APPENDIX 9
Memorandum submitted by Sir Robert J Peliza
KBE
Following the publication of the reply of the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs to the Fourth Report of the Foreign
Affairs Committee on Gibraltar, I hasten to meet the dateline
of 72 hours with my comments and request that they be submitted
to the Committee for their kind attention.
1. To make comments on each and everyone
of the enumerated answers given by the Secretary of State would
be repetitive in many respects and tedious to read. I have therefore
confined my observations to those issues that I deem to be crucial
in any attempt to stop the economic and diplomatic war of attrition
that Spain has been waging against British Gibraltar for the past
50 years. The Spanish campaign to annex Gibraltar has been going
on since General Franco was pampered by some of the victorious
nations of World War II including Great Britain. Over these past
fifty years the British Government has not come out with a positive
plan of action to dissuade Spain from pursuing their objective.
That the British Government should use its resources to put an
end to Spain's hostile policy against British Gibraltar is obviously
the view of the Committee. Everybody in Gibraltar appreciate the
efforts put in by the Committee and are sincerely grateful to
the Chairman and all concerned. The people of Gibraltar cannot
understand the impotence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
in combating Spain's hitherto successful endeavours in the United
Nations, the European Union and NATO.
2. This inexplicable impotence is perceived
in many of the answers of the Secretary of State where FCO "robust"
reaction have proved ineffective for the past half century. Their
failures taken as a whole paint a lamentable picture of British
foreign policy on Gibraltar. It shows that there is no pro-active
and positive plan to deter Spain from pursuing its continuous
hostile campaign. It is hard to believe that this is the best
the Foreign Office can give. If so, it augur no good for Britain
whether in the heart of Europe or on its fringes. Therefore this
omnipresent Foreign Office debility is of great concern to the
Gibraltarians as it endangers their British and human rights.
3. My comments that follow below, are on
the crucial issues that should have been answered by the Secretary
of State in his "Response" with assertive announcements
of action and not with more of the same rhetoric of the past 50
years if he was to be taken seriously by his counterpart in Spain.
The suggestion that above all maintaining good relations with
Spain is best for Gibraltar is a fallacy as proved over the last
five decades.
(a) On constitutional development, paragraph
(19), it is clear that the Charter of the United Nations supersedes
the Treaty of Utrecht. On this question the Secretary of State
should seek an opinion of the International Court of Justice as
called for by the Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition
of Gibraltar in the United Nations. He should not follow the Spanish
line which denies self-determination to the people of Gibraltar
and restricts any development in the constitutional relationship
between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar freely chosen by the
British People of Gibraltar, such as Integration with Britain.
The three leading political parties favour Integration with Britain
in one form or another but the Secretary of State has ruled it
out on the grounds that it is not in the interests of the people.
What is in the best interests of the people is best known by the
people themselves. I would urge the Committee to consider supporting
the Chief Minister's and Leader of the Opposition's proposition
on this vital issue.
(b) On Gibraltar's representation in Parliament,
paragraph (18), once again the Secretary of State has adopted
a position of wait and see. He has said nothing about consulting
Gibraltar or committing himself to support Gibraltar's views by
making representation to the Commission. It is obvious that the
position of British Gibraltar would be strongly reinforced politically,
in the domestic and international domains by having a Representative
in the British Parliament. It would send the signal to Spain to
lay their hands off Gibraltar. So why has he not acted in this
robust manner? Perhaps because he follows the Foreign Office advice
that this would upset the good Anglo/Spanish relations that in
their view has served Gibraltar well for the past fifty years?
Maybe the Foreign Office would compromise by having a Member representing
all the Overseas Territories. This would give them the excuse
to placate Spain with assurances that it was not a sign of the
hardening of Britain's position on Gibraltar but just a move to
fall in line with all the other European former colonial powers,
including Spain, that have representative of their former colonies
in their respective parliaments.
(c ) On the Brussels Agreement, paras (19),
(20), (21) and (22), the Secretary of State insists that the Agreement
has to be honoured. In doing so, he is supporting a deal between
a past British Administration and the Spanish Foreign Ministry
that was acquiesced by the Gibraltar Chief Minister under duress
and accorded by the British Government to avoid having to veto
Spain's accession to the European Community. As a quid pro quo
Spain re-established freedom of movement between Gibraltar and
Spain as required under the Treaty of Rome. Clearly Spain has
not abided in full by her side of the bargain as is evident by
the constant border restrictions. Furthermore the Agreement is
derived from a United Nations Resolution primarily intended to
encourage Britain and Spain to negotiate the integration of Gibraltar
to Spain as the appropriate form of decolonisation. In the Brussels
Agreement process the Airport Agreement was hatched. It was rejected
by the House of Assembly. It was also in the Brussels Agreement
process that Sr Matutes tabled his Proposals that have been rejected
by all the political parties and pressure groups in Gibraltar.
Representations from all concerned have been made for the Proposals
to be rejected by the Secretary of State. They are serving no
good purpose and are a source of friction. They clearly to not
provide a way for reconciliation. Furthermore the Spanish Government
do not mince their words when threatening with the closure of
the border and as a foretaste of the threat they impair the freedom
of movement short of closing the gates, contrary to the Spirit
and letter of the Treaty of Rome. By acting robustly and justifiably
ending the Agreement, the Secretary of State would communicate
to his Spanish counterpart that blackmailing tactics are not tolerated
by the British Government.
(d) On the Airport and NATO, paras (3) and
(15), it needs reminding that this is a most sensitive issue in
Gibraltar. From experience the people are aware that the Airport
is the lifeline of Gibraltar. It was the Gibraltarians' access
to the outer world when Franco, for 15 years, turned this British
territory into a post war concentration camp. The loyal British
people of Gibraltar fought with Britons in Gibraltar, and overseas,
and partook in the war effort in London, against the Nazis and
Fascists, precisely to end concentration camps and the general
oppression they symbolised. Yet Her Majesty's Government shamefully
did nothing effective to get Franco to end the savage blockade.
So any attempt to use the British Government ownership of the
Airport to make a new deal on the Airport without the approval
of the Gibraltar House of Assembly will meet with fierce resistance
from almost every Gibraltarian man, woman and child. It is therefore
proper and prudent that the Secretary of State should make it
known that nothing will be done without prior consultation with
the Gibraltar Government and the Opposition, since it is right
and wise that at the end of the day any new agreement on this
most crucial question carries the blessing of the consensus of
the House of Assembly. Few people in Gibraltar would want the
Airport to cease to be an RAF air base and would welcome its use
by NATO. Indeed Gibraltarians lament that after the Secretary
of State announced that Britain would veto Spain joining the military
structure of the alliance unless she lifted the ban on military
planes using the airport over flying Spain, Britain gave in. As
a result of this climbdown, Gibraltar ceased to be a NATO base
and the ban remains. This kind of chickening out by Britain, in
this instant and in many other cases, such as on the Air Liberalisation
Agreement, quite naturally emboldens Spain to take a harder line
on matters involving Gibraltar, and on other United Kingdom issues,
confident that Britain will not put up a robust enough fight.
(e) On the European Parliament, paragraph
(13), it is encouraging to learn from the Secretary of State that
"the Government is working hard to ensure that this extension
of the franchise to Gibraltar is achieved before the 2004 European
elections". If Mr Cook succeeds in achieving it, he will
wipe out an undeserving black stain in the grand image of British
democracy since it was the British Government in 1976 that deliberately
failed to enfranchise Gibraltar and thereafter did not accede
to the repeated representations on enfranchisement made by the
people of Gibraltar until a Gibraltarian damsel put to the test
in the European Court that Britain was in violation of human rights
by denying the vote to the people in the territory of Gibraltar.
I feel grateful to the Committee for throwing
so much light on the question of Gibraltar and thus contributing
to make the British Parliament conscious of how Spain is contriving
by foul means to force the Gibraltarians to surrender their British
homeland. It also serves to urge the British Government to fulfil
their obligations as a caring mother country of the Gibraltarians
and to decolonise the territory in accordance with their democratically
expressed wishes. However, if the past is the teller of the future,
the aim may not be reached if the Committee does not continue
to monitor to their completion the progress of their recommendations.
Finally, since what is happening in Gibraltar is a symptom of
failure in British diplomacy widely, if the Committee contribute
to make British foreign policy more assertive generally, it will
make Britain more influential in the Commonwealth, the United
States of America, and Europe and thereby promote peace and prosperity,
a most worthy world mission on which Great Britain can rightly
boast of having a record of achievement second to none.
|
