You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Britain celebrates rocks Gibraltar boat
2004-08-03
THE celebrations to mark Gibraltar's tercentenary of British rule have turned the waters choppy between EU partners Britain and Spain, which maintains a historical claim to the tiny rocky outcrop on its southern coast. The British Government's decision to send Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to attend the commemorations has sparked fury in Madrid with the Spanish seeing the move as an unfriendly and unwarranted act.

The British delegation will attend a slew of events scheduled for tomorrow's official celebrations, which include a midday special session of the territory's House of Assembly or parliament before an early evening parade at which the Royal Navy is to receive the freedom of Gibraltar.

Gibraltar, whose population numbers just 30,000, has been a British dependent territory since 1704 when British-led troops captured the "Rock" on August 4. The Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 officially awarded Britain sovereignty but Spain has never accepted the decision.
Spanish forces capitulated in 6 hours of battle, not one of their finest days.
This year has seen a series of diplomatic spats with a British nuclear submarine, HMS Tireless, making a second visit in four years last month. In May 2000, Tireless put into dock to have its reactor cooling system repaired and stayed for a year. The June visit of Princess Anne, the first visit to the Rock by a British royal since the Queen made a brief stop-off 50 years ago, further inflamed Spanish passion and the war of words has escalated as the tercentenary celebrations have neared.
Awwh, Zappie isn't happy.
This year's commemoration essentially kicked off last Saturday when the British frigate HMS Grafton sailed into port with flags flying and guns firing.

Despite a weekend attempt by Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega to cool a growing row by saying her country would seek to "go down the diplomatic road" to reach a settlement, the war of words continued apace yesterday - on both sides. The opening volley was fired by Gibraltar's Chief Minister Peter Caruana, who told Spain it was "none of their business" to criticise the commemoration. "We are not celebrating the sort of military battles fought and won by British forces in 1704, we're celebrating the 300th anniversary of British sovereignty and our relationship with Britain, which has been mutually beneficial and which has given us everything that we have and which we value," Mr Caruana told BBC radio.

"How we choose to celebrate our very close links with Britain and our British sovereignty are a matter for us. ... Frankly for the Spaniards, after 300 years of Gibraltar being British, to try and lecture us on how we should commemorate that is really none of their business and somewhat impertinent," Mr Caruana added.
"So buzz off!"
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos responded by saying the opposition his country was expressing diplomatically to Mr Hoon's visit, which comes just five weeks after that of Princess Anne, was only an attempt by Madrid "to convey the feelings of the Spanish people in the wake of acts which we consider should not have happened".

At the weekend, a Socialist Party colleague of Mr Moratinos, Alfonso Perales, had upped the ante by calling on Britain not to "behave as countries did in the 18th and 19th centuries with regard to colonies".
You mean, give land away without regard for the rights of the people who live on it?
Other events will include naval displays, concerts and a street party, while a human chain will encircle the Rock tomorrow to signify that Gibraltar "is not for Britain to give or for Spain to have", as one organiser noted on Saturday. As Gibraltarians, who voted overwhelmingly to oppose British and Spanish moves to move towards eventual shared sovereignty in a 2002 referendum which neither London nor Madrid recognised, prepared to party, it emerged that a US warship which was to have taken part in the proceedings had pulled out.

Mr Caruana, learning of the news yesterday afternoon, dubbed the move a "huge snub" which "will not be forgotten in a hurry". The American nuclear submarine USS Albany was recently in Gibraltar but Mr Caruana said he believed that the US State Department had instructed the US Navy to withdraw the ship under protests from Spain.
We shouldn't have done that.
Posted by:Steve White

#25  I would welcome either vote - I'd just like them to shoulder responsibility as well as gains... Roosevelt Roads and Viecques still piss me off. The demagogueing was atrocious and done by those who didn't understand W can make ya pay for stabbing friends (France didn't catch that, apparently). TS assholes
Posted by: Frank G   2004-08-03 11:14:52 PM  

#24  Ah, but do the 50 states want Puerto Rico?
And it would throw off the design of the stars on our flag!
Posted by: GreatestJeneration   2004-08-03 10:57:46 PM  

#23  trailing wife> This: http://www.gymnasium.garching.de/projekt/intel/puertorico/options.htm
and this: http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa031698.htm
and this: http://gbgm-umc.org/country_profiles/country_history.cfm?Id=125

all suggest that the pro-independence movement in Puerto Rico is actually quite small, 5% of the population or less. The only truly popular options are either statehood or continuation of the status quo -- and if continuation of the status quo was taken off the table I'm pretty confident that the Puerto Ricans would vote for statehood -- pretty much *all* of the pro-status quo folk would have to vote "independence" for the alternative to happen.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-08-03 6:57:28 PM  

#22  Aris,

Every so many years the Independent P.R. group forces through a referendum. The electorate divides fairly evenly into thirds: 1/3 for independence, 1/3 for the 51st U.S. state, 1/3 to continue the status quo. We in the US would very much like to regularize the situation one way or the other, but the Puerto Ricans haven't yet figured out what they want.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-08-03 6:18:56 PM  

#21  The Spanish lost their way after 3-11 and the Iraq cave-in. Let the Brits hold onto Gib. Someone has to keep at least one half of the "Pillars of Hercules" approach to the Med safe.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-08-03 6:11:32 PM  

#20  I'm with Steve--we should have backed up the Brits here!
Control of the Mediterranean has never been more important and what is our problem to worry about hurting Spain's feelings?
They didn't give a damn about ours when it came to Zappy pulling those troops out of Iraq!
Posted by: GreatestJeneration   2004-08-03 6:03:16 PM  

#19  Steve, Raj> Uh, cold about what? If there was a stab in there, I didn't get it. Is this about the junta of the colonels trying to overthrow the Cypriot government 30 years ago? Is it about something else?

Explain it to me, and then perhaps I'll get offended -- but more probably because of your ignorance than of anything else.

Bomb-a-rama> for Puerto Rico, how about Americans voting in a referendum forcing Puerto Rican independence?

From what I've heard I think Puerto Rico would be more likely to accept statehood than independence, if it was forced to choose one way or another.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-08-03 5:58:45 PM  

#18  Ceuta(Sebta) and Melilla(Mellilia) are just as Moroccan as Gib is Spanish, forget about nuance, complexity, and other UN/diplo- speak

Don't forget the result of the vote though.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-08-03 5:49:08 PM  

#17  The Moroccans and Spanish had a tiff a couple of years ago, I believe, over some rock a few hundred meters off Moroccan coast. Powell had to step in. Spanish army left, but not before letting off a few smoke bombs so as not to allow photographers the opportunity to shoot Spaniards bringing down Spanish flag. So, Aris, Moroccans don't care what's dependent or integral in Spanish eyes. Ceuta(Sebta) and Melilla(Mellilia) are just as Moroccan as Gib is Spanish, forget about nuance, complexity, and other UN/diplo- speak. You can bet that if the Spanish flag ever flies over Gib., then hundreds of thousands of Moroccan civilians will swarm into C and M. Just check out what Moroccans did in '70's re Sahara. It was called the Green March. All trucks were mobilized to take folks to old border and they walked in and Spain caved.
Posted by: Michael   2004-08-03 4:21:42 PM  

#16  But accurate, Steve. :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-08-03 2:38:18 PM  

#15  That should get Zappy running to the French border.

...into the arms of waiting Basques???
Posted by: Rafael   2004-08-03 1:57:05 PM  

#14  That was cold, Raj.
Posted by: Steve   2004-08-03 1:11:15 PM  

#13  But I don't much care for these halfway "dependency" solutions, where a country governs over people that have no say on that country's government.

Kinda like... Cyprus?
Posted by: Raj   2004-08-03 1:07:08 PM  

#12  Light off a few fireworks. That should get Zappy running to the French border.

As for Puerto Rico, how about Americans voting in a referendum forcing Puerto Rican independence? Better yet, since the Spanish seem intent on territorial expansion and PR doesn't want independence, why not pawn PR back to Spain?
Posted by: ed   2004-08-03 12:39:44 PM  

#11  Mr. Davis, I think you have the answer to your rhetorical quesiton from the the US State Department:

"the US State Department had instructed the US Navy to withdraw the ship under protests from Spain"
Posted by: Carl in N.H.   2004-08-03 12:37:58 PM  

#10  But I don't much care for these halfway "dependency" solutions, where a country governs over people that have no say on that country's government.

One name springs to the forefront: Puerto Rico. And yeah, I'm all for cutting it loose, too.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-08-03 12:29:35 PM  

#9  The Brits should keep it, force the Spanish to appease them. Step on them just as Al Queda has done.
Posted by: yank   2004-08-03 12:18:35 PM  

#8  This is simple. do we stand by our stalwart ally of over a century or do we hop in bed with a coward whose combat endurance is measured in hours?
Posted by: Mr. Davis   2004-08-03 11:27:15 AM  

#7  HMS Tireless? What a stupid name! How many subs have tires?
Posted by: Frank G   2004-08-03 9:46:24 AM  

#6  I think the votes of 500 million Indians would have skewed our domestic election results somewhat - therefore not a practicable part of empire building. The Gibraltarians held a referendum on joint sovereignty in 2002 and voted 99% against. I think the Spaniards rather seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-08-03 9:46:08 AM  

#5  My own view on this is in favour of either making it a true part of UK, or of Spain, or giving it independence, depending on what the people in it themselves want.

But I don't much care for these halfway "dependency" solutions, where a country governs over people that have no say on that country's government.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-08-03 9:33:24 AM  

#4  Oh, in that case hand it back then. Frrrp. Not a great difference really.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-08-03 9:20:34 AM  

#3  I've heard that the Spanish POV on this is that Ceuta & Melilla are "integral" parts of Spanish territory, while Gibraltar simply has "dependency" status with its residents not being able to vote in UK elections.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-08-03 9:03:55 AM  

#2  Two words: Ceuta & Melilla. Are the Spaniards intent on returning their colonies? Nope. Neither are we.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-08-03 8:13:15 AM  

#1  So what's the magic number. Do the Brits get to keep it after 300 years or is Spain going to accept as equally valid Muslim claims to most of the Iberian peninsula that are just about as old? Right.
Posted by: Don   2004-08-03 8:09:44 AM  

00:00