As usual, the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove Gibraltar from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonization, and reiterated the Spanish Government’s wish to renew "conversations" with the United Kingdom on the future of Gibraltar.
Reiterating Spain’s full commitment to the decolonization process, he stressed the particular prominence of the question of Gibraltar, which concerned two member States of the European Union and allies within the North Atlantic Treaty. The situation of Gibraltar undermined Spain’s "national unity and territorial integrity".
In reply, the Committee also heard from Joe Bossano, the leader of Gibraltar's GSLP/Liberals Opposition parties who was a Petitioner for Gibraltar.
Now... I don't often agree with Mr Bossano... in fact, very rarely... but I have to say, in the speech he gave to the UN Committee hearing, he is spot on and I couldn't agree more with everything he says! In particular, I agree with him on the anachronistic 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which to my mind should long ago have been consigned to the dustbin of history... and about Gibraltar's already established (the UK Government agreed this in 2007) de facto decolonisation of Gibraltar. Well done Joe... you old Walrus!
Mr Bossano, who turns 70 this month, said his hoped for ruling by the UN Committee of 24, accepting Gibraltar's decolonisation and removing it from the list of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories, would be the best birthday present he would have ever received. I do wish they would grant him his wish... and Gibraltar its own aspirations!
The Leader of the Opposition Joe Bossano, said that in terms of the Territory’s decolonisation, Spain was "stuck in a time warp", expecting Gibraltarians to accept that their rights as a people should be measured by the yardstick of the Europe that had existed in 1713 rather than by the human rights values of 2009. Spain had used the spurious claim that a territorial dispute doctrine invented by the Special Committee overrode the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, covenants on political and social rights and long-established international jurisprudence on decolonization and self-determination.
This year, instead of demonstrating respect and support, Spain had challenged the sovereignty of Gibraltar’s territorial waters, he said. Spain’s position that Gibraltar could not have territorial waters, which were not provided for under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, was wrong under international law. In the past, Spain had respected Gibraltar’s territorial waters on the median line in the Bay of Gibraltar and the three miles off the coast, including the zone adjacent to the isthmus not covered by the Treaty. It had not attempted to apply Spanish law to vessels anchored in those areas.
Spain had previously demarcated the flight paths over Gibraltar’s waters to and from the local airport, which were followed by aircraft not permitted to use Spanish airspace, he noted. This year, however, Spain had claimed responsibility for the environmental protection of Gibraltar’s waters, which it had been unable to deliver. Spain had also made a number of incursions into Gibraltar’s territorial jurisdiction, forcing the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, to take action to protect the sovereignty of Gibraltar’s waters, as required by the Territory’s Constitution.
He said that, having accepted that Gibraltarians were a separate people from those of the administering Power, as required by resolution 1541 (XV) principle (IV), it was not for the Special Committee to arbitrate, mandate or establish a doctrine as to the appropriate relevant monarch for Gibraltar. The monarch’s identity was irrelevant for the purpose of eradicating colonialism. Decolonization could only happen when the peoples of the Territories’ exercised self-determination. Without the Gibraltarians, there would be no colonial relationship to correct, but only an uninhabited piece of land subject to a territorial dispute.
He said Spain had used false arguments to pursue its case, relying on the natural special relationship it enjoyed with some of its former colonies for support. The Special Committee’s Spanish-speaking members should acknowledge and accept that they had more in common with Gibraltar than with Spain in terms of commitment to decolonization and the right to self-determination, regardless of Hispanic cultural affinity. The Special Committee should conduct an assessment of the constitutional changes in Gibraltar, in line with its duty to monitor progress in the Territories towards self-government. The United Kingdom had claimed that Gibraltar’s new Constitution made for a non-colonial relationship with the United Kingdom; the Special Committee’s report to the Fourth Committee should comment on that change instead of once again deferring the matter for another year.
Noting Spain’s position that Gibraltar should revert to Spanish rule while retaining all the privileges it currently enjoyed as a Non-Self-Governing Territory under British rule, he said that flew in the face of the Special Committee’s decolonization mandate. Gibraltar would not cede to or share with Spain one inch of land, one drop of territorial water or any airspace whatsoever. The Special Committee should consider the question of Gibraltar as it would any other Non-Self-Governing Territory and not allow itself to be led astray by the misguided, self-serving arguments of Spain, whose sole objective was to replace the United Kingdom as administering Power.
You can hear the two speeches in full on this video:
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Bossano tells UN committee 'Spain is stuck in a time warp' on Gibraltar
Friday, March 13, 2009
Gibraltar sovereignty once more demanded in Spain
Yesterday, in the Spanish 'Congreso', in a rare display of unity, the ruling PSOE and the PP opposition parties came together in demands (once again) over the sovereignty of Gibraltar!
When will Spain ever 'stop banging on about Gibraltar's sovereignty'?
During a meeting of the Foreign Commission the PP and PSOE both urged the government to reopen its negotiations with the United Kingdom over the sovereignty of Gibraltar.
In fact, the demand for sovereignty over Gibraltar to be returned to Spain, is officially included in every Spanish legislature.
The PP asked for firmness in the face of the "uninterested attitude" displayed by the Prime (sic) Minister of Gibraltar. What a damn cheek... and it's CHIEF Minister... get it right!
That guiding light of the right wing PP main opposition party, José Ignacio Landaluce (right), a member of parliament, stirred the diplomatic pot by stressing "the damage that Gibraltar caused Spain" through its "fiscal and environmental policies".
He negated to stress the damage that Spain's CEPSA oil refinery does to the health of the people of Gibraltar and all communities (Spanish) surrounding the Bay of Gibraltar in the Campo de Gibraltar area... or the damage that Spain's constant restrictions at the frontier does commercially (and otherwise) to the people of Gibraltar and their own community of La Linea!
Rafael Román, his perhaps more reasonable counterpart and fellow member of parliament for the PSOE, proposed two lines of action. The first is to "reclaim the right over the sovereignty of Gibraltar" and the second is "the adoption of measures to win the confidence of Gibraltarians".
What I want to know is... when will Spain ever mature democratically? Will Spain ever learn from the example of Portugal... in the context of Olivença as Daniel Hannan so eloquently argues? When will Spain ever accept once and for all, the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar?
The only way Spain will EVER win the confidence of the people of Gibraltar... is the day when Spain acts more maturely in their democracy... in a fair and reasonable manner... and finally accepts Gibraltar's freely expressed wishes of self determination... renouncing once and for all, the anachronism of the Treaty of Utrecht and all Spanish claims to the sovereignty of Gibraltar!Gibraltar belongs to the People of Gibraltar. It is neither Spain's to claim nor Britain's to give away!
Will Spain give in to Portugal on Olivença claim?
Will Spain give in to Portugal on its Olivença claim in the same way as they expect the United Kingdom to give in on Gibraltar?
In a well argued blog post over at Telegraph Blogs yesterday, Daniel Hannan asked: If Spain wants Gibraltar, when is it planning to give up Olivença?
Daniel poses this interesting question and lays out the scenario"What if it had been the other way around? What if Spain had helped itself to a slice of someone else's territory, forced the defeated nation to cede it in a subsequent treaty, and hung on to it? Would Madrid behave as it wants Britain to behave over Gibraltar? ¡Ni pensarlo!"
How can Daniel be so sure of this? Because, he argues, there is precisely such a case!
In 1801, France and Spain, then allies, demanded that Portugal abandon her ancient friendship with England and close her ports to British ships. The Portuguese staunchly refused, whereupon Bonaparte and his Spanish confederates marched on the little kingdom. Portugal was overrun and, by the Treaty of Badajoz, forced to give up the town of Olivença, on the left bank of the Guadiana.
Daniel explains further:"When 'Boney' was eventually defeated, the European powers met at the Congress of Vienna to produce a comprehensive settlement of Europe's borders. The ensuing treaty urged a return to the pre-1801 Hispano-Portuguese (or, if you prefer, Luso-Spanish) frontier. Spain, after some hesitation, eventually signed up in 1817. But it made no move to return Olivença. On the contrary, it worked vigorously to extirpate Portuguese culture in the province, first prohibiting teaching in Portuguese, then banning the language outright."
Daniel argues that, whilst Portugal has never dropped its claim to Olivença, it has made no move to force the issue (though it toyed with the idea of snatching the town during the Spanish Civil War, but eventually backed off). Although Portuguese maps continue to show an undemarcated frontier at Olivença, the dispute has not been allowed to stand in the way of excellent relations between Lisbon and Madrid.
Daniels now asks us to "consider the parallels with Gibraltar"."Gibraltar was ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), just as Olivença was ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Badajoz (1801). In both cases, the defeated power might reasonably claim that it signed under duress, but this is what happens in all peace settlements.
Spain complains that some of the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht have been violated: that Britain has extended the frontier beyond that originally laid down; that it has bestowed a measure of self-government on Gibraltar incompatible with the outright British jurisdiction specified by the Treaty; and (although this point is rarely pressed) that it has failed to prevent Jewish and Muslim settlement on the Rock."
In this light Daniel asks, "with how much more force, though, might Portugal argue that the Treaty of Badajoz has been abrogated".
"It was annulled in 1807 when, in violation of its terms, French and Spanish troops marched on Portugal in the Peninsular War. A few years later, it was superseded by the Treaty of Vienna."
"Of course", Daniel argues further, "the Spanish might reasonably retort that, whatever the legal niceties, the population of Olivença is loyal to the Spanish Crown". He states that "while the issue has never been tested in a referendum, it certainly seems that most residents are happy as they are".
"The Portuguese language has all but died out except among the very elderly. The town (Olivenza in Spanish) hosts one of the most important bullfighting ferias of the season, attracting breeds and matadors beyond the dreams of any similarly sized pueblo. Portuguese rule would mean an end to Spanish-style bullfighting, and a return to provincial obscurity."
Daniel then reminds his readers, that "his blog has always made the cause of national self-determination its own cause", and explains, to my mind, the nub of his argument, that self determination by a territory's own people should be the all-important principle:
"Spain's claim to Olivença (and Ceuta and Melilla) rests on the knock-down argument that the people living there want to be Spanish. But the same principle surely applies to Gibraltar, whose inhabitants, in 2002, voted by 17,900 to 187 to remain under British sovereignty.
Britain, by the way, has every right to link the two issues. The only reason the Portuguese lost Olivença is that they were honouring the terms of their league with us. They are our oldest and most reliable allies, having fought alongside us for 700 years - most recently, and at terrible cost, when they joined the First World War for our sake. Our 1810 treaty of alliance and friendship explicitly commits Britain to work for the restoration of Olivença to Portugal."
Daniel's excellent and well argued blog post concludes:
"My real point, though, is that these issues ought not to prejudice good relations between the rival claimants.
While Portugal has no intention of renouncing its formal claim to Olivença, it accepts that, as long as the people there want to remain Spanish, there is no point in pushing the issue. It is surely not too much to expect Spain to take a similar line vis-à-vis Gibraltar."
Quite so Daniel... in a free and democratic Europe in the 21st century, it really is NOT too much to expect Spain to have long ago accepted the consistently, emphatically and very democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar, to determine their own future!
Yet, even today, once more we face the prospect of further unreasonable bullying behaviour by Spain, that threatens our future, in the face of our democratically expressed wishes for self determinaion!
Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He has written eight books on European policy, speaks French and Spanish and is author of The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain
Thursday, March 05, 2009
The British Press need to 'singe some Spanish beards' in support of Gibraltar
Over the last few weeks, ever since the current visit by Princess Anne to Gibraltar was announced, there have been acres of space in the British press, dedicated to Spain's "hurt feelings" and how Spain consider this visit to be "inopportune" and "offensive" to Spain.
Some newspapers (and of course repeated on many mirror websites and blogs), have even been talking about how the visit has hurt Spain's "sensibilities"! Well, it's all so ludicrous, it's really laughable! Let me ask you... what about Gibraltar's 'sensibilities'? Who's looking after those??
Here's another of the British press' coverage, this one today in the Telegraph, talking about the "Princess Royal's visit to Gibraltar sparks anger"!
Well, I can tell you it certainly does spark anger! It sparks anger in me, over the continued impertinence of the Spanish complaints and 'irritation'. But you know, us Gibraltarians are used to this type of ongoing Spanish whingeing and complaints.
What makes me even more angry is the continued coverage that the British press gives to these impertinent remarks by Spanish politicians... talking about the 'outpost' and 'colony' of Gibraltar... so dismissively... as if Gibraltar doesn't matter. All that matters to them, it seems to me, is poor old Spain's constant whingeing!
Outpost??? Sheeesh... it's our damn country for Christ sakes! How about the British press supporting us Gibraltarians a little for a change! Just a weenie teensie bit?? How about the British press telling Spain... how affronted the British (and Gibraltarians) are... with their continued impertinence, constantly sticking their hooked garlic smelling noses into stuff that's NONE of THEIR damn business!! Baaah!!
Oh ok... I quite like garlic myself... but you know what I mean... and no... it's not racism on my part (I don't do that). But they do. I saw a comment by one 'Spaniard' (that's what he called himself) on another blog post, talking about "well, it's only 29,000 monkeys... so who cares"!!
Anyhow... moving on quickly, as for the Treaty of Utrecht... I've said it before (no doubt I will have to say it again!)... wake up... this Treaty is an anachronistic bit of paper.. that should be consigned to the dustbin of history and should no longer have any validity in the 21st century!
The people of Gibraltar have consistently and emphatically declared our own freely expressed wishes for self determination... and always in the best most democratic manner! The UK Government has accepted that our referendum in 2006, approving our new Constitution, was de facto, an act of self determination on our part, which in effect decolonised Gibraltar. They even argued this, alongside Gibraltar for once, in front of the UN Fourth Committee (which deals with delisting of the remaining 16 listed colonies on their book).
So, Prince's Anne's visit to Gibraltar today is a 'provocation'? Hah! Provocation indeed! It's Spanish impertinence like this that should be viewed as provocative and unhelpful... it's certainly unneighbourly... but then even after 300 years... they still cannot get over it!
Now that... is what the British press should be harping on about and devoting at least some space to... in emphatic support of Gibraltar!
Spain's continued impertinence and insistence on living in the past... not willing to accept the realities of a modern democratic Europe... is what is unacceptable and the British press should say so... and so should the British government be saying so too, for that matter! But... my point today is particularly directed at the British press!!
In my post a week or so ago, Who's business is it when the Princess Royal visits Gibraltar, I asked... "Where's Drake when you need him?" and added a famous quote by him, when he asked Queen Elizabeth I:"So please your Majesty, to singe the King of Spain's beard; it has grown somewhat too long."
Today... I would like to ask the British press... to do likewise to Spain's politicians... support Gibraltar... and go tell the Spanish where to get off!
