When "occupation" makes headlines, most often, it is in association with Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. However, there are other cases of occupation (though the word itself is not used) which create tensions of a minor kind. Gibraltar is one such case. In 1704, this rocky fortress guarding the Mediterranean was seized by an Anglo-Dutch force as part of one of Europe’s endless series of wars. In 1713, at the Treaty of Utrecht, a defeated Spain ceded Gibraltar to the British for all time.
Three hundred years on, the Spanish are saying that they have to have it back. They point out with justice that many territories have been granted by treaty to other countries "in perpetuity", only to be given back not many years later. It is anomalous that a piece of what is clearly Spain should be occupied by a foreign power. When the British had their empire and needed a safe passage through the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal to India, Gibraltar was of overwhelming importance. During World War II, it effectively kept the Italian Navy bottled up inside and the German Navy outside and so allowed the British to maintain their position in the Middle East. The empire has, however, long gone and Gibraltar sat with Hong Kong and even, dare one say it, the Falkland Islands, as the anachronous leftovers of history. The Blair government in London would like nothing better than to give the territory back to the Spaniards. They have, however, the problem that the people of Gibraltar have no desire whatsoever to become Spanish. They have been promised a referendum in which they can have the final say and, at the moment, nothing appears to have happened to make them change their mind.
The current talks between London and Madrid, in which the Gibraltar government has refused to take part, are, therefore, probably a pointless diplomatic dance between two fellow members of the European Union, whose countries are in any event gradually being merged as part of the wider Brussels vision. The British are, however, losing a valuable opportunity to achieve something positive with these talks. In 1956, when Spain abandoned its occupation of Morocco, which had been a protectorate, it decided that two key points in Morocco still needed "protecting". Thus the enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta have remained under Spanish control ever since, despite regular protests from Rabat. Spain has again and again refused absolutely to consider handing back these two pieces of territory to their rightful owner. In taking this view, Spain is behaving with just as much stubbornness as the British over Gibraltar. The Spaniards have argued lamely that the Moroccans who live in Melilla and Ceuta wish to stay part of Spain. Interestingly, however, they do not seem to see that the wishes of the people of Gibraltar are in any way equally valid.
Spain’s very different approach to British-occupied Gibraltar and Melilla and Ceuta under their own occupation is indefensible. If Spain is so convinced of the justice of its case, then let it return these two pieces of Moroccan territory to Morocco. The British case for keeping Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians’ case for remaining part of Britain would be swept away at a stroke.
