For the first time anywhere, PANORAMA is today publishing IN
FULL the Matutes proposals for a Spanish Gibraltar. It is the
official English translation.
It marks the first anniversary of their being presented at
the meeting between the UK and Spanish Foreign Ministers in
London on 10th December last year.
Since then, the proposals have been rejected by all political
parties in Gibraltar and opinion polls have shown scant support
for them.
The Gibraltar Government itself has urged Britain to formally
reject them, while the Chief Minister has, on various occasions
throughout the last 12 months, rejected them as unacceptable.
But the proposals remain on the table, as Mr Matutes likes
to say, as they have not been formally rejected by the British
Government.
To this end the SDGG are presenting to Prime Minister Mr Tony
Blair on Thursday 10th December their petition with 12400+ signatures
against the proposals.
10th December marks the first anniversary of the proposals
presented by Spanish foreign minister Abel Matutes to Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook at a meeting in London under the Brussels
Agreement. They are reproduced here IN FULL.
We find ourselves once again observing the commitment which
we made in our Brussels declaration of 27 November 1984, to
meet at ministerial level in order to further the negotiating
process established on that date with the intuition of settling
our dispute over Gibraltar. Secretary of State, this is the
first time that you will be taking part in this forum on behalf
of the new British Government. That encourages us to call on
your delegation to give fresh impetus to this process which,
despite its undoubted usefulness, has not, at least from the
Spanish point of view, achieved all of the desired results.
In effect, the Brussels declaration expressly states that "questions
of sovereignty" would have to be addressed in this negotiating
process. In view of the continued Spanish claim to Gibraltar,
it is clear that Spain's priority interest in initiating these
negotiations was to explore together the ways and means by which
we could settle this dispute and begin a stage of closer and
more fruitful relations between Spain and the United Kingdom,
as befits two countries which share the same democratic values,
and are also partners in the project of European Union and Members
of the same Alliance.
In return for that political commitment to negotiate, the Brussels
declaration provided for a number of concessions (make
that application of fundamental human rights) by
Spain, in particular with regard to the free movement of persons,
vehicle and goods and to air communications. All of those measures
were implemented promptly by Spain (Lie-
see restrictions). However, I have to say
that that did not result in any evidence of a British willingness
to negotiate on sovereignty, and we believe that the time has
come to make a fresh attempt, on generous (!) terms, to create a stimulus to change
the course of this process, which is now at its eleventh ministerial
session and is clearly deadlocked: I do not believe that this
situation is good for anyone. The difficulties which we have
recently experienced with regard to NATO are a clear sign of
the pernicious and contaminating effect of the Gibraltar question.
Before discussing further that attempt at a fresh approach,
I want to spell out the actual content of our claim (see
IAQ, Q1) to Gibraltar as
regards sovereignty:
a) Spain seeks to recover the territory ceded to the British
Crown under Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. We recognize
the legal validity of the Treaty of Utrecht. However, we believe
that we are now very far from the exceptional circumstances
in which the territory of Gibraltar was occupied by British
forces in 1704 and ceded in 1713, from the outset giving rise
to the Spanish claim. With the passing of time, it is no longer
possible for allies and members to maintain a colonial situation
which has lost its whole raison d'être. That is why the United
Nations has issued repeated resolutions and decisions expressing
the need for our countries to negotiate the decolonisation of
Gibraltar based on the principle of territorial integrity. Our
relationship thus comes under new international law relating
to decolonisation. (i.e. self-determination)
b) The isthmus to the north of Gibraltar was not ceded under
Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, as clearly shown by the
text of that article, which states that the cession relates
to "the Town and Castle of Gibraltar, together with the
Port, Fortifications and Fort thereunto belonging", clearly
(?) implying a contrario that the
isthmus was excluded. The subsequent occupation by Britain is
purely factual in nature and has never been recognized by Spain.
Apart from the continued protests at such occupation, there
is no Spanish act of acquiescence which can be invoked in support
of any alleged right of prescription On the contrary, in maintaining
our claim, we have been obliged both now and in the past to
oppose any action which might be used as an argument by Britain
in order to reinforce any claim to the isthmus.
c) Our position regarding the waters off Gibraltar is consistent
with what I have said. Consequently, as the Spanish Government
stated when it signed the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea on 5 December 1984, we do not recognize "any
rights or situations in respect of maritime areas of Gibraltar
not included in Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July
1713 between the Spanish and British Crowns" (Only Spain does not recognise Gibraltar's territorial
waters)
The overview which I have given of Spain's position in principle
regarding sovereignty has invariably met with the same response
from Britain, based on the preamble to the so-called constitution
granted to Gibraltar by Her Britannic Majesty on 23 May l969,
which contains the undertaking that "Her Majesty's Government
will never enter into arrangements under which the people of
Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another State
against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
I will go on to discuss the importance which "the wishes"
of the people of Gibraltar have for us. But before I do so,
I would like to take a moment to consider what we understand
today by sovereignty and whether the development of that concept
and its present reality might show us the way to a solution
I must make it quite clear that our aim of recovering sovereignty
over the colony of Gibraltar is permanent and can never be given
up In making that assertion, my Government is expressing the
unanimous wishes of the Spanish people (lie-
in a recent poll 27% were against. Most Spaniards do not
have strong feelings on this matter) and the political
forces which represent them. We simply cannot allow an amputation
of the integrity of our territory (which
happenned 300 years ago!) which represents a serious
anomaly for our existence as a State(?).
That integrity, which has been a constant in Spanish foreign
policy, will be maintained, and I can assure you that we will
not allow manoeuvres or attention to other interests to divert
us from that path. The normal development of our bilateral relations,
and of our joint participation in international fora, the Alliance
and the European Union, will inevitably and lamentably be affected
by the dispute for as long as we fail to make headway with our
claim to sovereignty.
Nevertheless, while our position remains firm in this regard,
we must bear in mind that the deadlock in our negotiations is
perhaps due in part to the fact that the two parties and the
people of Gibraltar are tied to a concept of sovereignty which
belongs to the past and which has now acquired a new meaning.
The profound change in circumstances to which I am referring
is particularly clear if we consider our joint participation
in the process of European construction and the process of decentralization
which has characterized the construction of a democratic Spanish
State composed of autonomies based on the l978 Constitution.
Sovereignty as a legal and historical right is still the same,
and that is what our claim relates to. On the other hand, the
effective powers of State traditionally viewed as part of that
concept have changed and to that extent our claim to sovereignty
over Gibraltar has acquired a different dimension and content.
That thought may be of interest when we refer to the traditional
stumbling block in our negotiations: I am referring to "the
wishes of the people of Gibraltar. I first of all say that the
undertaking entered into by the British Crown with regard to
"the wishes" of the people of Gibraltar is not legally
binding on Spain (translation- we don't care about the wishes of
the people of Gibraltar). They will therefore understand
why we ruled out consideration of those wishes as an obstacle
to negotiations on sovereignty between the two States parties
to the Treaty of Utrecht. Simply put, to us the preamble of
the Gibraltar constitution is an arrangement between third parties,
a further difficulty created by the British Government of the
time in order to resist the clear call issued by the United
Nations for a bilateral solution regarding the decolonisation
of Gibraltar. Now, we are aware that the establishment of such
conditions is an objective obstacle to the settlement of our
dispute since, as a democratic(?)
State, we cannot conceive of (what's
this, then?) a solution to the problem of sovereignty
which is forcibly imposed on the will of the citizens of Gibraltar,
who would be affected by a change in the situation regarding
sovereignty. The people of Gibraltar need not worry, they can
forget the absurd(?) propaganda
about Spain's alleged intention of forcing them into a result
contrary to their interests.
From our point of view, however, the important thing is that
the consideration which the British Government has thus far
given to "the wishes" of the people of Gibraltar has
been a subterfuge or excuse for not entering into in-depth negotiations
on the problems between us regarding Gibraltar. (Or
maybe HMG is actually committed to democracy) The
1967 referendum whose result was certainly one of clear opposition
to the transfer of sovereignty - even continues to be used as
an argument, as if we were still in the same circumstances now
as we were then, particularly in Spain (so,
what's changed?). In the light of that self-interested
use of "the wishes" of the people of Gibraltar, I
would take advantage of the new British Government's desire
to enter these negotiations in a fresh spirit to suggest to
you, Secretary of State, that without detriment to the importance
which those "wishes" must continue to have for the
United Kingdom in view of the 1969 "Constitution",
we could begin to discuss a general arrangement which would
include sovereignty, in order to look at the advantages and
disadvantages of a settlement to the dispute also from the viewpoint
of the people of Gibraltar. I stress that we must not act as
though the present political context were the same as that in
which the idea of the free and democratic expression of "wishes"
was conceived, since there is no justification today for such
a precautionary measure to allay the Gibraltarian people's fears
of being incorporated into a non-democratic Spanish political
system.
I want to contribute to this fresh approach to the negotiating
process by presenting an initial picture of how we see Gibraltar's
future, once our aim of gaining sovereignty has been achieved.
We have already had occasion - at the recent Coordinators'
meeting in Madrid - to submit a pro memoria summarizing the
proposal which we are making to Gibraltar in the context of
a general arrangement. I had already had the opportunity of
outlining those ideas in an interview which I gave to the media
in Gibraltar last June. So I am not revealing anything new,
since both you and the people of Gibraltar are aware of the
main points which we would be prepared to study and resolve
together in the event that, as I hope, those ideas are of interest
in unblocking this process. I would like to restate those ideas
in this context and to make them an official Spanish proposal,
in addition to stressing their most important policy aspects.
In short, we are looking at the following scenario:
1. Article 144 of the Spanish Constitution authorizes the
Cortes Generales to extend the system of territorial autonomy
which applies to the rest of Spain to those territories not
included in the provincial organization, which would be granted
a statute of autonomy. My Government's proposal is that Gibraltar
should have a statute similar, as regards its level of political
and administrative autonomy, to that of the Spanish Autonomous
Communities. That involves the following, in particular:
The democratic rights and freedoms established and protected
by the Spanish Constitution of 1978 would be automatically extended
to Gibraltar, which has them set out in a similar way in its
1969 Constitution. (except our
right to self-determination)
As in the more advanced statutes of autonomy, Gibraltar's statute
would protect its individual linguistic and cultural identity
in a Spanish context.
Negotiation of the statute would include determining which
powers would be granted to the Government of Gibraltar in accordance
with the definition of the powers which may be assumed by the
autonomies pursuant to Article 148 of the Spanish Constitution
(which would be rather less than the level of self-government
we have now)
The statute would also provide for the organization of the
territory's institutions of self-government, including the special
judicial system.
It would likewise provide for any special arrangements which
may be agreed in respect of the economic and tax system. In
that context, we would not have any objection to accepting the
present definition of Gibraltar's status within the European
Union.
2. With regard to the individual status of the people of
Gibraltar, it is not our wish to force them to change their
nationality and we could negotiate a Special preferential system
for acquiring Spanish nationality or maintaining dual nationality.
(No thanks!)
3. As a guarantee to the people of Gibraltar, we are prepared
to accept a transition period during which sovereignty would
be exercised jointly by Spain and the United Kingdom, at the
end of which transfer to Spain would be completed. That formula
was offered by my predecessor Fernando Moran in 1984 and I renewed
it to your predecessor Mr. Rifkind at the beginning of this
year. Naturally, the arrangements for the transition period,
or the possibility of looking at another, similar formula, would
be open to negotiation. This offer of a transition period as
a guarantee would respond to the wish recently expressed by
the Gibraltarian authorities to request a constitutional reform
which would not involve losing the link with the British Crown.
That is a summary of the judicial and political system which
we would be prepared to explore with you. And, in the future,
with the people of Gibraltar. In a recent speech here in London,
Mr. Caruana surprised us by appearing willing to study new proposals
on a future new status for Gibraltar provided that they are
acceptable to its people. I sincerely hope that that will be
the case, since his words appear to refer to a proposal such
as the one which I have just set out, a serious proposal made
in good faith which offers Gibraltar an obvious improvement
(no it wouldn't) as regards
its present situation and future prospects:
First, our proposal represents an improvement because, terms
of legal status, it far surpasses that which the colony currently
enjoys. It is true that Gibraltar has been granted its own legislative
system, with its own institutions, which implies a guarantee
of democratic co-existence. However, the l969 Constitution describes
a typically colonial system in which, above the local authorities,
there is a Governor representing the British Crown who retains
extensive discretionary powers to impose legislation or to veto
laws approved by the legislature of Gibraltar. Only a few years
ago there was still talk of the possibility that the Governor
would suspend the constitutional guarantees (which the Government
of Gibraltar was blatantly misusing) and assume direct control
of the colony. In the Spanish system, on the other hand, there
is a genuine distribution of power between the State and the
autonomies: the powers of each are expressly limited by law
and any conflict between them is thus dealt with through the
legal system, being decided by the high court which is the constitutional
court.
The Government of Gibraltar would thus have (de)increased
powers compared to the present situation, while maintaining
his [economic] prerogatives intact. Considerable as it is, that
improvement should also be viewed from another angle, since
once the new situation is established as part of a solution
to the problem of sovereignty, the present tensions inevitably
and directly deriving from our continued claim would cease to
exist. Clearly, these political tensions mean that Gibraltar
cannot contemplate or plan a prosperous future since it lacks
firm support and cooperation (we'll hamper it at every turn), both
at national and European level, which would otherwise devolve
to the Spanish State or to Spain and the United Kingdom jointly.
In view of those undoubted advantages and given the receptive
frame of mind lately evidenced by Mr. Caruana, I sincerely believe
that it would be inexplicable if these offers were not received
by Britain and especially by Gibraltar with respect and in a
spirit of openness. They represent a considerable effort at
conciliation by the Spanish Government intended to offset the
exaggerated fears which the people of Gibraltar seem to have
regarding any option for the future which does not involve maintaining
the present status quo.
That attitude is difficult to understand given that the "status
quo", which would inevitably continue in future in the
event of a rejection of our ideas or if negotiations were blocked
indefinitely, does not look promising for Gibraltar or for Spanish-British
relations. As I said at the start, it is impossible to imagine
that Spain would give up what it considers as a legitimate claim
Our persistent efforts to recover sovereignty over Gibraltar
would have to continue as they have thus far: (we will go on Gibraltar-bashing until we get our
way)
First, we would have to continue to prevent Gibraltar from
existing and prospering at the expense of (make
that "to the benefit of") Spain, and in
particular at the expense (benefit)
of the area near Gibraltar. which suffers the worst effects
of the presence in its vicinity of a large free market which
is virtually uncontrolled in its own territory. I am referring
mainly, but not exclusively, to the serious problem of illegal
trafficking and unfair competition (See
Spanish Govt's own admission that these allegations are
false) We are aware of the efforts made to curb
the most obvious trafficking, and the security forces and customs
authorities on both sides of the fence have cooperated effectively
on occasion. However, we do not agree (yes
you do!) with the propaganda attempt of the
Gibraltar authorities to persuade us and the international community
that tax evasion and money laundering have been eradicated in
Gibraltar. All too frequently, surveillance of the fence (frontier) has detected considerable
sums of money being transported (evidence?),
and those are only an indication of the scale of the operations
being carried out in Gibraltar under the protection of a company
and tax system which lacks transparency. The concern aroused
in Gibraltar by the announcement of the implementation of European
directives requiring such transparency, is sufficiently indicative.
On the other hand, the obscure circumstances surrounding the
resignation of the British official sent to the colony in order
to try to introduce order into the investigation of illegal
trafficking were extremely worrying to us and, I believe, to
the British authorities. Specifically, it is an indication of
the existence of a web of crime possibly protected by the complicity
of local police, who harassed Mr. Browne precisely because he
sought to reveal the nature of the obscure companies resident
in the colony.
Secondly, maintenance of the status quo will certainly mean
our continued vigilance in counteracting moves to separate Gibraltar
from British cover, since this is incompatible with the status
of the colony in international law. Those moves clearly contradict
the spirit of our negotiating process, based on the United Nations
resolutions and the Brussels declaration, which call for efforts
to create understanding between the United Kingdom and Spain
regarding sovereignty:
Our action to stop any deviation from that path will be particularly
strong in the context of Europe. The status of Gibraltar under
Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome presupposes and requires
that the United Kingdom should effectively take responsibility
for representing the territory in international relations, including
intra-Community relations. We will continue to oppose Gibraltar's
attempts to establish itself as an interlocutor (we
won't allow Gibraltar's voice to be heard- the truth is too
embarrassing!) in respect of the institutions and
other Member States of the Union, and I am referring in particular
to various actions which appear to be unrelated but which share
the same objective of giving Gibraltar its own international
identity:
The claim that the judicial authorities and officials with
responsibility in financial matters (banking, insurance) should
be considered independent and direct interlocutors with the
national authorities of the other Members of the Union.
(see restrictions)
The issue of identity cards claiming to be necessary as valid
travel documents despite the fact that they are not issued by
national authorities as required. (see restrictions)
The attempt to record on passports and driving licences specific
references to Gibraltar which are a clear departure from the
European rules in force and which. incidentally. could cause
the people of Gibraltar problems when-exercising their right
to freedom of movement which, as such, we fully respect (like
hell they do!). (see restrictions)
Similarly, I believe it necessary to reiterate that, if the
present situation goes on, we will continue to oppose any change
in the constitutional status quo of Gibraltar which detracts
from the momentum established by the Brussels Process. I am
referring to the recent announcements and polls of the Gibraltar
authorities expressing the view that they would like a change
of status which, while maintaining a theoretical link of sovereignty
with the United Kingdom or even complete integration, would
seek to get round the United Nations instructions regarding
decolonisation and Spain's desire for a bilaterally (i.e. without Gibraltarian involvement)
-negotiated decolonisation. Such attempts are not only a breach
-of the negotiating process, they are also contrary to the spirit
of the Treaty of Utrecht (no, they're not)- they observe the
letter of that Treaty while failing to respect its spirit. We
are aware of the assurances recently given by the British authorities
to the effect that the status quo cannot be changed without
taking into account the "Spanish dimension". We appreciate
the realism (appeasement) and responsiveness of
those remarks, which show that the British authorities realize
that we would view in a very serious light any attempt unilaterally
to change the situation. Any such attempt would be viewed all
the more seriously in the context of a very generous(!)
and politically courageous negotiating offer such as the one
which I have just put forward.
Secretary of State, I stress once again that our proposal is
made in good faith (believe this and you'll belive anything!),
and that if accepted it would open up to the people of Gibraltar
very (un)promising prospects
for the future under the joint protection, during the first
phase, of our two countries. I invite you to put our proposal
before your Government so that they can study it with respect
and make the people of Gibraltar see the undoubted (dis)advantages
of receiving it in a constructive manner. For the moment, I
propose that when informing public opinion of the outcome of
our meeting, we should refer to the following points:
In order to re-launch the Brussels Process, the Spanish delegation
has set out the main points of the judicial and political status
which it could grant Gibraltar in the framework of an agreement
on the transfer of sovereignty. That could include a transition
period of joint sovereignty as a guarantee to the people of
Gibraltar.
The British delegation has listened with interest to the Spanish
proposals, which for the first time discuss in detail the foreseeable
future for Gibraltar. Those proposals merit thorough study by
the British and Gibraltarian authorities, and this will be done
without obligation in the coming months. To that end, a working
group will be formed, chaired by two coordinators of the Brussels
Process. (The Gibraltar Government
was not allowed to be present)