Facing up to the Rock’s future

Press, 12 July 1983, Page 20

Facing up to the Rock’s future

By

S. A. SERUYA,

a former Minister of Economics in the

Gibraltar Government. Reprinted from the “Daily Telegraph.”

With elections over in Britain and Spain, Mrs Thatcher and Spain’s Prime Minister, Mr Felipe Gonzales, are now faced with the delicate problem of Gibraltar. Last week, Sir Joshua Hassan, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, visited London for talks with Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Secretary, on the Spanish border issue. The issue has been dodged since April, 1980, when the British and Spanish Foreign Ministers made a joint statement in Lisbon agreeing “to start negotiations aimed at overcoming all the differences between them on Gibraltar.”

For the first time, Britain undertook to hold talks, even on sovereignty, and Spain promised “the re-establishment of direct communications in the region,” and “to suspend the application of the measures at present in force.” The date originally envisaged for the full opening of the frontier and start of negotiations was June 1, 1980, but the then ruling Spanish Centre Party, unsure of itself, postponed the opening three times, and finally fell from power last October. When the Socialist Government succeeded it, one of its first acts was to open the Gibraltar frontier, but only to pedestrians of Spanish nationality and British residents of the Rock.

While reaffirming its historical claim to sovereignty over Gibral-

tar, Spain declared the partial opening “a unilateral humanitarian act,” and stated that the Lisbon Accord would be implemented in the (northern) spring. In Gibraltar the partial opening of the frontier was welcomed as a first positive step and gesture of good will. Seven months later, however, the agreements reached in Lisbon remain unimplemented. Spain does not allow full and normal communications with Gibraltar. The good will created by the partial opening last December has been dissipated by existing restrictions, and the loud Spanish protests at the visit of the Royal Navy to the Rock. At the human level, the pedestrian opening has enabled Spaniards and Gibraltarians to meet. Spanish frontier police are courteous, but arbitrary regulations prevented one group of Gibraltarians from taking fishing rods to an angling competition in Spain, and Gibraltar’s tennis champion could not take his racket on holiday to the Costa del Sol.

On the economic side, Gibraltarians are spending £8 million a year shopping and holidaying in Spain, while Spanish visitors to Gibraltar spend very little, since they may not take back purchases even if willing to pay customs duty. This one-sidedness has soured feelings, antagonised the Gibral-

tarians and irritated a Britain which supports Spain in the European Economic Community and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Last year, Spain’s Foreign Minister, Mr Fernando Moran, rightly said that the Lisbon process would be a long one, and added that Spain must rid its foreign policy of its inferiority complex. This approach could enable Spanish diplomacy to tackle the Gibraltar problem with an eye to the future. Spain is no longer confronting the British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries, but negotiating with a European ally in order to solve a problem that involves the human rights of the people of Gibraltar. In dealing with a “Gibraltarian David” and not an “Imperial Goliath,” it is in Spain’s interest to recognise that the people of Gibraltar are defending not only their standard of living, but the freedom and rule of law they have enjoyed over two centuries. The Gibraltarians on their part must show greater understanding of the Spanish case than before. Probably the main spur to Madrid is the belief that Gibraltar’s economy is so weak that it will succumb to Spanish pressures. Britain’s untimely announcement of its intention to close the Royal Naval dockyard in Gibraltar at the end of this year encouraged this view, and Spain finds no reason either co assist Britain in her defence cuts, or open up communications to help Gibraltar in its economic plight. Undoubtedly, Gibraltar faces economic difficulties, but, with a

population of only 20,000 plus, it can tighten its belt and pull through. At worst, it would cost Britain £2O million a year to maintain present living standards, and it is inconceivable that she would sacrifice honour and promises to the people of Gibraltar for such a pittance. Britain has derived major benefits from Gibraltar in peace and war. Yet since 1954 she tacitly acquiesced in the Spanish economic blockade of the Rock. Bj' way of compensation, she has contributed a small annual grant to the colony’s development budget. The announcement to close the dockyard, made before the opening of the Spanish frontier, was a diplomatic gaffe. If Britain wants a negotiated solution with Spain, it would be well to keep the naval dockyard operational, while promoting greater administrative efficiency, higher productivity and more commercial work.

Spain suffers from an exaggerated fear that trade with Gibraltar can damage its economy, and even traffic to Malaga airport. Spain is no longer an underdeveloped country, but the world’s eleventh industrial power and well-stocked in goods Spaniards used to purchase in Gibraltar. In 1982, Gibraltar’s total imports amounted to £68.4 million, including £21.9 million from Britain, and £2l million in oil and petroleum products. Despite a Spanish ban, £2.4 million worth of Spanish products filtered into Gibraltar. Clearly, Spain is neglecting a substantial market that could absorb £3O million a year in Spanish

building materials, oil and petroleum products from the Algericas refinery, cars and lorries, foodstuffs, ’ household and durable goods, wines and spirits, textiles, footwear and other manufactured goods and services. In addition, Gibraltarians can easily spend over £lO million a year’in shopping, restaurants, recreation and holidaying in Spain. Over and above this, building and development projects in Gibraltar can offer employment to Spanish labour.

The fear that Gibraltar will draw air traffic from Malaga is unrealistic.

In 1982. air traffic to Malaga was 3 million passengers compared to 65,000 to Gibraltar. The vast majority of passengers to both destinations travelled on charter, package tours or at special rates, and only a small percentage on normal fares. Gibraltar Airport could meet the needs of the Spanish hinterland from Tarifa to Estepona, channelling more tourism and investment to these areas.

Also working against a settlement of the Gibraltar problem is the financially powerful lobby in Madrid of the Spanish enclaves, Ceuta and Melilla on the Moroccan coast. Morocco claims these cities and they could benefit from whatever liberal political and economic formula is found for Gibraltar. Gibraltar, on the north side of the Straits facing Ceuta, commands the entrance to the Mediterranean. Some 2000 ships pass through the Straits every month, and they are of vital importance for oil supplies and seaborne reinforcements to the southern flank of N.A.T.O.

Even without Spanish participation in N.A.T.O. the Rock is a pivotal point of Western defence. ■lf Spain becomes a full member of the alliance, Gibraltar’s strategic importance is enhanced, and strenthens the Spanish defence system from the Canary Islands to the Balearics.

With this in mind, the suggestion has been made that the British naval commander at Gibraltar should come under the over-all control of a Spanish Admiral in command of the wider area.

Clearly, Britain and Spain today have common political, economic and defence interests. Given governments with substantial parliamentary majorities, the two democratic and constitutional monarchies must not miss the chance to negotiate on the sensitive problem of Gibraltar, and reach a fair solution. The Lisbon Agreement provides the finely balanced framework which should be tested without further delay.