This could possibly be in OT, but I feel it could get spammed out of existance there. If the mods feel the need to move it fair enough.

The recent threads on Imperialism and Northern Ireland raised the issues of Gibralter, Ceuta and Melilla for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla

The question I pose is what should the status of these enclaves be? While the Spanish demand the return of Gibraltar against the will of 99% of the electorate they refuse Morocco's demands for the return of Ceuta and Melilla on the same grounds. Is this a defensible position?

Well, i find Spanish claims on Gibraltar (if there are any official claims which i doubt) a bit out of fashion, but since you are asking and leaving aside some political differences in both territories status and focusing in history, there are some little differences as you can read in wikipedia articles.

Since Ceuta and Melilla were Spanish loooong before Morocco even existed (in one or another way belonging to Hispania since Roman times), the morocans claims can only be based on some sort of "geographical uniformity".

OTOH Gibraltar was subtracted to Spain by Dutch and English armies taking advantage of the Spanish Succession war in the 18th century (i love the part in the wikipedia article where say that after the invasion "much of the original population chose to leave Gibraltar" :lol: ), so of course there are differences like it or not.

The question goes further and even hits other territories as well: If a population is displaced by an annecting power and replaced by the own one, is it legitime for the new government to claim the population of today wants to stay in their country?

Adler

Adler, I find that claim much more legitimate than the opposite. Those 18th century spaniards are dead, and I find it silly that the Spanish government would "inherit" the claim.

NB, this just includes "old" population displacement, and anyone displacing people now is deeply immoral.

I agree with mrtn. I don't think it makes the slightest difference what happened centuries ago. To try to redress an injustice committed centuries ago by committing a new one today isn't very constructive.

Let the people decides, that's what I'd say. Countries will them have to respect the people's decisions.

You can add Olivença (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivenca) to the list of territorial disputes Spain is involved in. In fact this one shows even better the hypocrisy of the claims over Gibraltar by the Spanish government.

It seems teritoral claims aren't only found in our back yard. :D

Anyway, i think the population should vote:
a) spain
b) morocco
c) independent

While I dont find any reason to even include Morocco in such poll, Spain option would win as overwhelming as in Gibratar the UK/independent option.
You can add Olivença (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivenca) to the list of territorial disputes Spain is involved in. In fact this one shows even better the hypocrisy of the claims over Gibraltar by the Spanish government.
"Even better" :lol: It is really funny but very foreseeable that anti-Spanish bias from you. Better explain how the case of Ceuta and Melilla vs Gibraltar shows any hypocrisy at all to begin with. Then i would add a question to you: Do you think that Gibraltar shouldnt belong to Spain but OTOH Olivenza should belong to Portugal? I would say that you must choose both or no one, otherwise it would be rather hypocrital. (I would go with no one, the same reasons Plotinus said)

"Even better" :lol: It is really funny but very foreseeable that anti-Spanish bias from you. Better explain how the case of Ceuta and Melilla vs Gibraltar shows any hypocrisy at all to begin with.

I think he meant Gibraltar vs. Olivença. ;)
Anyway, I agree with the general sentiment that the sentiments of the present population are the determinant factor, which in practice, amounts to everyone letting go any of these irritant cases and start caring for more important things.

Then i would add a question to you: Do you think that Gibraltar shouldnt belong to Spain but OTOH Olivenza should belong to Portugal? I would say that you must choose both or no one, otherwise it would be rather hypocrital. (I would go with no one, the same reasons Plotinus said)

That was the point I was making. I couldnt agree with you more.

That was the point I was making. I couldnt agree with you more.
I was referring to Olivenza vs Gibraltar of course which are two similar cases.

Well, i find Spanish claims on Gibraltar (if there are any official claims which i doubt) a bit out of fashion, but since you are asking and leaving aside some political differences in both territories status and focusing in history, there are some little differences as you can read in wikipedia articles.
Since Ceuta and Melilla were Spanish loooong before Morocco even existed (in one or another way belonging to Hispania since Roman times), the morocans claims can only be based on some sort of "geographical uniformity".
OTOH Gibraltar was subtracted to Spain by Dutch and English armies taking advantage of the Spanish Succession war in the 18th century (i love the part in the wikipedia article where say that after the invasion "much of the original population chose to leave Gibraltar" :lol: ), so of course there are differences like it or not.

When do you think Morocco start existing? and do you consider Hispania to be a province of Carthage in that case?

In what case?

Better explain how the case of Ceuta and Melilla vs Gibraltar shows any hypocrisy at all to begin with.

Spanish government claims Gibraltar on geographical, historical and legal grounds. At the same time it denies Moroccan claims made on geographical and historical grounds.


Then i would add a question to you: Do you think that Gibraltar shouldnt belong to Spain but OTOH Olivenza should belong to Portugal?

The portuguese government could (and does, albeit very discreetly) easily make claims over Olivença on historical and legal grounds. The spanish government ignores these, while claiming Gibraltar... the situations are very similar.
Obviously it's pointless to go about intending to redraw borders that are centuries old now, and I don’t think anyone expects any of these claims to ever be pressed.

Spanish government claims Gibraltar on geographical, historical and legal grounds. At the same time it denies Moroccan claims made on geographical and historical grounds.
The last one is only the point i disagree with: What historical grounds exactly does Morocco have in the case of Ceuta and Melilla? Even Portugal has more historical grounds to claim Ceuta than Morocco.

The last one is only the point i disagree with: What historical grounds exactly does Morocco have in the case of Ceuta and Melilla? Even Portugal has more historical grounds to claim Ceuta than Morocco.

Spain held the city since 1640 (366 years and a few months). It had previously been portuguese, from 1415 to 1640 (225 years). Before that it had been part of the kingdom of Fez (precursor of modern Morocco) since 1309 (106 years). Before that it had been practically independent for 60 years, and before that it had been part of successive arab and berber empires since 710... Morocco's only historical claim would be that it once belonged to the kingdom of Fez. Absurd. As for Melilla it has been spanish for over 500 years.
Risking a provocation to the hindu nationalists around, I’d say Morocco has about has much of an historical claim on Ceuta as India had on Goa. India, however, had also “ethnic” claims and, most importantly, the means to get Goa (and good riddance to a costly and useless territory), while Morocco cannot invade and annex Ceuta.
This kind of territorial disputes are only a subject of public attention when politicians decide that stirring up trouble will benefit them.

Gibraltans voted to stay part of Great Britian.

Also those cities consider themselves spanish.

What is the difference between a city state that was taken by force, ratified by treaty and currently overwelmingly supports the status quo?

I just dont see the difference.

While Im for self-determination I can respect most positions on the various enclaves, but hypocracy is dispicable. I cant see any reason, other than hypocritical self-interest, for Spain to draw any distinction between the enclaves.

Of course Spain "hypocritally" puts his self-interests above other countries self-interests as any country does (we can speak about other UK overseas territories as Malvinas) but in any case it would apply to Olivenza/Gibraltar, in no way to Ceuta or Melilla, that is wrong.

As has been already said Ceuta and Melilla never had anything to do with Morocco but with the Iberian Peninsula. His history since 2000 years ago rather similar to any Southern Spanish city and has not relation with Morocco history. Before belonging to Spain they belonged to Potugal (Ceuta), Grenade Kingdom (Melilla), Al-Andalus and Cordoba Caliphate, Iberian Visigothic Kindom, even Roman Hispania... They are as Moroccan as any Spansih city and never were taken to Morocco in any way. OTOH GIbraltar always was a Spanish territory taken by an totally alien power. If you dont see the difference it is becuase you have too much hypocritical self-interest yourself.

In what case?

OK,I am going to rephrase otherwise, why do you identify modern Spain with Roman Hispania and do not make the same for Morocco and the ancient Kingdom of Al Moravides? Before becoming "spanish" those cities have always been part of the successive moroccan dynasties, jus like Gibraltar always was in the same "bag" with "Spain". That is why I don't see any difference between the two claims

I'm not sure why the issue of the Malvinas/Falklands is raised? The UK position on ALL colonies is clear - their fate should depend on the wishes of the inhabitants.

It is Spain which is trying to apply one rule for Gibraltar and a different rule for its own colonies.

I'm not sure why the issue of the Malvinas/Falklands is raised? The UK position on ALL colonies is clear - their fate should depend on the wishes of the inhabitants.

It is Spain which is trying to apply one rule for Gibraltar and a different rule for its own colonies.

Yup! 678910

OK,I am going to rephrase otherwise, why do you identify modern Spain with Roman Hispania and do not make the same for Morocco and the ancient Kingdom of Al Moravides?
Where did i identify Spain with Roman Hispania? :confused:

Before becoming "spanish" those cities have always been part of the successive moroccan dynasties, jus like Gibraltar always was in the same "bag" with "Spain". That is why I don't see any difference between the two claims
I find remarkable also how you write "Spain" beetwen quotes but not Morocco. :D

BTW that you are saying about the cities always been part of the successive "moroccan" dynasties, is TOTALLY false. Dont make me waste my time please, better read something of the thread or the wikipedia articles first.

I'm not sure why the issue of the Malvinas/Falklands is raised? The UK position on ALL colonies is clear - their fate should depend on the wishes of the inhabitants.

It is Spain which is trying to apply one rule for Gibraltar and a different rule for its own colonies.
First: Ceuta and Melilla are not colonies; second: Spain is trying nothing; third: Falklands were taken by force to the Argetinian living there as Gibraltar was. Of course you come here and put us in front of the consummated fact and say that UK now "respects" the inhabitants, which is hypocrital at best. OK, I see not problem with it since it is too late to lose time trying to change such old matters. But dont make hypocrital comparations please. :rolleyes:

The principle of self determination as enshrined in the United Nations
charter is that it it is for the inhabitants living there to decide.

What happened hundreds of years ago is irrelevant.

Britian is scared of china so they give back hongkong, but not scared of spain so they dont give back giberalta

First: Ceuta and Melilla are not colonies;

What, exactly then, are they? Parts of the mainland whose land connections sunk under the sea?

What, exactly then, are they? Parts of the mainland whose land connections sunk under the sea?

I assume it is a territory of Britian. Hawii, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc. are not not connected to the mainland and yet they are not colonies of the US.

I believe they officially count as integral parts of the Spanish state, whereas Gibraltar never has been and likely never will be recognised as part of the United Kingdom. Gibraltar is not a officially a colony either though, its title is British Overseas Territory.

The Spanish have traditionally argued for Gibraltar being returned to Spain on the grounds of territorial integrity overiding self determination. Since Ceuta and Melilla are part of the Spanish state the territorial argument is in their favour and they can dodge the claims of hypocrisy. If Gibraltar had been made part of the UK though things would be somewhat different.

Personally though regardless of what the UN says I think the will of the population is more important, especially when it is overwhelmingly for one side.

I believe they officially count as integral parts of the Spanish state, whereas Gibraltar never has been and likely never will be recognised as part of the United Kingdom. Gibraltar is not a officially a colony either though, its title is British Overseas Territory.

The Spanish have traditionally argued for Gibraltar being returned to Spain on the grounds of territorial integrity overiding self determination. Since Ceuta and Melilla are part of the Spanish state the territorial argument is in their favour and they can dodge the claims of hypocrisy. If Gibraltar had been made part of the UK though things would be somewhat different.

Personally though regardless of what the UN says I think the will of the population is more important, especially when it is overwhelmingly for one side.

But the gip with that is that the electorate dont want to become part of the mainland (other than to vote for MEP's). Since any constitutional reform has to pass the electorate if they desire to remain an overseas territory what can the UK do?

What I dont understand is how respecting the self determination of Gib to remain an OT makes the UK hypocritical? To give them the same status as the spanish enclaves we would have to disregard the preferences of the electorate - something spain isnt willing to do in regard to Ceuta and Melilla.

How to find a way out that wouldnt leave us open to being called hypocritical?

What I dont understand is how respecting the self determination of Gib to remain an OT makes the UK hypocritical?

I didn't call the UK hypocritical, I was saying why the Spanish government can claim a difference between the two situations and use the same argument to claim Gibraltar and defend their claim to Ceuta and Melilla. The UK can't use this argument but rightly chooses to put the population's wishes ahead of the argument for territorial security.

Well at least that's what the UK government does right now, in 2002 it pushed joint sovereignty until the Gibraltans scuppered the idea.

Britian is scared of china so they give back hongkong, but not scared of spain so they dont give back giberalta

This is nonesense. The deal when Hong Kong joined Britain was, from the very outset, a short term deal. It was always intended to revert to Chinese control in 1997*. Also, support in Hong Kong was to be Chinese, British policy is that any British Territory that does not wish to remain British may do as they please. Likewise, much as Spain may not be quite the superpower that China are, can you imagine what would happen if it became an all-out armed conflict? There hasn't been a war since 1945 that would be on that scale of bloodshed. Thankfully there isn't a chance in hell of it happening as Spain and the UK are close allies.

To be fair, Spain backed right down on Gibralta recently and sanity has ensued. The UK and Spain will be part of one country soon enough anyway.

*technically only part of it would revert, however, it was decided that it would be impractical to hold on to one part so the whole of Hong Kong was returned to China.