_II”.
The idea was to gradually irk out the People of Gibraltar from their beloved Rock, as secret papers, freed and held in the Archives in UK, have now shown.
What those in power did not take into account then was the strength and resilience of the People of Gibraltar to fight back to return, and during the war the AACR Association for the Advancement of Civil Rights was formed.
It was this Association together with all the men folk of Gibraltar who had every single evacuee back, and they achieved their aims by 1952, twelve long years since the first ones had forcibly departed our shores in May 1940.
Many died in their new destinations and never saw Gibraltar again. Their bones lie in well attended graves and monuments to their ordeal in Madeira, Jamaica, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. They made the most of the time away as they were able, they created theatre plays, wrote songs, and those that could contributed to the war effort in any way they were able.
“http://www.rhul.ac.uk/geography/documents/pdf/currentstudents/fieldtrip/gibraltar.pdf”
No COMPENSATION was asked for and none was offered or given. All they wanted was to get back home. There was no recrimination; there was only joy and relief. They had contributed to the war effort with their pain, their loneliness and their tears and their work.
There is a book which was written and compiled by Mr. Joe Gingell, all proceeds go to five Cancer Charities, which contains the stories, the pictures and the history of the evacuation, all from the personal experiences of these evacuees.
It’s called “We thank God and England” and is edited by the Gibraltar Records Archivist Mr. Dennis D.Beiso. ISBN 978-0-9569756-0-7.
I would have called it “We thak God and our love for our homeland” but that is besides the point.
Now that is what I call truly a People of Gibraltar – let no one argue differently.
FurtherBeyond – “Morally and legally one cannot allow any nation or group to forcibly occupy another nation’s territory, displace its population, confiscate that populations’ property, transplant its own population and then proclaim that it has a right either moral or legal to declare the occupied territory to be part of nation responsible for the occupation.”
I think that you conflate “morally” with “legally.” Because, although you claim that there is a moral issue, you seem to fall back on “it’s illegal” to explain why “it’s immoral.” The two are not twins – in fact, often they are opposites.
Many would argue – in fact, most probably would – that it is “moral” in some cases to displace a population and take the land. This is, in fact, a foundation principle in both the Bible (with the early Kingdom of Israel) and in the Quran (With Medina and Mecca). So already you can find that there are, in fact, moral exceptions. At least for the approximately 4 billion human beings who follow one of the Big Three monotheistic religions and use that as their source of moral authority. And all you need is one exception to break a rule.
I do not believe this addresses the real point though. Let us assume that the creation of Gibraltar was, in fact, an immoral act in every way imaginable. Does this make it, therefore, moral to return it to its original state? Logically, no, due to the principle of conversion. Just because an initial act was “immoral” does not mean that attempting to rectify it in some way – even if by doing the exact opposite of the initial act – is going to be moral.
It could be moral, but you would have to justify it separately. Logically, due to the principle of conversion, we couldn’t claim something is now moral because its opposite was immoral. Just like you can’t claim all mammals are cats, just because all cats are mammals. It’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Thus there is a need to justify any moral actions on Gibraltar in the moment. It can’t be dependent, logically, on the history of Gibraltar due to conversion. It isn’t as simple as, “That was bad, thus this is good.” There are now a new people in Gibraltar – they are not the ones who existed 300 years ago. And to take any actions upon this group requires a moral justification apart from “Well, 300 years ago…” You’re talking about punishing the children for the sins of their fathers, so to speak. Not simply punishing an old man for a crime he committed when young, but punishing his descendants for simply being born to that man.
Anything that harms the people of Gibraltar has to have a moral justification behind it; saying “it’s the law” alone is not sufficient. No one has a moral obligation to respect a bad law. Saying, “it is territory” is not a moral argument either, but a legal one. The only real moral argument (“they displaced a people”) is only applicable to the original colonists, not the descendants ten generations down the line.
How would this be morally different, than, say, taking away something from any other non-native population who took the land by force and kept it (which describes, as far as modern history, all of the Americas, Australia and most of Southeast Asia)?
And what about the fact that the majority of the Spanish agree with Gibraltar – they don’t want it. Isn’t the will of the people to be taken into the moral equation in this case, or should it be decolonized despite the fact that is not the will of the people on either side?
Let me break my intention not to post with one more fact that Reality might not be aware of to strengthen the arguments against the fact that there was any forcible expulsion of the people who lived in Gibraltar before 1704. Gibraltar or Mons Calpe or el Penon as it was known then was populated after the Muslims who had occupied Iberia were finally thrown out, to make sure that there would not be a third onslaught from Africa’s shores. Those that came were convicts, ne’re do wells, and some merchants well paid for their troubles. Before then it was only used by shepherds to graze their goats, much as Perejil. There was no indigenous population of Gibraltar per se. There was on the mainland. And this “transplanted” populatio, when told that if they wanted to stay they would have to swear allegiance to the King of England, declined to do so, so they were “allowed” to leave. Those that did swear allegiance stayed, there are records to prove this, because censuses were made. Some even returned and swore allegiance and fought shoulder to shoulder with the British. So there is nothing morally wrong..there was a you take it or you leave it. They preferred to leave. Their choice, their loss.
* second sentence should read fallacy not fact.
Inthename,
I think most Olive Press readers would agree with your views on Gibralter as I do and are tired of the legalistic and historical poo which comes in a never ending stream from two posters and we all know who these two unrelenting boors are.
However on many posts you and others are not being factual on Iberia or Europe’s history as a whole and quoting wikipaedia which is far from accurate and indeed many contributers use it to score political or racial points.
I believe your’s and others ‘blind spot’is the result of being taught a pack of lies in school.
The Euskadi (their correct name) lived across most of western Europe for over 40,000 years. 6000 years ago the first of the Celtic peoples arrived – The Gaels, next came the Gallia,who constitute the bulk of the population of modern France, then the Britonnic, who make up the majority of Cymryu and lowland Scotland and last the Belgia, whose DNA most of the western ‘English’ have.
So if you are going to talk about Iberia and it’s inhabitants you must start with the Euskadi, then the Celts and Catalans and the Moreno’s who never get a mention at all.
The only place that the Latins have an absolute right to live is Italy (and not all of that either). In 300 BC the Celts sacked the then small city of Roma. Unfortunately they did’nt slaughter all the Romans, a mistake that was to cause their descendants to lose control of most of western Europe.
The Celtic heartlands were what is now Germany/Austria/The Czech Republic and France. The Celtic islands were on the Celtic periphery.
The Visigoths (Cortes) and the Goths (Pizarro) and the rest of the Ayran savages did’nt arrive in the Iberian peninsular until Charlemaine got lucky in Gaul against the armies of Islam.
It’s always the victors who get to write history which is mainly a pack of rascist lies and it is the oral cultures that tend to teach the truth.
The two countries that have the most brainwashed peoples in all Europe are the ‘English’ and the ‘Spanish’. Most ‘English’ are’nt ‘English’ at all but small Saxons/Zeelanders and Jutes. The tall ‘English’ are mainly Frieselanders or primitive Vikings from Bergen and Stavanger or Rus vikings from what is now Sweden. There are some ‘English’who really are English – they are tall and thin and are from northern Germany. Most ‘English’ cannot accept (denial syndrome) that they are Germanic people. Many ‘English’ refer to themselves as British which they most definately are’nt.
The Spanish say they are Latins – but for around 2% this is completely untrue. Recent DNA studies have proved completely that the ‘Spanish’ are 45%+/- Arab/Jewish Semites, 15% Catalans,15-17% Euskadi,20% Celtic,1-2% Morenos. Other mixed race peoples account for the rest.
I hope that some of you with open minds will check out what I have stated – trust no one and especially not what you were brainwashed into believing in school – every culture will try to brainwash it’s children into believing and accepting the status quo.
So, forget all the historical and legal b/s – The peoples who inhabit Gibralter whatever their origins do not want to be a part of Spain – end of story.
Reality
Firstly, your claim that: ‘…and what about the fact that the majority of the Spanish agree with Gibraltar – they don’t want it’, is stretching the truth somewhat isn’t it? Where is the proof for this astounding exaggeration? How do you reconcile your assertion with the fact that every Spanish government since 1704 to this day have continually sought to have the UK decolonise Gibraltar?
Indeed some of the more myopic contributors above have asserted that the reason why the current Spanish government is more vigorously pursuing this objective at the moment is to distract the majority of the Spanish population from other issues. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. This could only happen if it though this was a populist position to take – surely?
Your assertion that: ‘Many would argue – in fact, most probably would – that it is “moral” in some cases to displace a population and take the land. This is, in fact, a foundation principle in both the Bible (with the early Kingdom of Israel) and in the Quran (With Medina and Mecca). So already you can find that there are, in fact, moral exceptions. At least for the approximately 4 billion human beings who follow one of the Big Three monotheistic religions and use that as their source of moral authority. And all you need is one exception to break a rule’. Is really stretching a long bow – don’t you think?
The religions you refer to base their views, rightly or wrongly, on their belief that the entire world belongs to God and presumably God, as the original and rightful owner of the world, can do whatever he/she likes with his/her property.
It is certainly not a justification for stealing someone else’s property. Indeed both religions believe that stealing is morally wrong. Both religions also believe that restitution is the bare minimum remedy for theft.
The answer to your question: ‘How would this be morally different, than, say, taking away something from any other non-native population who took the land by force and kept it (which describes, as far as modern history, all of the Americas, Australia and most of Southeast Asia)?’ is that it isn’t.
Even though the original States responsible for those colonisations have long been displaced, there is still a moral need for restitution, in all those cases. That is the reason why, in most cases now, accommodations have been reached with the original first nation peoples in those States.
However, this is not the case with Gibraltar which still needs to be decolonised by the UK. This is why the UN and the EU are strongly advocating that the UK should meet its moral and legal obligations , and its commitments under the Brussels process, and sit down with Spain to discuss how Gibraltar can be decolonised while fully protecting the interests of its current inhabitants.
Hey one of my comments was removed. Whats that about? i dont swear or insult, yet somehow one comment has gone. i guess it was mistake by a moderator – maybe you can fix it.
(especially as the mountains of ranting and opinionated nonsence above is allowed!)
As for the silly commenters above, consider this: what if the Gibs shut the border?
Have you any idea what problems this would cause to spain? Very quickly the few noisy anti-gib spaniards would be running for the hills, chased by fellow spaniards with sticks, for ruining a good thing for the spaniards that have anything to do with gib.
Never say Never again!
@ Stewart Crawford.
I appreciate your support, am not too sure about the historical sequence of events as to ethnicity, since you provide no links to support them, whether from Wiki or elsewhere, although I respect your beliefs, to each his own. I for one, other than finding it boring, firmly believe that there is much to be learnt from history, a subject which I have always found extremely interesting and culturally enriching.
@ “others”
You might like to take a look at the following maps: The veracity of Wikipedia is not an issue here, neither is myopia. Apart from the fact that the tagged Map of the south of “Spain” is really the north of Morocco, it shows where these are situated, and its not precisely downtown Madrid!
Isla de las Nubes (Spain), Isla de Perejil (Spain) Ceuta (Spain) Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Penon de Alhucemas (Spain) Melilla (Spain) Islas Chafarinas (3 islands) All these Spanish possessions along the coast or directly on the coast of another continent.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_del_sur_de_Espa%C3%B1a_neutral.png”
Then there is the Isla de Alboran also in “Spain”:
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_de_Albor%C3%A1n”
The Canary Islands and the “Spanish” Sahara also in “Spain”:
“http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/spanish-sahara/timeline.htm”
Other “myopic” contributors might not like to be reminded of the People of the Sahara and their rights to self- determination as stated by the United Nations and the ICJ:
“http://www.unostamps.nl/country_spanish_sahara.htm”
The ICJ also delivered its verdict in 1975 in favour of the Saharaui People. This might explain why Spain, with the experience of the failure of Morocco to claim the land in the name of territorial integrity, and the sword of Damocles hanging over its own head if the Saharawi go down the road of independence, may not want to risk the same outcome of the ICJ in favour of the People of Gibraltar.
Morocco should have consulted on the “famous” self serving law exposed here by others.
As to the “crime” “theft” morality or “immorality” of UK’s treatment of the “indigenous” people (or not so indigenous) of a conquered land, a short history , attached below, exposing the “moral” treatment of the Guanches by the Spaniards in the Canary Islands, will put paid to so much nonsense spewed on these pages, and will, in comparison, beatify the actions of their UK counterparts. Makes interesting reading.
“http://www.lonelyplanet.com/canary-islands/history”
My thanks to OP and moderators for their patience. Cheers.
@ Inthename
I for one am grateful for this interesting literature. I cannot access all of the info from my present location, but will read it later on. I have always been vaguely aware of what you say…it is good for me to gain a deeper understanding of these issues.
This clearly rubbishes many of the false allegations made by FurtherBeyond and others and gives insight into the hypocrisy of Spanish foreign policy.
For all your ranting, i bet you still smoke the cheap cigs from Gib!
@InTheName: referencing some unknown bloke’s website, and at best wikipedia – which is the classic example of the one eyed man being king – is not supportive to your arguments. If anything it negates your opinions.
To seriously dicuss Gib, you’ll have to first agree to surrender all non mainland spain territories.
And secondly, if the brits left Gib, it wouldnt be worth having.
If you got hold of Gib what exactly would you do? – make it like La Linea, or maybe Benedorm. There’s not much space left for more illegal housing. And apparently spains already taken all the fish…
@ John
Well glad my research is of use to somebody, and is not considered spam. You are very welcome. Goes to show that you can learn something new every day and with the fabulous resources of the internet, books and sometimes personal experience, if you have the time, there is still much to learn, if only to expose other’s misrepresentations and half truths, and so much more enriching than listening to “hearsay” without foundation others might want to spew to damage Gibraltar’s and its Peoples’ image of course.
@inthename: i was responding to more than one commenter. sorry for any confusion.
David M
Like the saying goes “Read up or Shut up.” You obviously havent read any of the other posts. Posting wikilinks as opposed to other arguments, which there are, is for the ease of reference of people who obviously dont like to read more extensive stuff!
I am a Gibraltarian!!
David M
My answer to you came before your apology was printed. It still seems as if you had not read the posts, and it was more of a knee jerk reaction. Apologies accepted. No problem.
@inthename: i guess you didnt read my post right above yours…
Lunch break remember, even the moderators have to eat…I tend to read everything before attacking the keyboard.
Failte – Inthename,
I looked with interest at all the Gib posts and nowhere does anyone start with the original inhabitants of the Iberian peninsular – why?
The history of peoples in western Europe is very easy to access but no one including yourself starts at the beginning – now how could that be?
I don’t think you are trying to create a false picture but I question what you were taught in school.
The Aryans have always tried to airbrush the Celts from history – were you ever taught the historical facts at school?
As late as 1800 years ago there were no Aryans anywhere in mainland Europe – they were still on the Steppes. The first Arayns entered the peninsular sometime after the battle of Tours which were won by the Frank/Charlemagne.This was only possible after the Franks slaughtered 3 Roman legions made possible because they chose the type of killing ground totally unsuited to precise formations – the secret of Roamn success in warfare, as individual soldiers they were rubbish.
You have only quoted, like others the Romans/the Arabs and the ‘Spanish’ and you have started rather late in the day.
DYK – that the Iberian Celts arrived in the peninsular about 4000 years ago. They crossed over to north Africa via what is now called Gibralter, where they encountered the only authentic indigenous people – the Berbers and this was long before the Arabs left their homelands in what is now Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.
Ironically I saw last night on Sky there is a historical series starting called ‘The British’ and guess what it starts with the arrival in ‘Britain’ of the Romans LOL.
Of course the History professor is ‘English’ LOL.
This is the latest attempt to airbrush the Celts and the Euskadi out of the picture and to indoctrinate another generation in the lies.
Hey professor – the history of ‘Britain’ begins with the Euskadi who built ‘Stonehenge’ – wait a minute prof. when the world heritage monument was constructed the Saxon savages were still on the Steppes – so how come it has a Saxon name which is an outrage to the original builders.
So nowhere will the stone or Bronze age peoples be mentioned and whose blood runs through people living in the not united kingdom today – your Aryan brother Dr. Goebbels would be jealous of such a great lie.
So, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that your postings are out of ignorance of the historical facts and not from a malicious lying basis. Try reading some books (there are plenty) that you were’nt given to indoctrinate you at school.
I believe you said that you were orignally of ‘English’ blood, then go and buy a copy of Dr. John Davies – the Welsh. first written in Britonnic and then in English.
This a factual history not only of the Welsh but of ‘Britain’ in general – in no way will it be anything like the Aryan lies you were taught at school – all lowland Scots should read it as well, it will come as a great surprise to them as well and here is the real root of the Catholic/Protestant warfare.
Proof – there have been 2 DNA studies that I know of that proove conclusively the points I have made about Iberian Celts and the genetic makeup of modern Spain today.
Stop talking about illegal invaders such as the Romans/Visigoths et al. Any agreements that they or others made about Gibralter are irrelevant.
Since apart from the Celts of Galicia/Cantabria/Asturias, all others having been subsumed into the ‘Spanish’ only these ‘Spanish’ have any right to comment on the Gibralter issue.
Indeed all ‘English’ should buy John Davies book – it will make uncomfortable reading as it will for many Celts as a lot of Celtic myths are blown away as well. Of course only those who want to know the truth about their origins will buy, others are too frightened to deprogramme themselves.
BTW – there are over 170 million Celts across the world – supposing we all decided to take back what is ours – an interesting idea!
Good luck to all the Gibraltarians – you are going to need it – remember – never trust a whoring politician, they will always sell you down the river if it’s worth their while.
Stuart, your comments will fall on deaf ears.
I once pointed out the stark and obvious similarities between northern spain, and irish, traditions/cultures, to a Spanish Teacher. I thought a conversation about the Gaels, and other West Coast civilizations would be of interest.
Boy was i wrong, the teacher was as offended as a joke about mothers is to an Italian. She made it very clear for days that any idea that northern spain was not totally unique in culture was not acceptable.
At the time i assumed it was just her…
@Stuart
Sorry,I dont have a drop of English blood in me..so your beliefs are erroneous, and you also seem to forget I am bi lingual so I have had the opportunity to read both English and Spanish history books, from a very early age, as well as English and Spanish literature. My history teacher, a Gibraltarian, started with the Iceage…no inculcation of the “English” historical point of view as to Gibraltar, ever, as there you can find in the Spanish version of it in Spanish schools, so there goes your theory down the drain.
I am well acquainted with the Celts,(never heard them called Euskadis anywhere but here by you – that the Euskadis have Celtic origin yes) as I am with the fact that the “savage hordes” that came across the Pyrenees were germanic in origin The fact that I called them Goths and Visigoths is because that is what they called them in the history books I have read both in English and in Spanish. Now with the advent of the Internet there is so much more you can find out that your local school and City library could not offer in my days.
@David M you seem to jump on the nearest bandwagon to you. If your teacher was deaf and dumb as well as ignorant, dont try to blanket your opinion about her onto everyone else.
How stark and obvious is it that the root of flamenco is muslim in nature? Yet they have been denying the fact for years up until some twenty years ago someone from Dos Hermanas near Seville made it obvious to everybody?
How true is it that the root of Spanish cooking can be found everywhere on the Mediterranean coast? Being insular is typical of a people who have never left their shores and think they are the centre of the universe, and that everything is unique to them.
How many times in Callejeros Viajeros the Spanish programme which speaks to Spaniards living abroad have you heard the journalist ask the person concerned … “what do you miss most of Spain? That question to somebody in the Amalfi Coast for example. Or… When are you coming back to Spain…? Only to be left with egg on their face when those questioned say “Well, we might visit some day..but we are very happy here” or “the French food is wonderful!” and the journalist then asks “But surely, nothing like Jamon Serrano!!!!! Its just the same as an Englishman demanding fish and chips in Paris.
In Gibraltar we pride ourselves on the diversity of our cuisine. You might like to come along to Gib one day to our “Calentita Night” where you can sample the varied dishes that makes up our Gibraltarian cuisine Moroccan, Indian, French, Maltese, Genoese, British, Jewish,Spanish…The difference is we dont hide the fact that we are a mixed cocktail of ethnicity! And proud of it and proclaim it to the world.
@ Stuart Crawford:
You didnt look hard enough ….
Inthename
August 31st, 2012 8:59 am
Right lets go back into recorded history for the sake of those that think of themselves as the indigenous people of Iberia. No disrespect intended, just facts.
Who were the first Iberians?
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians”
Angling For Change!
The Gibraltar Government has announced that work on regulations to control fishing and other marine leisure activities is at an advanced stage. The Gibraltar Federation of Sea Anglers are said to be very pleased that these regulations are nearly ready to be put in place. After two years of working on their campaign “Angling For Change” the GFSA say that the government are very close to meeting their aims. An interim report shows that Gibraltar’s marine environment is under threat by over fishing and that Gibraltar must stand firm to protect it. The GFSA also state that the government should stand firm against threats made and aggression shown by the Spanish government. They have recommended that a legislative framework be put in place to dispel and disprove all the accusations made by Spain that Gibraltar was using environmental excuses to prevent Spanish fishing in Gibraltar territorial waters. They also urge the British government to take decisive action and to openly show support for Gibraltar in this latest conflict.
Source: “http://www.gibbook.com/magazine/read/gibraltar-news-14th-september-2012_258.html”
The Spanish race amuses me.
They have so many resources but their stone age mentality impedes them from growing both financially and socially. Let us remember that Spain has the highest domestic violence ratio in the whole of Europe.
Furthermore there is so much CORRUPTION taking place in the higher echelons of their society that they tend to use smokescreens on a weekly basis to divert attention from such stated corruption and misuse of Government funds. In essence attempting to make the masses less aware. That’s were Gibraltar comes in handy every single time (lucky them).
We must remember that Spain is only a young democracy and it shows.
Gibraltar employs over 10 000 Spaniards (officially) who come to Gibraltar to be able to feed their families beause there is little employment opportunities in Spain. Yet their Government submits these same people, their OWN people, to tedious border queues. Sometimes up to 6 hours in length just to irritate the Government of Gibraltar. This should have no place in a modern democratic Europe.
The Spanish Government has shown time after time in recent weeks it doesn’t really care about its people. It just wants to divert attention from the REAL problems. Though the Spanish people are starting to catch on now….finally.
The Nazi sympathizer, fascist that was Franco is dead but his proteges who litter the Partido Popular Government are still very much alive and kicking.
On a final note, to all those “Gibraltar is Spanish” preachers. Please explain to me how Spain could ever take care of Gib, when it cannot even TAKE CARE OF ITSELF AND ITS OWN PEOPLE?
And to all those FRANCO wannabes I say………YOU CANNOT IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON 30 000 PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE OF GIBRALTAR DO NOT WANT TO BE SPANISH. THEY VOTED THEY SAID NO. THAT IS DEMOCRACY!!! NO TO FASCISM!! DEAL WITH IT!!!
Inthe name,
you need to read posts with more attention and belief systems don’t come into it at all.
Nowhere did I say that the Euskadi were Celts – the Euskadi lived across most of western Europe when the Celts arrived over 6000 years ago.
You should also note that wiki entries are far from factual.
Your rambling historical comments show someone who cannot accept that they were taught b/s at school – such weakness undermines everything else you state. It is you who ‘believes’ not I, I prefer historical facts to base my comments on.
David M – it’s sad when so many just cannot handle the fact that they were brainwashed at school and that applies to all societies. By the time I was 13 I suspected that the ‘history’ I was being taught was racially biased and so set about finding out for myself and the local library contained ‘other’ sources that were a revelation. Davies book – The Welsh should be required reading across the whole of the UK but then all the ‘English/Aryan’ propoganda fairytales would be fit only to be processed into something useful – like toilet paper.
No mention of the Pacification campaign in 1746, no mention of the death camps at Maritzburg – oh no – point the English finger at those nasty Germans for that invention and on and on.
People of Gibralter – just give the Francoists the finger.
@InTheName: The more you urinate into the wind, the worse you look.
@StuartCrawford: I accept that a few people cannot get past their oversimplified school education. But i believe that most people realise history is written by the victors, and the truth is as entertaining as it is complicated.
I suspect your narrow group of likeminded friends are the cause of your jaded view on humanity.
Admittedly my friends are academics and researchers, and they have no problem with a coastal trading civilization all up the west of europe… i guess i ‘believe’ in villages trading, whereas you ‘believe’ in isolated groups inbreeding and developing culture all alone. Good luck with that.