Gibraltar, as every Arab schoolboy knows (or should know), is really Jabal Tariq, the Mount of Tariq, named after Tariq ibn Ziyad, the governor of Tangiers who landed on this tip of Spain in 711 and began the Arab conquest of what became known as Andalus. But it is for different historical reasons that Gibraltar regularly grabs international attention. Ceded by Spain to Great Britain after the war of Spanish succession in 1708, Madrid wants it back, although because it was given in perpetuity the Spanish have no legal claim to it.
What makes the issue so topical at present is that the British and Spanish governments, partners in the European Union, have devised a possible solution: joint sovereignty — although the deal already seems dead in the water. The Gibraltarians who to a man are opposed to any element of Spanish sovereignty are guaranteed to reject it by a massive majority in the referendum that London has promised on the issue. And the British have said that they will abide by the Gibraltarians’ wishes.
The only way out of this impasse is if, between now and whenever the referendum takes place, London (and Madrid) can alter hearts and minds in Gibraltar. (Perhaps the greater onus should be on Madrid. Trying to make life for the Gibraltarians as difficult as possible can hardly endear them to the Spanish position. Madrid should be out to woo them rather than browbeat them by blockades.) The problem of how do you force someone who is dependent on you to accept something you want but he does not is far from unfamiliar in the Middle East. It is at the heart of US-Israeli relations and was there for all the world to see last month when Ariel Sharon so pointedly ignored the White House’s demands that he pull his forces out of Palestinian Authority-controlled towns. The massive US financial and military support for Israel gives it the power to make the Israelis jump at its command. Even the Israelis themselves know that.
So why does Washington refuse to use that power and pressure them into making the sort of concessions that it itself says are necessary to peace? Why does it allow Israel to thumb its nose at it? There are only two alternative answers: either the US is insincere (a view held by many Arabs) or it is really is a case of the tail wagging the dog, with Washington simply not knowing how to control the beast it has nurtured and sustained.
The dilemma of how to rein in an unruly and self-willed dependent is faced by others, most notably at present by Pakistan’s Gen. Musharraf, who desperately needs to control Kashmiri hard-liners, and Yasser Arafat, trying to do the same with certain of the Palestinian militants. The difference, however, is that the militants are beyond control. They have a will and a determination of their own and the means to strike. There is no way that either leader is going to succeed. But Israel (and Gibraltar) are not a group of uncontrollable individuals who can organize and hide in secret places. They are international entities which can be subjected to pressure, both political and economic. The Americans, who were not slow to show their displeasure at certain European commercial policies by increasing certain trade tariffs, are quite capable of reducing their financial backing to Israel if it does not tow whatever line they chose. London likewise can abolish Gibraltar’s tax-haven status if it does not soften its views. In fact, Tony Blair is wily enough while offering a big carrot to the Gibraltarians to also let slip (through the usual leaked memo?) that he may have to resort to the big stick if they do not adopt more accommodating views.
The question then that Arabs want answered is why is the US so reluctant to do the same with Israel. It has the power. It persistently refuses to use it.
