- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
No longer 'turning a blind eye' on the rock of Gibraltar
17 July 2012As the temperature rises between Gibraltar and Spain, Brussels may no longer be able to afford the luxury of brushing the rock's problems under the carpet. Justin Stares talks to Gibraltar's MEP Sir Graham Watson about the thorny sovereignty issues
Depression-wracked Spain is looking to divert attention away from the country's unending economic strife by increasing pressure on the tiny populace of Gibraltar, according to a British MEP. Madrid's longstanding sovereignty claim over the rock, a British overseas territory, was dormant but has resurfaced since the Partido Popular came to power - says Sir Graham Watson MEP. Spanish and British patrol boats were engaged in a rare standoff in May when Spanish trawlers ventured into Gibraltar waters.
Waiting times at the isthmus' border crossing rose to three hours after the incident, as Spanish police underlined their ability to make life difficult for the rock's 30,000 inhabitants. In Brussels, meanwhile, Spain is trying every trick in the book to put spokes in the wheel of the Gibraltar economy, in particular the shipping and gaming industries. "It's getting worse because we've got a right-wing government in Spain trying to whip up popular sentiment to take people's attention away from the economic situation that they've inherited from their predecessors," says Watson.
When the Socialists were in power in Madrid "tensions were much lower", says Watson - who represents Gibraltar in the European parliament. "The level of cooperation between the Gibraltar government and the government in Madrid, and the government in London, was quite good," he adds. "We even had so-called tripartite talks which were going well." Incursions by Spanish fishermen into Gibraltar waters are not new but have increased sharply in number over the last six months. "On one particular occasion, a Guardia Civil patrol boat came in with Spanish fishing boats to try to make a point," says Watson of May's incident.
"The Gibraltar government in cooperation with the Royal Navy allowed them to make their protest for about three hours and then sent a destroyer down there and they dispersed peacefully." The Gibraltar government has itself taken a hard-line stance compared to its predecessor, he points out. The previous government "turned a blind eye to a certain number of fishing boats coming in" after what was "probably an agreement that had been reached somewhere in a restaurant with fisheries leaders". Watson continues: "The current government said in their manifesto that if they were to win the election, they would no longer turn a blind eye to this; to the environmental damage being done by the trawlers to the ocean floor". Damaging trawling practices are illegal along most parts of the Spanish coast and have no justification in Gibraltar waters, he says. "The new government has tried to enforce that and has come up against opposition whipped up by nationalist sentiment on the side of the Spanish."
Watson wants to bring Gibraltar's leaders to Brussels to discuss a wide range of issues, though the European Commission has been reticent to open up this particular can of worms. Thanks in part to bureaucratic incompetence and willful blindness, the various parties have managed to designate overlapping coastal zones as sites of environmental importance under European Union law. While this is now a Brussels issue, the European environment commissioner is leaving the problem well alone.
"The European Commission is notoriously unwilling to get involved in what they say is a dispute between two sovereign governments," says Watson. "The problem from my point of view, representing the people of Gibraltar, is that this leaves the Gibraltar people in a no man's land, because what happens is in the Council of Ministers - the British and the Spanish just agree to let it lie."
While they might decline to bring it up at ministerial level, there are complaints in the European Parliament about Gibraltar's allegedly unsafe ship bunkering practices - business that Spanish ports see as theirs. While Gibraltar is not subject to EU customs and excise laws, its generous offshore tax system has been successfully attacked in the European Court of Justice. Spain is putting pressure on the commission to clamp down on internet gaming, one of Gibraltar's specialities. Using a tactic widely employed by Turkish authorities to annoy Cyprus, cruise ships that dock in Gibraltar are sometimes subsequently refused access to Spanish ports.
"The big mistake was made prior to 1986 when Spain joined the Union," says Watson. "We should never have allowed Spain to become a member of the union without sorting out the sovereignty question." So what is to be done? Watson shrugs his shoulders and calls for more talks. Gibraltar is a tiny piece of land that Brussels would rather forget. But if tensions keep rising, it may no longer be possible to keep brushing the rock's problems under the carpet.
Article first appeared on our sister site Publicserviceeurope.com
HAVE YOUR SAY
17 July 2012
The UK should relinquish its imperialist toe-hold in continental Europe – the UN continues to list Gibraltar as a territory that needs to be decolonised by the UK.
Under international law there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves. This is the case with Gibraltar.
The UN General Assembly has passed a number of resolutions on the issue. The UN has also repeatedly invited the UK to participate in discussions to achieve the de-colonisation of Gibraltar.
Unfortunately, the UK continues to rely on a discredited interpretation of the principle of self-determination to turn a deaf ear to those requests in a clearly self-serving way.
By the way, it's worth noting that the current British enthusiasm for the principle of self-determination in the case of Gibraltar, and the Falklands for that matter, was certainly not matched by the response to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, also a British Overseas Territory, who were evicted by the UK in 1971 against their wishes because the United States wanted the island as a military base.
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
17 July 2012
Spain signed Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht did it not? It strikes me that Gibraltar is no different than Portugal when it comes to Spain - it is attached by land but differentiated by history.
Do we negate history? If we do then who are we? Indeed, who is anyone?
I grow weary of hearing the same old nonsense about colonial Britain - a power which, for example returned all of Hong Kong to the Chinese because of a legal clause and COULD, if it wished, have retained some territory there. Hell's teeth, we're even permitting the nonsense of a Scottish referendum, we're so decent!
We've moved on a long way since the dark days of real empire. As regards Mr Martin's point re Diego Garcia, I rather think that if the Americans weren't involved we'd have allowed self determination a long time ago. Alas, this is global realpolitik.
If Gibraltar wants to stay British then great. Do Melilla and Ceuta want to return to Morocco? I think not.
Michael - Hertfordshire
17 July 2012
Frank. I was born in Gibraltar as were my ancestors, I don't know what your concept of imported population is but I am certainly not it. What you advocate is a type of ethnic cleansing, because believe me that is what those with your argument are seeking in regards to Gibraltar and its inhabitants the gibraltarians - many who can trace their roots back to way before the treaty of Utrecht was even thought of.
Get your facts right next time you decide to dribble some nonsense about something you obviously know nothing about.
The UN you speak of is the obscelete committe of 24, not the UN proper.
Victor - Gibraltar
17 July 2012
Isn't the white population of Australia a transplanted one?
Will they return Australia back to its original occupants, I think not!!
JC - UK
17 July 2012
Frank
You write from Australia? Is that the same Australia as was populated by convicts in such numbers as to make the local inhabitants a minority and a disposesed people or is this another Australa near Spain where the indigenous people (as opposed to the imported people" reign supreme?
I would be interested to know whether you would advocate all imported people in Australa not having a vote?
By the way how long does one's family have to live in a place before they are considered not to be an import? My family has been living in Gibraltar since 1773 (that s 5 years prior to the arrival of the first European settlers in Oz!
To tell you the truth, I think you are a Spanish propagandist like Seņor jaimen who also contributes in vast quantities in the Guardian, obviously unemployed or a full time employee of the Spanish Ministry for Propaganda and Misinformation.
Saludos Bruce and stay out of th sun!
Calpean - Gibraltar - UK
18 July 2012
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
Another Brit basher, why don't you hand back your country to its indigenous people, perhaps you should go and tell the United States to do the same
Rob - Telford
18 July 2012
Today's Gibraltarians are undeniably settlers, dating back to 1704. Similarly the Spanish were settlers in Moorish Gibraltar, in the period from 1462 to 1704.
Gibraltarians have as much right to nationhood as Australians, Americans and countless other settler-nations across the globe.
To 'Frank' - Decolonisation can be achieved by integration, independence or free association. The UN's call for decolonisation does not imply support for Spain's territorial ambitions in Gibraltar.
Max Tammbeck - London
18 July 2012
gibraltar is not part of the eu it picks and chooses what if any legislation it follows to meet its own needs and is currently introducing what can only be described as xenophobic employment policies against othe eu nationals. About time uk washed its hands of it
Iain - uk
19 July 2012
Unlike Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla are not considered to be colonial enclaves by the UN. They pre-exist the creation of the Moroccan State – they were Spanish hundreds of years before Morocco existed. In contrast Gibraltar was colonised by the UK while it was part of Spain.
It is beside the point to refer to the treaty of Utrecht as this treaty created the British colonial enclave in the first place. Moreover, British occupation of the isthmus and its failure to implement all of its provisions means that the UK is in breach of the treaty.
The UK cannot ignore international law by relying on a treaty which it has itself invalidated by its own actions.
By the way no one is suggesting that that the current occupants of Gibraltar should be removed, let alone removed through the use of force (even though this is exactly what the British did to the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar in 1704).
Under international law the current occupants of the British colony have a right to have their 'interests' considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in. That land is Spanish not British.
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
19 July 2012
Max that's right. However, under international law, a coloniser (as is the case with the UK in Gibraltar) 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 a right to have their 'interests' considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in.
The UN has confirmed that the principle of territorial integrity complements and CONSTRAINS the right to
self-determination (see for example: Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) '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.').
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
19 July 2012
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
So you are planning to give your country back to the Aborigines then and return to wherever your descendants originated from?
Rob - Telford
19 July 2012
Victor your the one 'speaking drivel' I'm afraid.
The current occupants of Gibraltar are the descendants of economic immigrants who were encouraged by the British to come to the Rock to service their military base over three hundred years after displacing by force the original Spanish population in 1704. They therefore meet the definition of a non-indigenous transplanted population.
As previously mentioned, under 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 a right to have their 'interests' considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in.
Your also wrong when you assert that 'the UN you speak of is the obscelete committe of 24, not the UN proper'. The facts are that the UN General Assembly has passed a number of specific resolutions on the issue. For example, resolutions (2231 (XXI), 'Question of Gibraltar'and 2353 (XXII), 'Question of Gibraltar').
As previously advised these resolutions have always referred to the 'interests' and not the 'wishes' of the current occupants of Gibraltar.
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 [...] 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'.
Moreover, when the current occupants of Gibraltar conducted a referendum in the late 1960s declaring their wish to remain British, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), which observed that the referendum was contrary to the various resolutions which had been adopted by the UN General Assembly requiring the UK to decolonise Gibraltar and consequently ruled that the referendum was invalid.
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
19 July 2012
Calpean your assertion that I'm a Spanish propagandist is incorrect. The international law that establishes that 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 applies until the colonial situation is remedied.
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 a right to have their 'interests' considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in. The reason why there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves is because otherwise it would be lawful for a group of people from say Ireland to establish an Irish colony on the eastern coast of England and then claim a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they are occupying declared a part of Ireland.
This law does not apply to Australia because, unlike Gibraltar, Australia is not a colonial enclave.
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
19 July 2012
I assume you would be happy to decolonize Australia and return the land to the indigenous aboriginal populations then Frank? The people from Gibraltar are not a planted population. They chose to be British.
Will - Sheffield
19 July 2012
Frank you say Australia is not a colonial enclave, but it is a former colony, a direct result of of imperialism and you (unless you are aboriginal) are a colonist. If Gibraltar became its own nation separate from the UK would they be allowed to exist there?
Mark - Sheffield
20 July 2012
Mark
Australia is an independent nation. Moreover it has never been a part of another nation. In contrast Gibraltar was colonised in 1704 by the British while still a part of Spain.
As previously mentioned, under 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 (in this case the current occupants of Gibraltar) have a right to have their 'interests' considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in.
The UN has confirmed that the principle of territorial integrity complements and CONSTRAINS the right to self-determination. For example UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) states that '...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'
The reason why there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves is because otherwise it would be lawful for a group of people from say Ireland to establish an Irish colony on the eastern coast of England and then claim a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they are occupying declared a part of Ireland.
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
20 July 2012
Will
The current occupants of Gibraltar are a planted population. The current occupants of Gibraltar are the descendants of economic immigrants who were encouraged by the British to come to the Rock to service their military base over three hundred years after displacing by force the original Spanish population in 1704. They therefore meet the definition of a non-indigenous transplanted population.
It is irrelevant, but hardly surprising, given their history, that they choose to be British.
This is the reason why when the current occupants of Gibraltar conducted a referendum in the late 1960s declaring their wish to remain British, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), which observed that the referendum was contrary to the various resolutions which had been adopted by the UN General Assembly requiring the UK to decolonise Gibraltar and consequently ruled that the referendum was invalid.
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
20 July 2012
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia
"Will
The current occupants of Gibraltar are a planted population. The current occupants of Gibraltar are the descendants of economic immigrants who were encouraged by the British to come to the Rock to service their military base over three hundred years after displacing by force the original Spanish population in 1704. They therefore meet the definition of a non-indigenous transplanted population"
You are contradicting yourself, what are you Aussies if you are not a transplanted population / economic migrants / convicts, you can't have it both ways. You haven't always been an independant nation have you. . . . You make things up to suit your own arguments, listen to yourself, look at the arguments you are applying to Gibraltar then apply them to yourself, with open eyes!!!
Rob - Telford
20 July 2012
Rob - Telford
Don't be silly!!! If the Aussies aren't colonists as Frank maintains, it makes them invaders who displaced the original occupants of Australia, surely this goes against every UN charter.
(tongue in cheek)
JC - UK
21 July 2012
Frank
Let me be 'frank' here as we all know that frank is the polar opposite of what you are. I know you. I've read your dribble before. Sad but true you are an embittered Spanish propaganda activist pretending to be an Aussie; when in fact you are a Spanish facist in disguise. A poor disguse as that.
Say what you want, i am no import, and you are certainly not qualified to dictate otheriwise. You can try to influence opinion through your distorions and manipulations but in the end your lies will never hold any sway. If somebody wants to know they truth they just need to visit Gibraltar - every day we make thousands of tourists and visitors alike realise what liars the Spanish government and it's agents of misinformation are.
You won't forget to take your daily dose of sour grapes to cure that severe case of verbal diahoria, will you?
Victor - Gibraltar
22 July 2012
I understand what you are trying to say frank but I disagree with your argument that Australia is any different. You say it has never been a part of any other nation. It might not have officially been a nation by Modern definitions, the land certainly belonged to the aboriginals, something you keep avoiding. Also the laws ur mentioning were written along time before Gibraltar or Australia was colonised which is why neither of the inhabitants of two countries are forced to decolonize the area. It's very much like the current laws about nuclear weapons. You are not allowed to build them now after the non proliferation treaty but countries do not have to discard any weapons they constructed before the treaty was signed. Other wise where it it all stop, would the people of anglo saxon in the uk have to return to Germany and give the uk back to those of celtic descent?
Mark - Sheffield
24 July 2012
Frank seems to have studied the Gibraltar issue in some detail and is clearly very passionate about it, the reasons for which are unclear.
However, Gibraltar wishes to remain British for reasons which are very clear: most significantly, they don't want to be Spanish. They want to be Gibraltarians and linked to Great Britain.
If they changed their mind, I'd be sad because I see Gibraltar as part of British history and a continuing part of the British story. But, as Jack Straw and others of his persuasion have discovered, odious perfidy by the back door is not the way to change history. The Gibraltarians have rights and they have spoken on many occasions to make themselves heard.
I am intrigued by the assertion of UN laws over historical precdent - in this case a treaty signed 300 years ago versus a dubious international organisation established after WW2 and which time and again has failed to deal with issues of significantly greater consequence - most recently trying to force Arab states to adopt western "democracy" as if somehow this is the perfect model.
I am assuming however that Gibraltar is not the only so-called colony which the UN thinks should be "handed back". Gibraltarians must think the whole world is against them but of course it isn't - only Spain and others with their own political agendas.
Gibraltar - you have friends in the world and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Michael - Hertfordshire
24 July 2012
Frank Martin- Brisbane
Using your logic, you should leave Australia & give it back to the aboriginals.
Will Spain hand back Ceuta? Spain wiped out the original inhabitants of the Canary islands. Lets not forget what the conquistadors did to South America. The Spanish are not innocents.
Britain should ban Spanish trawlers from British waters. The EU will fuss, but the EU will go the same way as the League of Nations or the USSR.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
29 July 2012
These UN regulations were never meant to be retrospective. If they were, see where you draw the line trying to reorganise the world's frontiers and then displace populations. I've seen the effect that has in the Balkans and its the kind of result you get when people think only of territory and not of people. Spain should get the message that the 30000 people in Gib don't want to be Spanish and that the 3 miles of rock has no value to them. Its only value is if it remains British and the Gibraltarians stay there. If not its just another insignificant town in the poorest region of Spain.
Mario - Gibraltar
29 July 2012
Dear Frank Martin,
The people of Gibraltar DO NOT WANT TO BE SPANISH.
At our last referendum (only a few years ago) 98% of our peoples voted NO to any type of joint sovereignty deal with Spain.
Who are YOU to tell us we HAVE to be SPANISH???
This is the 21st century and we live (or most of us do at least) in a democratic society.
Why then should Spain attempt to impose its will upon 30 000 people?
And why should the rest of the world sit back and allow this to happen? Why should UK allow that to happen?
That is not democracy that is downright FASCIST and DICTATORIAL.
Why should I have to be Spanish if I DO NOT WANT TO BE SPANISH???
Are you going to put a GUN to my head and force me to be? Like GENERAL FRANCO would have done?
And whilst on the General Franco topic did you know the original population of Gibraltar and San Roque was wiped out, MURDERED by none of than Franco and his bunch of "merry men".
What TRANSPLANTED population? Spain itself allowed them to be mostly if not ALL KILLED.
I do not preach unfounded assumptions from a distance to the peoples of Australia.
So PLEASE next time you feel like spewing utter nonsense/dribble on the net at least have the decency of doing a bit of research first.
A PROUD GIBRALTARIAN.
100% YANI!!!
I live in Gibraltar and know what the majority of peoples want unlike you.
K
Kaelan - Gibraltar
29 July 2012
If Gibraltar was rich in petrol then the problem would have been solve long ago it is all a matter of greed from the British Government
Eric Pozo - Gibraltar
29 July 2012
I wonder Mr Brisbane how can an aussie on the other side of the world have such an interest on Gibraltar politics or if we are a transplanted population or not. Truthfully, you must be a bittered spaniard or kofi Anan's cousin simply because to go so deep into this question you must be one of both. Look sir, I am British since birth in British Gibraltar and I and 29.999 Gibraltarians wish to remain that way.
Look, the world is full of other problems like Syria, Iran, etc, etc what on earth are you doing wasting your time with us, let us deal with this problem on our hemisphere in our own time zone and have a wonderful life in yours.
Ernest R - British Gibraltar
06 August 2012
Depending what you consider to define nationhood, it could be argued that today's Spain didn't exist until 1812, when it first had a self-set constitution (Bonaparte's of 1808 was imposed) and the French had been booted out of the Iberian peninsula by Wellington et al.. So Gibraltar was never part of modern Spain.
It seems trite to use present-tense arguments for something that happened long before Cook claimed Australia in August 1770 (http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/european-discovery-and-colonisation)(NB,-colonisation)and rather longer before the UN was invented (1945)? How far back do you believe the UN turn the clock? 1945, 1939, 1914, 1704, 1606 (discovery of Oz by the Dutch), 1492, 1066, 43CE?
Following lines of Frank's argument, the Basque provinces existed and self-governed before Spain existed, so shouldn't they be relinquished by Spain?
muddler - UK
08 August 2012
Gibraltar has been a British city since 1704, far longer than it was part of Christian Spain following its seizure from the Arabs in 1462. If Spain believed its own rhetoric it would return Ceuta to Morocco. But Ceuta has been incorporated into the Spanish state, and Britain should do the same with Gibraltar.
Nicholas Tracy - Fredericton, Canada
12 August 2012
If Spain causes any more trouble over Gibraltar, as a minimum Spain should be instantly expelled from the European Union. That should solve everything!
FreedomLover - Walsall, UK
16 August 2012
Here we go again. These Spaniards cannot run their own Country let alone Gibraltar. Is this not the Falklands all over again.
beegee - West Midlands
26 August 2012
The unwilling and hostile UK should simply be kicked out of the EU and out of Gibraltar.Good riddance. What part of the 26-to-one vote did the UK not understand?-Go away, leave the EU.
Should any of the current inhabitants of Gibraltar want to live in Britain they can simply move to that insignificant Island just off the French coast.
Jan - France