The 1999 PSOE Position from the Parliamentary Spokesman on Foreign Affairs Rafael Estrella |
Rethinking Gibraltar and Spain: an opportunity for courage
The announcement that the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) was,
without a change of principles, rethinking Gibraltar, has raised
interest in political and media circles. A few months ago,
heading a PSOE delegation, I had the opportunity to visit
Gibraltar. The Gibraltar Chronicle now offers me the opportunity
to describe to its readers the elements of our approach.
There is a basic, longstanding split between Britain and Spain
concerning sovereignty. If the Spanish political approach on
Gibraltar is dominated by this factor, Gibraltar's political life
too is also overshadowed, to a great extent, by the same element.
As a result, the deep contradiction between the respective
positions is preventing us from having a relationship that might
be considered normal even in the particular circumstances of the
status quo.
We in the Socialist Party think that this situation does not
respond to our realities but runs counter our mutual interests. I
have met many people in Gibraltar who have similar views.
With Britain and Spain as members of NATO and the EU, the
singular status of Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians is
increasingly affecting the relations between both countries and,
in particular, Britain's position in the EU. In other words, the
present and future of Gibraltar is no longer a non issue in
Brittish politics, as it was during the last decades. On the
contrary, it is becoming a demanding question on the Agenda of a
British Government that faces a difficult crossroads: ie on the
one hand, to honour her unilateral commitment with Gibraltarians,
Britain has to retain Gibraltar as a colony - against Spanish
claims and against the personal aspirations of many
Gibraltarians.
On the other, to be coherent with the principles of a modern non-
colonial power with which it enters the 21st Century, Britain
would have to hand over sovereignty to Spain, against the
manifest wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
When I visited Gibraltar, I made it clear to those I met that I
was not there to discuss on sovereignty and I stressed from the
outset that, although I do not share the well known Gibraltar
official position, it has my highest respect. With a single
exception, I was rewarded the same attitude; no one tried the
useless task of convincing the other, thus allowing the
opportunity to focus on co-operation and other compelling matters
in a fruitful dialogue.
This is the approach the PSOE would like to introduce in our
relations with Gibraltar - and with Britain too. An understanding
to put aside the sovereignty factor for a given period and an
undertaking to explore areas of co-operation and mutual
understanding. During such a period no party should try to take
advantage of the other on sovereignty. Any unilateral decision
aimed at ameliorating our relations might be reversed and no
permanent changes in the status quo would be tried. British and
Spanish adherence to such an undertaking would be the guarantee
for both Gibraltarians and Spaniards.
The Brussels Process provides the appropriate framework for this
new approach, indeed, it contains a sound basis for co-operation.
Without giving-up any position, some of its elements could be
temporarily put aside during this dialogue; Gibraltar would have
no excuses to keep an empty chair. Regardless of British-
Gibraltar relations, the British Government remains, as the
colonial power, the sole formal counterpart of the Spanish
Government. But it is obvious that an enhanced relationship and
co-operation would, require dialogue on a daily basis and
involve a partnership between the Gibraltar and Spanish
authorities. Needless to say, in the diverse areas of mutual
interest, our communities would assume the major role.
I am aware that this may not be easy. For example, any new EU
Directive affecting the question of sovereignty would continue
to be the subject of opting out decisions or reservations as a
means to preserve the status quo. This would be a reminder that
our co-operation has self-imposed limits. The new focus would
also be hard to assume by the Popular Party (PP) whose spokesman
was not long ago advocating the closure of the gate.
As for the Rock, can you imagine Gibraltar politics deprived of
the sovereignty rationale? In politics the culture of
confrontation, the notion of living with the enemy is more
comfortable that the challenge of overcoming conflict.
Peter Caruana and Abel Matutes are two good examples of this
notion that today dominates our relations. In his New Year's
message, Mr. Caruana claimed adherence to the PSOE's approach,
but to be honest, this does not correspond with his recent
political behaviour nor with my personal knowledge. The same
applies to Mr. Matutes when, for example, he threatened to make
life impossible to Gibraltarians. After launching this warm
message, Matutes presented his 1997 proposals, an update of
Moran's. As I heard in Gibraltar, the text contains undeniable
positive elements, including a proposal on sovereignty that,
generous as it can be, was totally rejected by Caruana without
the slightest consideration. Another missed opportunity.
I have asked Matutes to declare his letter a working document. In
the absence of a British response to the proposals, Aznar might
be compelled to retort, putting pressure on both Britain and
Gibraltar; we can foresee the consequences of such an escalation.
As a working document, the Matutes letter would not be an
obstacle, but a component of a far-sighted dialogue.
One can easily imagine some of the steps that, under a new
environment, might be taken without permanent changes in the
status quo: a return to normality in fishing activities, a stable
and smooth passage at the La Linea gate, a joint, cohesive
approach to the implications -positive and negative- of
financial and other aspects (VAT, etc) of Gibraltar economy,
tourism co-operation, including -why not?- assessing perspectives
for a joint use of the airport, etc.
Citizens of Gibraltar and the Campo would be the driving forces
responding to these challenges. Confidence-building, even if
reversible, should be stable and removed from uncertainty for a
given period of time, after which we would be able to evaluate
upon realities and results and to address a further course of
action.
British politicians I have met have expressed sympathy for the
ideas I have described here. Prominent people in Gibraltar
society have expressed to me the same attitude. Maybe it is time
that they say it aloud. Political will and courage should not be
taken for granted. It is a scarce resource that needs to be
stimulated. With the exception of Gibraltar, governments seldom
willingly assume a platform coming from the opposition, but
governments tend to be sensible to social demands. If Gibraltar
society assumes this new focus in our relations, Caruana - and
Bossano too - and Aznar will find it hard to remain in the
culture of confrontation without facing our real challenges.
|