Mr. Caruana reminded the Special Committee that the relevant doctrine of the UN is that, when it comes to decolonisation, there is NO alternative to the principle of self-determination.
A territory cannot be decolonised by its transfer from the colonial power to a third party claimant regardless of the wishes and rights of the inhabitants of the territory.
The Spanish restrictions are contrary to the UN Charter, which proclaims that member states are committed not to apply external pressures to non-self-governing territories. But Spain was not only doing the opposite, but of late, the Spanish Government was openly admitting that it was exercising pressures against Gibraltar in pursuance of its territorial claim.
Mr. Caruana asked: When the committee speaks of "eradicating colonialism" in Gibraltar is it advocating a hand-over to Spain against the wishes of the people "or does it set out to promote the right of the people of my country to self-determination?"
Mr. Caruana says that Gibraltar has not been Spanish, nor part of Spain for 295 years, since 1704. If Spain's territorial integrity was disrupted, as she alleges, this occurred in 1704 and cannot be and would not be the result of an exercise now by the people of Gibraltar to their right to self determination. It is not the exercise of that right that would bring about a disruption of Spain’s territorial integrity. That doctrine accordingly has no application to the case of Gibraltar, since we are not seeking to secede from Spain of which we are not a part.
That this interpretation of the position is the correct one is clear from the language of General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 setting the declaration on principles of International law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the Charter of the UN: "Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour."
There is no government representing the people of Spain and Gibraltar. Furthermore the doctrine, even if it were applicable, could only apply to acts arising after the doctrine was promulgated. It is therefore simply not admissible to seek to apply in 1999 the principle of territorial integrity by reference to the territorial position of 295 years ago, when the doctrine did not exist and therefore could have no application to events that took place more than 200 years earlier. If this were so, the map of the world would have to be redrawn.
Mr. Caruana states that there is in fact no recognise principle of retrocession of territory in the context of decolonisation. It is significant in this respect that neither a right to, nor the principle of, retrocession of territory has been recognised in any UN Resolution or instrument. Indeed, in its advisory opinion in the case of Western Sahara the International Court of Justice said in relation to so-called "colonial enclaves":
"Even if integration of a territory was demanded by an interested state it could not be had without ascertaining the freely expressed will of the people, the very sine qua non of all decolonisation"
In the Namibia case, the International Court of Justice held that "international law in regard to non-self-governing territories as enshrined in the Charter of the UN made the principle of self determination application to all of them." Gibraltar is one of the 17 such territories on this Special Committee’s list. We are one of them. "All" therefore includes us.
The relevant doctrine of the UN, approved on many occasions in recent years by this Special Committee is that, in the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self determination. The notion that you can decolonise a territory under the auspices of this Committee by its transfer from the colonial power to a third party claimant, regardless of the wishes and rights of the inhabitants of the territory is bizarre and an affront to the mandate, work and very raison d'etre of this Committee. It is unsustainable in international law. To suggest that it is the doctrine of the UN established in relevant resolutions is simply incorrect.
General Assembly Resolution 46/181 of 19th December 1991 says in paragraph 1 that the UN reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of the remaining Non Self Governing Territories to self determination.
When the Special Committee speaks about "eradicating colonialism" in Gibraltar is it advocating the handing over of my country to Spain against the unanimous wishes of its inhabitants or does it set out to promote the right of the people of my country to self determination?"
UN resolutions call on member states not to apply any form of pressure on non-self-governing territories to prevent them pursuing a path to self-determination. But in the case of Gibraltar, Spain is acting contrary to what the UN stipulates.
When the Special Committee reviews annually the position affecting each territory on its list, it does so principally to assess compliance by the Administering Powers with their obligations. However there are covenants and resolutions of the UN relating to the rights of Non-Self Governing Territories, especially relating to the imposition of pressure and coercion on them, that binds all Member States.
Mr. Caruana believes that Spain systematically offends against those obligations in the case of Gibraltar in manner which impedes, and is calculated and intended to impede the political, social and economic development of Gibraltar. She refuses to allow maritime or air links between Gibraltar and Spain; she refuses to recognise and deal with our authorities, our police, our customs, our judiciary etc; she systematically seeks to prevent the participating of Gibraltar in EU measures and pressurises the UK and other EU Member States to agree to exclude us; she obstructs the development of the use of our airport; she constantly obstructs the affiliation of Gibraltar national sports associations in international federations; most significantly she systematically causes unnecessary delays at our border to obstruct fluid passage of people.
In fact, the Spanish Government no longer tries to disguise the fact that the objective of these measures are to bring us to heal politically and to dissuade us from the pursuit of our right to self determination, as evinced by recent statements by the Spanish Foreign Minister.
He urged that the committee's chairman "visit our country", but also issued a challenge to the UK not to block the visit on this occasion "and this time to explain publicly to us and more importantly to you, Mr. Chairman, exactly and truthfully why it is doing so if it stands in the way of your visit."
He adds: There is only one reason for blocking your visit, and that is to obtain a decision from your committee based on lack of knowledge of the cultural reality of our people, and the difference both from the administering power and the neighbouring state. That offer is now open and urgent, for we have only 29 weeks left. Time has run out.
"We ask for justice," said Mr. Serfaty, whose speech was a scathing attack on Britain and Spain, also calling the UN Committee to order.
The SDGG had been "alarmed" by the position adopted by the committee last year "which ran in the face of the right of our people to self-determination."
The committee had contributed in no small part to the present position, "by offering the neighbouring state hope that it may impose its predatory will on the people of Gibraltar, and encouraging discussions between the administering power and the neighbouring state, the substance of which is against the wishes of the population."
The SDGG asked that the committee "call to order the unacceptable behaviour of the governments both of the neighbouring state and the administering power."
The neighbouring state is stubborn in its presentation of arguments to annex the territory, and incomprehensibly, chooses to ignore persistent rebuffs by the population. The administering power is failing to act on behalf of the dependent territory, and is giving excessive priority to its own national interests.
He described the Treaty of Utrecht as "a thoroughly abhorrent treaty" with both Britain and Spain hanging on to it "because it suits both of them at the expense of the rights of population of the territory".
There cannot be decolonisation, or any change in the status of Gibraltar, through Anglo-Spanish talks, except as decided by the free and full democratic exercise of the right of the Gibraltarians to self-determination. Mr. Serfaty spoke of the Gibraltarians as being "the rightful masters of the territory they inhabit", a view he expects the UN to agree and support in full.
These are the main findings of a PANORAMA survey carried out on eighty shops situated on Main Street, to find out how the traders believed that business had fared over the past few years, up till today.
The results show that 61% of the total number surveyed opined that business had decreased over recent years, 20% thought that it had stayed more or less the same and 19% thought that business had in fact increased.
When asking about the difference in business between this year and the last, 43% of the same traders surveyed expressed a belief that it had significantly worsened. However, there was an almost equal number of the surveyees (41%) who opined that there had not been a significant change for the worse since this time last year. 16% thought that business had improved.
And what were the reasons for these changes, whether good or bad? Well, the most common beliefs among those who thought that business had worsened were that the situation at the frontier with Spain, and also the recent strength of the pound in the exchange rate, had made their effects known upon trading in Gibraltar, especially when referring to shops which rely on income from tourists.
Among those whose shops were in the north area of Main Street, the Casemates renovation and the moving of the location of the coach park were looked upon as deterring potential buyers from going to that part of town.
Some traders simply attributed the fall in business to consumers spending less, or to more competition in Gibraltar between shops selling the same articles often at similar prices.
The "frontier situation" as it is often called, is thought to prevent potential clients (whether Spanish, or tourists visiting Spain) from coming to Gibraltar and providing business for these shops. The long queues and general hassle involved in crossing the border seem to deter people from making the journey here from Spain.
The exchange rate is also thought to be an important factor; the pound is currently strong against the peseta (and also, it seems, against other foreign currencies), and therefore potential clients are less prepared to make the effort to shop here, if the goods will not be cheaper (and may indeed be more expensive in some cases). In the same way, Gibraltarians prepared to brave the frontier queues may well look for cheaper prices on the same articles in Spain.
The GSLP has not disputed or questioned that the technology is the newest in the market or that it is worth the £1.6 million. "It has questioned whether it is the right decision to acquire such an expensive computer for Gibraltar given that its capacity is designed to service a far greater number of customers than those available in Gibraltar who now have to foot the whole of the £1.6 million bill," says opposition spokesman Juan Carlos Perez in a statement today.
Mr. Britto confirmed in the House of Assembly that the system has features which will not be used in Gibraltar. He first highlighted "per second billing" as a feature of the computer and in support of the decision to purchase it. When asked whether this meant that customers would now have the benefit of being charged calls to the nearest second instead of the nearest minute, the minister responded in the negative admitting that this was not a feature which was to be put in use. He also confirmed that the decision to buy this system had come about as a result of the old billing computer not being year 2000 compliant. Instead of replacing one billing system for another, a decision has been taken to purchase one with many more feature which, although desirable, Gibraltar cannot afford if it is to become competitive in pricing.
For the second year running the Opposition has argued that telephone charges need to be reduced drastically. There is clear evidence of the Telecom Companies enjoying increased turnover and increased profitability. Against this scenario and against the background of the liberalisation telecommunications in the EU which is pushing charges down everywhere, the GSLP had told the Government that it should make the case of its partners, namely Bell Atlantic and British Telecom, that charges should be reduced and some of those benefits given back to the customers. The decision to purchase this system at a cost of £1.6 million is a step in the opposition direction.
Mr. Britto has also said that specialists were engaged to advice him and his fellow board members on the replacement computer. Nothing he has said in the House of Assembly or outside it, for that matter, has convinced the Opposition that the right decision has been taken. "Perhaps he should put some of the arguments of those consulted in the public domain so that we may all be able to judge whether the decision is justified with all the details at our disposal," said Mr. Perez.
-New computer or not, the latest bills from Nynex continue to cause concern to the public: Telephones "will" be disconnected if not paid in time. The bills are dated 1 June, were postmarked 9th June and received on the due date!
Ms. Quin: First, as I understand it, the citizenship of the people of Gibraltar will be rectified - I would not say rectified, but certainly changed - under the terms of the Overseas Territory White Paper, particularly in the ability to pass British citizenship on to descendants. I think that change will be welcome although it is true that the Gibraltarians had greater citizenship rights than some other territories which have now been brought into line if you like in the White Paper.
With respect, that was not my question. In fact, I was putting aside in a sense that difference of their citizenship status or what it might be. At this moment we have a moral obligation of equal status to those people as to the people of Durham, Washington, Sedgefield, Livingston or Thurrock, do we not?
Ms. Quin: We do indeed have a very strong moral obligation towards them.
Can I put it to you, Minister, that if 17,000 people of your constituency, of Livingston, Sedgefield or Thurrock, were effectively cooped up in a state or a geographical area of a few miles and frustrated from reasonable mobility, there would be one hell of a bloody row in this place, would there not? I just find it incredible. Just answer this: if it was your constituency, 17,000 in a comparable situation, it would be deemed intolerable, would it not?
Ms. Quin: We have said that the border delays and restrictions are intolerable.
But it is like hitting a door with a wet sponge, is it not? The people of Gibraltar, and speaking for myself - and it might be the view of my other colleagues - we are looking for some demonstration of anger and frustration after what has been a period of time of acquiescing, if you like, in this. There seems to be no demonstration of counter-productivity. This matter is not being pursued in the courts. There are not measures which are being taken as far as we can see to say to Spain, "If you are not going to play ball on this we are not going to play ball on that." You cannot answer whether or not the Prime Minister is going to have this as item number one on his agenda. I have to say to you that I, and I think other people, am totally frustrated about the inability of Her Majesty's Government to say, "This is wholly unacceptable". I put it to you: where is the demonstration of anger and irritation which is commensurate with the fact that it is a human rights issue in a way, is it not, because these people are entitled in Europe, in the European Union, to reasonable mobility and, whilst border controls are of course lawful, there has to be applied the test of reasonableness and you and I are agreed that what is being applied is unreasonable.
Ms. Quin: You say that you want us to say that this is wholly unacceptable, but we have said that on many occasions. Indeed, the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the efforts of other Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have all tended in that direction. What I do find strange is that since we have been so active people keep complaining that we have not been active.
Because nothing has happened. This afternoon there are still people being frustrated on the border for an hour or two hours.
Ms. Quin: It is not true to say that nothing has happened. In the height of the atmosphere after the local fishing agreement was secured, which we supported incidentally, the border delays were sometimes six hours. I have spoken to the Governor today and he has told me that those delays are one hour.
But one hour is unacceptable.
Ms. Quin: I am not saying that it is acceptable but it is also not reasonable for you to say that nothing has happened.
Dr. Starkey: Minister, may I pursue this line that Mr. Mackinlay has taken? What people in Gibraltar want, as people in Thurrock, I imagine, would want, is effective action. I accept that cutting up rough is sometimes a diversion from effective action. Could you perhaps expand, given that even if you have had a slight amelioration of conditions for people in Gibraltar clearly we have not had delivered everything that we might have wished, on what further measures are being examined by the Foreign Office so that we can progress the matter effectively?
Ms. Quin: I accept that not everything has been done that I would have liked to see done. I believe that the action that we have taken has been responsible for reducing the border delays but there are still a large number of other areas where I would like to see more progress. Myself and officials in the Foreign Office try and evaluate all the areas of difficulty with Spain as far as Gibraltar is concerned and then look at how we can make progress in all the different areas. Those include a variety of European Union issues and European Union legislation. They include a variety of financial and business or company measures, and also of course they include measures to do with the border and measures to do with fisheries and other interests as well. We have to keep all these different areas under examination in order to try and move towards a more satisfactory outcome in all the different areas.
Have we explored the levers that we have that might be used to help persuade the Spanish Government?
Ms. Quin: Of course, and indeed those are the matters that we raise at the different ministerial levels which I described, but one has to evaluate all the possible actions we can take both for their advantages and also for their disadvantages.
Mr. Heath: Can I preface this by saying that I personally am deeply saddened, because I value the Spanish and British relations, by the position that has been adopted over the last little while. Can I first ask, Minister, do you regret the ambiguity in the state of Gibraltar in EU terms? It seems to me that Gibraltar has a much less well defined position than the overseas territories of France, Spain or Portugal, that it is not written into EU statute and the EU Treaty in the same way, and that this has served to reduce the opportunities for Gibraltar within the Union over recent years?
Ms. Quin: Yes, I think there is something in that. Obviously, it is always impossible to turn the clock back and it is always easy to be wise with hindsight. All I can say is that I understand at the time the arrangements were made they were made in consultation with Gibraltar, but when one looks at the European Union today and some of the practical difficulties that the Gibraltarians have experienced, then sometimes it seems to me that if that arrangement had perhaps been more clearcut from the outset it would have been easier in discussions and negotiations that we have had.
But meanwhile Gibraltar has its particular relationship with Britain whereby the Gibraltarian Government and the various authorities are answerable to the Crown. Is it acceptable that Spain should refuse to recognise the competence of authorities in Gibraltar who are answerable to the Crown, who are the agents of the Crown, for instance, the Royal Gibraltarian Police, who are in the same status as any other police force in the United Kingdom?
Ms. Quin: I certainly regret that the Spaniards have not been willing to accept competent authorities in the way that we have defined them in order to include Gibraltar authorities, and I think if there was a recognition of those authorities it would be a big step forward in creating a better relationship over Gibraltar.
Spain is also an ally with Britain in NATO.
Ms. Quin: Indeed.
Involved in current operations, and yet we have a British port which apparently is out of bounds for joint operations on the grounds that Spain will not accept Nato operations going into Gibraltar. Is that true and is it acceptable?
Ms. Quin: I understand that there are certainly still some restrictions which the Spaniards impose on military activity as far as Gibraltar is concerned within Nato, although some restrictions were lifted at the time of Spanish accession into Nato. I am sure we can provide information although this may be also one of the issues which I think the Committee has raised in its questions and its memoranda. It certainly is an area where we feel restrictions are unnecessary. What has been good is that some of Gibraltar’s assets have been able to be used in combined Nato operations, and in that sense that has been a step forward for Gibraltar.
But there is always this heavy qualification, is there not, that we accept that Spain can treat Gibraltar in a way which we would not accept for any other part of British territory within the European Union? When we negotiate treaties we seem to be prepared to accept that Spain can effectively exercise a veto even on areas where there is no veto. I give two examples: the driving disqualification conventions and the EURODAC convention. Why was it that Britain was prepared to accept the exclusion of Gibraltar on those conventions at the diktat of Spain? Why were the British Government not prepared to block those conventions proceeding until such time as Gibraltar could be incorporated?
Ms. Quin: Of course sometimes we do block things because they have excluded Gibraltar. The one example that comes most recently to mind is the European Union’s ramp checks directive in this transport field of aviation safety, where we had a dispute over competent authorities and whether Gibraltar would be included. We blocked that even though it was not exactly a popular blocking move as far as the other Member States of the European Union were concerned. In terms of the two that you have mentioned, neither of those is adoptable by qualified majority voting and therefore it is possible for Spain to veto them.
And for us.
Ms. Quin: And for us, yes. You are right, that we have not done it on every occasion, and obviously the Committee will be considering its own view on this matter. We have taken the view that sometimes we feel that it is unacceptable and we will veto the legislation. Occasionally, though, if the legislation is felt to be very much in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, we do allow that exclusion of Gibraltar to take place.
Mr. Mackinlay: You would not with Sedgefield, though, would you?
Ms. Quin: Indeed, let me answer for my own constituency. Occasionally measures are adopted in the European Union which affect different parts of Britain in different ways. We know for example on fisheries regulations that there may be regulations that are more in favour of, say, Scottish fishermen than with south western fishermen.
Mr. Heath: But, with respect, not legal exclusions. We would not accept something that said, "The whole of the United Kingdom but we will leave out Cornwall". Well, we might, but I hope not.
Ms. Quin: The point I am making is that you do not always take the interests of one area to the exclusion of all other interests.
Chairman: Having said that, Minister, we understand that there are certainly wider United Kingdom interests, for example, on driving licences, and it was perhaps not appropriate for us to veto that. Have we actively sought various items which are not so much relevant to us but which are of interest to Spain, the olive oil directive or something of that nature, where we could show that we also can be difficult?
Ms. Quin: First, it is not always clear that being difficult ourselves is necessarily going to be the best way of making progress as far as Gibraltar is concerned. Secondly, in areas like olive oil, where you are talking about agricultural issues, those are adopted by qualified majority voting and it would simply not be possible for one country to block them.
Mr. Heath: I am still trying to discover where the straw lies that breaks this particular camel’s back. Sr. Matutes has suggested that a measure that he might consider is the blocking of civil aviation flights overflying Spain towards Gibraltar. What would the British Government do if Spain attempted that?
Ms. Quin: We would very strongly condemn any such approach.
But what would you do?
Ms. Quin: I am not quite sure why the Committee laughs, because in fact we have said that we believe that it would be quite wrong and unprecedented and extraordinary for any country in the European Union to ban overflights from one part of the European Union to another.
Oy, que bien la pase at Eastern Beach, Cloti dear. Me he puesto mas morena que brown bread.
A mi me lo quito el medico que tomara too much sun, dice que es malo.
Y el Pita One perdiendose todo esto. He's gone to the UN.
Espero que el sun will shine for us out there, caramba cuando se van a enterar los del UN que Gibraltar is ours?
I don't know, a lo mejor algunos estan sordo - o le entra por un oido y le sale por el otro.
This year se complicaron las cosas when the SDGG went round to No.6 to show their speech to Pita One. It was then que se entero that they were going.
Al Governation le ha caido muy mal, according to el Press Release.
Bueno, let's see si viene a vernos el del Committee on Decolonisation que para eso somos un colony.
La colonia huele mal, my dear. Es que los del Foreign Office no quieren que venga, por algo sera.
Meanwhile, mandaron al head del southern european department to see if the natives were restless antes de la visita de Quin. Un tal Hill, como si fuera Gibraltarian.
I hope it won't be an uphill task, cariño.
Don't ask me, all I know about politics es lo que me cuenta my darling husband.
Pues el mio me cuenta que hay palomos flying about como si fueran seagulls. Dicen que algunos, old and new, gathered for a meal last week.
Birds of a feather flock together, como dice el English saying.
Friday 25th June Tarik Modern Dance Academy presents their end of term production at the Ince’s Hall at 7.30pm. Tickets are priced at £4 and sold at the Studio at Prince Edward’s Road, Tel: 77758.
Saturday 26th June Guardmount at The Convent at 11am.
Sunday 27th June Gibraltar Ornithological and Natural History Society ramble to Atajate in Spain at 8am. The meeting place is the Spanish side of the border just to the right of the Aduana vehicle exit. For information about rambles contact John Murphy on Tel: 74645 or Ray Murphy on Tel: 71956.
If you have anything to say, e-mail us. Some of the comments will be published.