29.11.2001

Self-determination for Gibraltarians

Workers of the world have no country. This statement by Marx and Engels in the Communist manifesto is the starting point of our politics. We communists anticipate, and actively struggle for, a truly global world-system which is classless, nationless and stateless.

To achieve this communists support the right of nations and certain historically constituted peoples to self-determination - which does not mean of course that we recognise or defend the right of oppressors to oppress, or of nations to subjugate other nations or nationalities. No, as communists we favour the voluntary - ie, democratic - assimilation and merging of all the peoples of the world.

Last week the future destiny and fate of Gibraltar was discussed ? behind the backs of the 30,000 Gibraltarian people. Originating from a cosmopolitan mixture of Maltese, Genoese, Sephardic jews, Spanish and many a Royal Navy tar on shore leave - the Gibraltarians were effectively locked out of the talks held by the British and Spanish governments. Jack Straw and his Spanish counterpart, Josep Pique, imperiously announced that ?the Gibraltar problem? must be resolved by September 2002.

Their meeting was part of the ?Brussels process? initiated by the Conservative government in 1984, but which eventually ran aground in 1997 over Spanish proposals to share sovereignty of Gibraltar with Britain for a 50-year period and then afterwards make the territory wholly Spanish. The talks were revived when Straw took up his present post in June.

Straw and Pique issued a joint statement - the negotiations were making ?good progress? and both sides had agreed ?to conclude a comprehensive agreement by the summer of next year?. However, Pique has been adamant that Spain would not yield to the Gibraltarian demand for self-determination.

Clearly, the cosy negotiations between the British and Spanish governments are a travesty of democracy. Where were the actual views of the Gibraltarians? The chief minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, was not granted any independent voice at the negotiations - he was meant just to passively await whatever deal the respective governments cooked up between them. Unsurprisingly then, Caruana decided to protest against the talks, stating that the idea of the ?co-sovereignty? of Spain and Britain over Gibraltar would be ?democratically obscene? and pointed out that under the 1969 constitution, any change of sovereignty would have to be submitted to a referendum in the colony.

Caruana?s views are widely shared by the Gibraltarian people. There were demonstrations outside the House of Assembly in Gibraltar, with banners reading, ?British Gibraltar - not for sale?. Interviewed in The Observer, one of the demonstrators, the 78-year-old Emilio Peire - while wrapped in the union jack - muttered darkly about Tony Blair?s ?betrayal?, and insisted: ?We are not Spanish. I was with the Royal Artillery?s 175 anti-aircraft unit. Mr Blair has entered negotiations for the transfer of sovereignty to Spain against our wishes? (November 25). Peire?s family arrived from Genoa in the 18th century.

The last referendum on the matter to be held in Gibraltar was in 1967 - with 12,138 (99.64%) voting to remain linked to Britain (44 opted for Spain). There is not much doubt that any referendum today would yield a similar result - so Pique?s insistence that Spain will never give up its claim must sound ominous to the Gibraltarian people. This suspicion can only be amplified by the fact that Spain is taking over the European Union presidency next year, so Gibraltar has the potential to become a sore subject that could ?inconvenience? UK-Spanish relations. The Daily Telegraph was not being inaccurate when it commented: ?In short, the Rock is to Whitehall a pimple on Spain?s bottom, to borrow a phrase used previously to describe colonial Hong Kong. What the government appears to have in mind is sharing sovereignty with Madrid in return for the lifting of unjustified Spanish restrictions on border crossings, air traffic and telecommunications? (November 21).

This appears to be what is happening. As an obvious olive branch - or bribe - to Gibraltar, Spain agreed to triple the telephone numbers available to Gibraltar, increasing the total from 30,000 to 100,000, and to improve Gibraltarian access to Spanish healthcare. But Spain continues its low-level harassment of the Gibraltarian people. Madrid withholds Gibraltar?s own telephone codes and puts restrictions on mobile phone coverage - it has tried to stop the Gibraltarians joining the European football body, Uefa, and it even disrupted a recent Gibraltarian dog show. Such actions are as petty as they are hypocritical - Spain shows absolutely no inclination to withdraw from its enclaves in North Africa, Ceuta and Melilla, both of which are claimed by Morocco.

Naturally, the Gibraltarians want a settlement which would end border delays, telephone restrictions, airport disputes, etc. However, as one Gibraltarian government spokesman put it, ?We do not feel that we should have to sell off our sovereignty to obtain freedoms, which are surely rights.?

Gibraltar raises basic democratic questions. Why should the Gibraltarians be forced to become Spanish, any more than the Falkland Islanders should have been forced to become Argentinians. Who would be oppressed by the exercise of their right to self-determination?

Yes, of course, communists are aware of the history of Gibraltar, which was grabbed by British colonialism in the early 18th century. Following its defeat at the hands of an Anglo-Dutch fleet in 1704, Spain handed over Gibraltar to Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, which stated that, if Britain relinquished the colony, it would automatically be ceded to Spain. The 1713 settlement also ensured that British companies had a monopoly on the transportation of African slaves to the Spanish colonies.

However, Gibraltarians? fear of Spain stems from their treatment by the Franco dictatorship. In an attempt to rally Spain behind him, Franco struck an anti-imperialist pose. The main enemy for the Spanish people was meant to be Britain, not their own rulers. To stoke up this fake anti-imperialism, Franco sealed the border with Gibraltar - families were divided and trade stopped. Relatives in the Spanish border town of La Linea had to shout to their family members across no man?s land. Scenes reminiscent of East/West Berlin and Greek/Turkish Cyprus.

As a consequence of this, Gibraltar is a self-invented little outpost of ?Britishness? in the Mediterranean - helmeted bobbies, bright red letter boxes, ploughman?s lunches, fish and chips, Dorothy Perkins, etc. Indeed, the queen?s birthday remains a public holiday and apparently you can buy Watney?s Red Barrel in the pubs. For some, as Boris Johnson wrote in The Daily Telegraph, Gibraltar is ?a microcosm of all that is most ghastly in British culture? - the Rock ?is naff? (November 25).

True though that may well be, the Gibraltarian people should have the right to determine their own future. If they want to be ?naff? or ?ghastly?, then that should be their democratic right. Or do we think that Spanish culture is somehow innately superior, or more civilised, than British-Gibraltarian culture?

All this raises some fascinating questions. How would the left have reacted if Franco?s Spain had invaded Gibraltar in 1967? Given the fact that most left groups have no compunction about supporting the reactionary ?anti-imperialism? of Saddam Hussein, Slobadan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe, the Taliban, etc, you can only harbour the dark suspicion that they would have shouted ?Victory to Spain!? If Leon Trotsky can, ?hypothetically?, support ?fascist Brazil? against ?democratic Britain?, and if you can give real support to a regime like the fascist junta of general Galtieri and its neo-imperialist occupation of the Falkland Islands, then surely backing General Franco would be a breeze. After all, he would only have been claiming back what was ?rightfully? Spain?s from the clutches of imperialism - ie, Great Britain. Indeed, if you are to believe current leftist theory, such an action would have inspired the oppressed masses of the world to take up the ?anti-imperialist? mantle.

Communists are the champions of consistent and extreme democracy. The exact opposite of the view taken by the professional humorist and wag (ie, bore), John Farrell, who contemptuously wrote in The Guardian: ?If people want to remain British, I know an excellent place they could live. It?s called Britain. Gibraltarians have no more right to perpetuate the anachronism of the British empire than the descendants of jewish settlers in the West Bank should have a right to veto a settlement in the Middle East.? Farrell added: ?The brave way to deal with this problem would be to set a definite date for Gibraltar?s return to Spain?, suggesting, like a colonial master of old, ?How about 2029 - the 200th anniversary of the Treaty of Seville, when Spain renounced its claims to the Rock after a failed invasion?? (November 24).

You can guarantee that Farrell is not alone in subscribing to this anti-democratic, philistine approach to the Gibraltarians. Just take a walk to the foreign office, for instance. And no doubt many on the left would also concur. But what he is doing is ascribing rights to territories, not to the people who inhabit them.

Of course, we want the Gibraltarians to throw off all forms of insularity and parochialism. However, this can never happen in a climate of secrecy and suspicion and bureaucratic manoeuvres. It is not the job of communists to match people up with their ?correct? state. Identities are constantly made and remade. If the Gibraltarians want to retain their invented ?Britishness?, then ultimately it is a matter for them - just as it would be if they felt the sudden urge to embrace ?Spanishness?.

Eddie Ford