Ever since Spain ceded Gibraltar to the British crown with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, this small British outpost on the southern coast of Spain has been a source of intense conflict between the two nations. Perhaps the most dramatic of these was the closure of the Gibraltan border in 1969 by General Franco, in a siege which was to last 16 years.
The most recent dispute over Gibraltar’s 2.6 square miles of land, which has been developing over the past few weeks, is reminiscent of Franco’s days, but also shows a distinct lack of communication on both sides.
The rise in tensions over the Rock this summer is largely the result of ongoing confrontations over fishing rights in the Bay of Gibraltar, involving a number of direct clashes between Gibraltarian police and Spanish fishing vessels over the past two years. The government of Gibraltar introduced a new set of environmental laws last year which prohibited the fishing methods used by Spanish fishermen, who have fished in these waters for generations.
However, Gibraltar’s environmental credentials were shattered when they decided to immerse 70 blocks of concrete into the ocean on 24th July, creating an artificial reef which the Spanish claim is both damaging to local wildlife, and affects their access to fisheries which represent up to 25% of the local fishing industry.
In response, Spain began heavy border checks leading into and out of Gibraltar, announcing a heavy crackdown on tobacco smuggling – which increased by 213% since 2010 – and tax avoidance in the colony. Indeed, it is true that Gibraltar, with a business tax of only 10%, is effectively a tax haven. However, Spain’s declaration that “the party is over” did little to ease tensions.
The border checks, which at their height caused waits of up to seven hours at the border, whilst not illegal according to European law, are unacceptable. Not only have they led to an unnecessary escalation of tension, but they have caused irreparable damage to the contiguous Spanish town of La Línea, whose economy has been heavily harmed – some say with losses of up to 50% – by the border delays.
The rhetoric on both sides of the confrontation stinks of childish playground politics and a distinct lack of diplomatic tact. The article published last week in The Wall Street Journal by Jose María García-Margallo, Spain’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which he proclaimed that “Unlike the British government, the Spanish government is at ease in the context of international organizations, has full confidence in them, and is always willing to comply with their mandates” was a narrow-minded and ill-calculated analysis of the situation.
The Spanish government’s hints of implementing a 50 euro “congestion charge” on the border, which they equated to the one implemented in London in 2003, together witj threats to close Gibraltan airspace and their call for a joint bid with Argentina in the UN are the kind of absurd sardonic provocations which are unlikely to solve the situation.
On the British side, the decision to send out to Gibraltar the imposing HMS Westminster at one of the most heated moments of the crisis, regardless of whether it was previously planned, showed diplomatic tactlessness. The image, reproduced across the world, of the post-colonial power sending out a large warship to its protectorate certainly did little to improve Britain’s image abroad.
Neither does it help that Britain consistently refuses to negotiate the status of Gibraltar with the Spanish authorities. Sitting down to negotiations doesn’t commit Britain to returning the colony to Spain – far from it – but repeated refusals to do so conveys an image of unflinching British arrogance in the international arena. Despite his belligerent rhetoric, García-Margallo is in fact correct to point out that Britain have repeatedly ignored a number of UN resolutions by failing to sit down to a negotiating table with Spain.
As Dennis MacShane has insightfully pointed out, this latest dispute is as much about domestic politics as it is about international relations. Indeed, the domestic situations of both David Cameron and that of his Spanish counterpart Mariano Rajoy, are not too dissimilar, and both Prime Ministers have tried to gain political capital out of the situation.
Appealing to the EU to resolve the standoff, an option which both sides have resorted to, is unlikely to settle the issues at stake. By European law, both nations are meant to be able to resolve the situation between themselves, whilst the slow bureaucracy of the European Union’s mechanisms will only delay a resolution to the conflict. In any case, previous attempts by the European Commission to mediate the dispute have proven unfruitful.
If Britain wants to maintain sovereignty over Gibraltar, they need to stop giving Spain reasons to call for its return. It is unacceptable to have a territory under British authority which is home to opaque transactions and facilitates tax avoidance. It is equally intolerable for the Gibraltarian authorities to dump blocks of concrete in the Bay of Gibraltar, stopping Spanish fishermen from accessing waters which are contested by the Spanish authorities, and are vital to the livelihoods of hundreds of Spanish families.
The British government has to cooperate with the Spanish authorities if these issues are to be resolved. Crucially, the British government must seriously consider whether such diplomatic crises, and the subsequent damage to Britain’s international image, are worth enduring for the sake of a couple of now strategically insignificant square miles and a large rock.
