Fears of resumption of clashes with Spain over net fishing in Gibraltar bay
Spanish fishermen expressed perplexity at the announcement by the Gibraltar Government that it will not be granting permission for commercial fishing with nets to be carried out in Gibraltar waters. The controversy has caused several incidents in the bay between the Spanish Guardia Civil and Gibraltar Royal Police and there are fears of a resumption of the conflict.
Speaking to the Gibraltar Chronicle, fishermen’s representative Pedro Maza (FAAPE) conceded that he was “in a state of shock” and was highly critical of the findings of the technical report, accusing the Gibraltar commission of consisting of “environmentalists” and arguing that there was not “anyone with knowledge about fishing”.
Following several clashes in the Gibraltar bay involving the Guardia Civil and the RGP, both sides agreed to name a commission to address the issue of net fishing.
Maza said that the British expert Mrs Lutchman “does not have a clue about this matter” and that the authors of the report had twisted the information and data provided by the Spanish scientist.
“They have taken advantage of our good intentions as the weakest link in all of this, but above all, they have taken advantage the goodwill of Ignacio Sobrino” the Spanish oceanographer who provided the local commission with scientific advice, he declared.
The Spanish spokesman also categorically rejected that there had been any misunderstanding on their part about what had been agreed with Chief Minister Fabian Picardo at their meeting earlier this month.
“I have all the evidence that we have not misinterpreted anything and I would just ask Mr Picardo that when he sits down with me next time, that there is respect. It is astonishing that we should have been discussing a series of issues only to find now that everything has been changed”
“If there is any light at the end of the tunnel we will keep working to get there,” he declared.
As regards the effects of the decision, Maza said the situation will now get much worse and vowed that the fishing vessels will return to Gibraltar waters “whatever the consequences”.
But he said that despite the major setback they had suffered he would continue to support an understanding that could lead to a solution “for the benefit of the people of Gibraltar and the Campo area”.
Maza said the Chief Minister was “using everything to defend his interests” something which he understood, underlining that CM Picardo was doing “a very good job in that respect”.
The fishermen’s representative described him as “a gentleman” and declared that although he did not share his decision, he “did not hold any grudges against him”. However whatever problem ensues from this point forward “will not have been of my or the fishermen’s making”.
Mayor of La Linea Gemma Araujo said the decision by the Gibraltar Government had come as a shock and stated that there was some expectation that the preliminary report would lead to an understanding between the two sides in the fishing conflict.
Mrs. Araujo said the report was not yet definitive but that it was “a disappointment” nonetheless. She called for negotiations to continue given the importance of the fishing sector for La Linea and reiterated her call for good cross-border relations with Gibraltar.
Suggested Stories
-
May 20th 2013
Falkland Islands: Argentina blasts UK’s ‘double standard’ on self determination right
-
May 20th 2013
Polynesia in decolonization list; Pacific islands proposal supported by 193 votes in UN General Assembly
-
May 16th 2013
Falklands’ lawmakers meet Chaco human rights group following formal Argentine request
-
May 16th 2013
Falklands’ war: Defense releases stats on deaths of military personnel
63 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
You must be joking! It is the Spanish fishermen that are standing up for their rights to fish where they have always done so.
You seem to have ignored the fact that Gibraltar is listed by the UN as a territory that needs to be decolonised by the UK.
A coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting a population of its own choosing unto the territory it is colonising. In cases such as these, the implanted population has a right to have their 'interests' considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in. The UN has also confirmed Spain's assertions that the principle of territorial integrity complements and constrains the right to self-determination by the current occupants of the colony of Gibraltar.
The UN has repeatedly invited the UK to participate in discussions to achieve the de-colonisation of Gibraltar. Unfortunately, the UK continues to rely on a discredited interpretation of the principle of self-determination to turn a deaf ear to those requests in a clearly self-serving way.
Spain will continue to enforce Spanish and EU laws in the Bay of Algeciras and protect the rights of its fishermen in those waters. If the UK has a problem with this then perhaps it should honour its commitments under the Brussels process and meet with Spain to discuss the decolonisation of Gibraltar under the terms of the various resolutions the UN has passed on this issue.
If Gib is listed as a Non-Self Governing Territory then its entitled to determine its own future. That, it has been doing for many decades.
Britain has no obligation to either the UN's Declonisation Committee (which it withdrew from long ago) or the defunct Brussels process. Britain's duty is to support the people of Gibraltar and assist them towards whatever future they decide. More than likely they'll be a new nation before the turn of this century.
and people in places stolen by Iberians.
Seams to be a trend for the Spanish and their colonial descendants to lack a backbone. Perhaps they will go for a walk like the Ecuadorians or cry foul like the Argies.
The UN Decolonisation committee should by now have taken both the Falklands and Gibraltar off their list as both territories have made it abundantly clear that they wish to remain British.
The UN cannot usurp the wishes of those people's particularly as the right of self determination is enshrined within its own principles.
Its high time both territories approached the UN about this.
“....by implanting a population of its own choosing unto the territory it is colonising....”
“...looks like every country in the world claims something stolen by the Brits.”
And how do you think the Spanish ended up in Gibraltar in the first place? The town was founded by the Moors who were there for 800 years before the Spanish finally conquered it in around 1500 AD. Guess what happened then? The Moors were kicked out (in fact they were kicked out from the whole of Spain) and replaced with a Spanish population until Gibraltar was GIVEN to the British in around 1700. The British Gibraltarians (who have been there longer than the Spanish ever were) are no more implanted than anyone else who ever lived there.
The only thing stopping Gibraltar from being decolonised (if you consider independence as the ultimate form of decolonisation) is the Spanish government. Spain has a legal right to Gibraltar if (and only if) the British decide to relinquish sovereignty.
The situation is somewhat ananlogous to the Falklands Islands, as Argentina would also probably try to block independence, although (unlike in the case of Gibraltar) they have no legal right to do so.
You speak the tongue of a typical malvinist, please educate yourself before posting crap.
True, but at least they have some legal basis for a claim, even if the Treaty is outmoded and full of bizarre components that are totally unsuitable today (eg, no Jews allowed). Both the UK and Spain cherry pick the bits of the Treaty that suit them best. Probably time for a new treaty that allows the option of full independence without hindrance from Spain. In reality, Spain is well aware that nothing will ever happen in Gibraltar apart from continuing with the status quo (with the UN eventually accept the the idea that a territory can be considered decolonised, but still retain UK sovereignty, as long as that is what the inhabitants want; same will happen with the Falklands) or full sovereignty. A transfer of sovereignty will never happen (the era of passing territories back and forwards between nations is long gone). It's not a terribly emotive issue in Spain (where I am at the moment) - they just deal with it like a modern, grown up country should (most of the time, anyway; the issue of them thinking Gibraltar has no territorial waters is just bizarre).
@2
“Unfortunately, the UK continues to rely on a discredited interpretation of the principle of self-determination”
How are you interpreting “discredited”. The UN I am afraid very much disagrees with you.
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples says that all peoples have the right to self-determination.
According to General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) of 1961, there are three ways in which a Non-Self-Governing Territory can exercise self-determination and reach a full measure of self-government:
By free association with the administering Power or another independent State as a result of a free and voluntary choice by the people of the Territory expressed through an informed and democratic process;
By integrating with the administering Power or another independent State on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territory and those of the Independent State;
By becoming independent.
Whichever option the people of each Non-Self-Governing Territory freely elect, once they understand the possibilities and the special characteristics of their homeland.
The mandate of the Committee of 24 is based on the principle that the result of the decolonization process would be one of the three above mentioned options (free association, integration with an independent State or independence).
Taken directly from www.un.org/en/decolonization/questions_answers.shtml
In addition you will find a resolution passed by the general council of the UN in 2008 reiterated that self determination holds precedence even in cases of sovereign integrity and when a sovereignty dispute exists. www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm
Seems to me like the British view of Self determination is more credited than discredited as you claim.
It already exists, and has done since 1948, signed and ratified by both the UK and Spain. It's called the UN Charter. I just wish Spain would man up and deal with the fact that Gibraltar's future is not a matter for Spain (or the UK for that matter), but for the Gibraltarians.
Check out the links above from the UN, althougth there has never beena formal defintion there are accepted ways as to how a people claim self determination and that it holds prescedence even in cases of dispute.
Aug 21st, 2012 - 01:28 am
You say: “In cases such as these, the implanted population has a right to have their 'interests' considered...”
Have a look at: www.gibyellow.gi/
Check out the number of Gomez, Fernandez and Gonzalez (80, 16, 65 respectively), does this look like an “implanted” population of jingoistic Brits?
@2 Unfortunately for your state of abysmal ignorance, Spain ceded Gibraltar IN PERPETUITY. That means FOREVER. In 1713, there were no such things as “territorial waters” except where there was a gun. Let's list some countries that have been “colonised”, have “implanted” populations and should only have their “interests” considered. Argieland, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guyana, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, South Africa, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela,
You seem to have ignored the fact that the UN Decolonisation Committee is totally discredited. Apart from those states that think they can use it.
Have you ignored the fact that NO country had legally recognised territorial waters until the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982. So Spain can shove the Treaty of Utrecht up its jacksie. UN resolutions. Non-binding. But right at the top of the list of important considerations is the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Britain defends. Spain sinks. Does anybody know the depth of “The Bay”? But Spanish wrecks on the bottom will make wonderful starts for reefs. The “Linea fish fleet” reef, the “Algeciras fish fleet” reef, the “Guardia Civil” reef, the “Spanish Customs” reef, the “Spanish Navy” reef.
What a pity there are so many Spanish wankers that are indistinguishable from argie wankers. But there is hope. Argie wankers are clearly an “implanted population” and need to be returned whence they came. That should give Spain something to think about. And maybe Italy as well! Can we just think about how they'll enjoy a 42 million increase in their populations! And all that lovely land in South America. Just made for the Falkland Islanders to expand into! Spain and Italy could turn into European equivalents of India. The paddy fields. The carpets of bodies sleeping on the pavements!
The UK does not need a confrontation with Spain right now. They should tell Gibraltar to lay low.The International image of the Uk is deteriorating from The Americas to Asia and including Northern Ireland where the new IRA is making a comeback. Include Russia where diplomatic relations are at the lowest level.
@24 I see you still haven´t seen a shrink. Make a date as soon as possible before your mental situation deteriorates.
spain is playing with fire,
she is using gibralter to cover her own mess,
its as simple as that.
You're correct about the fact that the UN has stated that 'all peoples have the right to self-determination'. However, the germane question here is whether the current occupants of Gibraltar are 'a people' or not. There are a number of reasons which preclude the granting of that status. Firstly, they are not a population indigenous to Gibraltar, but were gradually settled there by Britain after it had expelled the Spanish population that lived there. Moreover, they are not sufficiently distinct from the British metropolitan population to be considered ‘a people’. Their status as ‘a people’ has never been recognized by the UN, who have consistently called them a ‘population’ but never a ‘people’.
Even if they were 'a people', this would not automatically give them a right to self-determination that could override the territorial integrity principle that applies to colonial enclaves (see @2).
In addition to the several UN resolutions requiring Gibraltar’s decolonisation, there is also the fact that the current trend in international State practice is for colonial enclaves to return to the mainland, irrespective of a valid treaty cession (see the following recent examples: Goa; Hong Kong; Macau; and Walvis Bay).
This trend is supported by current ICJ case law. For example, in the Western Sahara case the ICJ found that some pre-existing legal ties of a third state to the territory colonized by some other state could in principle affect the decolonization of the territory (see para. 162 in particular).
Got it ?
The demographics of Gibraltar reflects Gibraltarians' racial and cultural fusion of the many European and non-European immigrants who were encouraged by the UK to move to Gibraltar.
The majority are British, Genoese and other Italians, Maltese, Jews and Portuguese.
They are the descendants of economic migrants that were encouraged by the British to move to Gibraltar to service its naval base after the Spanish population living there was displaced by the British in 1704. They fully meet the definition of a non-indigenous transplanted population.
Same proposal as General Franco's. I didn't know you were a fan.
@31
If that is the definition of a non indigenous transplanted population, it applies equally to all former colonies.
The people of Gibraltar have the right to determine their own future; just as the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to determine their own future; just as the people of Bermuda have the right to determine teir own future; just as the people of Catalonia have the right ...... etc, etc.
The term remains undefined, unlimited, unconditional.
In 1952 it was quite obvious to the members of the UN that everyone had a different idea of what the term meant. So it was left as it was.
They tried this about 40 years ago when they closed the border.
All that happened was that the Spaniards in La Linea lost their jobs in Gib. and Moroccans supplied the labour force.
Gib. still prospered. There are family ties on both sides of the frontier so the Spaniards get hurt as well as the Gibraltarians..
Any more bright suggestions ?
Spain neads Gib. more than Gib. needs Spain
Faux Aussie's comment about the delays at the frontier are totally stupid, the Gibraltarians don't go to Spain, the Spanish go to Gib!!!!
Democracy and freedom,
It does not matter if they decent from European stock, of African stock,
It does not matter if they come from mars the moon or Argentina,
The fact is, they have a right to decide who they wish to be, just like every other peoples in other countries,
And the people of Gibraltar with to be [giblatarian] and to be part of Britain,
And just like the Falklands, it is there choice,
……………………….
But of course to you anti British indocronoughts,
If they wish to be British, they are wrong, but if they choose Spain or argentina, then that is right,
Is this not so,
The real truth is, you want them, they don’t want you, and you are jealous and envious,
At the end of the day, we call it democracy and freedom,
You want it a dictatorship,
Please prove me wrong,
There country there choice,,
Not yours
Just a British thoughts .
lol
.
You have lived in S.Spain and Gibraltar to talk with such authority have you ? It's amazing to hear from people who have nothing to with the problem spouting half-baked ideas without having to face the consequences of their action.
OK then, how about if we banished Spanish trawlers from UK waters or made them land their catches at Scottish ports for fisheries identification against quotas. I would designate my local fishing port of Troon for this job. They would need about two days to reach the port from the west Atlantic. The fisheries protection officer would have to have the total catch unloaded and examine each fish for species and size. This would take about three days while the fish were going off. If satisfied , they could be loaded onto container lorries and head off to the S. of Spain where they are sold. On the way to the channel. they could be pulled off the road for a stringent vehicle inspection to ensure that they met the requirements of UK law - quite a few don't. Then the driver's hours may well be exceeded meaning that he would have to have a break before he could continue. By the time he arrived in Spain - normally a two day trip, the fish would be ripe ! All this would be legal under EU fishing policy law.
Why not ask the Spaniards what their opinion would be as they would lose a living if this happened..
Two can play at silly buggers and still solve nothing.
Did I see in one of your posts that you were part Serbian ?
If so, that is something to be proud of.
You happily criticize the UK on every aspect of life when your ancestors come from a country that practised genocide on a section of their population who's crime was to be moslem. Kosovo ?
If I am mistaken about your ancestry, then I apologise unreservedly for the above remarks.
they will have to fish in argentine waters .lol.
Actually Gibraltar isn't a full member of the EU, it has a membership status but it hasn't signed up to much of the Brussels created legislation on fishing. Oh and even if they did, Gibraltar still has the right to refuse certain countries in some circumstances, especially if they have a habit of overfishing-which the spanish fisheries do. So everything you have just said about the “Gibs” being anti-spanish and taking the law into their own hands is incorrect. Oh and by the way, the Spanish haven't allowed Gibraltarian boats to fish in their waters in the first place so why should they expect the Gibraltarian's to extend them the same rights.
Aug 22nd, 2012 - 07:26 pm
** LIKE **
Turn right Clyde!
You really are pathetic aren't you? Every country on earth gets an equal size of territorial waters, 200 miles is the exclusion zone for every, country, province, state, territory and dependency. And the overall size is actually phenomenally smaller for the falklands as the geographical size of China for example gives them a massive amount of ocean space. Oh and as for the ”anti-Spanish read my comment to understand.
Do grow up!
You're incorrect when you state that the principle of self-determination '...remains undefined, unlimited, unconditional'. There are well established legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination under international law.
The current occupants of Gibraltar’s alleged right to self-determination is highly dubious for the following reasons:
They do not constitute ‘a people’, and only ‘a people’ is entitled to self-determination under international law. They are not ‘a people’ because they are not a population indigenous to Gibraltar, but were gradually settled there by Britain after it had expelled the Spanish population that lived there. Moreover, they are not sufficiently distinct from the British metropolitan population to be considered ‘a people’. Their status as ‘a people’ has never been recognized by the UN, who have consistently called them a ‘population’ but never a ‘people’. Even if they were a people, this would not automatically give them a right to self-determination that could override the territorial integrity principle that applies to colonial enclaves such as Gibraltar and the Falklands.
Moreover, the current trend in international State practice is for colonial enclaves to return to the mainland, irrespective of a valid treaty cession (Goa; Hong Kong; Macau; and Walvis Bay).
This trend is supported by current ICJ case law. For example, in the Western Sahara case the ICJ found that some pre-existing legal ties of a third state to the territory colonized by some other state could in principle affect the decolonization of the territory (see para. 162 in particular).
You might like to have a look at the following reference by an eminent British international lawyer, and Cambridge University Professor, as just one authority which nicely sets out the relevant international law principles: James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) at 377-85.
Prove your case!
You cannot of course, because the UN has never said any of these things. There are no ICJ cases determining either 'peoples' or limiting the right to 'self-determination'.
And the rest of your post is just bullsh*t !
This is one of the more tragi-comic aspects of the Falklands/Gibraltar irredentist agenda, the attempt to deny, through legal contortions and bogus analogies, the people most directly involved a voice in their own destiny. And calling it decolonization. It's hysterical.
In the meantime, the principle of self-determination is upheld for alleged rapists holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy.
The people of the Falkland Islands will be exercising their right in next year's referendum.
Neither people are being denied, through legal contortions, bogus analogies or otherwise, a voice in their own destiny. Both peoples are firmly grasping their own destinies.
The law relies on decisions, not beatle's “trends”; nor even on untested opinions. There are no restrictions on 'self-determination' although many Nations would like there to be so; and there is no definitions of 'people', again in spite of the fact that many rather less than democratic nations would like to impose them.
The matter remains sufficiently open for the UK's Government to quite rightly support the right of both these peoples to decide their own futures.
The point I am making, is that Betelguese and co, would deny them precisely that, and call it decolonization.
Quite easily. Cast your mind back a few years. French farmers blockaded French channel ports and the French authorities and the EU did nothing.
British imports of lamb were stopped by French farmers, container lorries attacked and the lamb taken out and burned by the protesters. The French authorities looked the other way and the EU took ages to do anything.
Yes, banning the vessels would be illegal under EU law and as one of the few countries who always obey the EU laws we would not do so BUT there is more than one way of skinning a cat ! Trawl wires could be cut “accidently”. Spanish fishing boats have run across Scottish fishing boat's trawl wires on purpose in the past. Spanish vessels could be required to go to a designated UK port for maritime safety inspections - our safety laws are among the strictest in the world.
Gentle “harassment” would make the fishing unprofitable without breaking any law. The fishing trade in Galicia would collapse and I am sure that they would turn to their government to negotiate the point with the UK.
There is no conspiracy here. In fact you yourself have identified the nub of the issue. The limitation only applies to existing colonies - not former colonies that are now independent States.
! You have failed to provide any evidence.
Lord Ton
Your insults only serve to highlight the poverty of your arguments and the bankruptcy of the case you are attempting to prosecute.
I have already outlined the criteria and the relevant ICJ case law. I have also provided an authoritative reference on the relevant international law principles for you to check for yourself (all at @46 above). Have you bothered to have a look – or is your mind shut tight?
Why do you think the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), which observed that the referendum conducted by Gibraltar in 1967 was invalid?
Since you are obviously having problems with the logic try thinking of it this way – what if a group of people from say Ireland established an Irish colony on the eastern coast of England and then claimed a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they are occupying declared a part of Ireland.
Can you imagine the threat to world peace and stability that would ensue if such action were legal? Can you now see the logic behind the legal criteria that limits the right to self-determination and why as a matter of common sense and international law, a coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial
@56
No - its not me it's the UN. French Guiana does not appear on the UN's list of non-self governing territories. However, Gibraltar does (see www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml).
I do not have a problem with logic - but I am trained in the law. Opinions are worth nothing unless substantiated by a court. Yours are not - nor even those of your 'eminent' lawers.
Prove your case beatle or be seen as a fraud!!
All the rest of you post is a feeble attempt to distract. Stick to the issue. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ? WHERE ARE YOUR COURT DECISIONS??
“what if a group of people from say Ireland established an Irish colony on the eastern coast of England and then claimed a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they are occupying declared a part of Ireland.”
If the English people inhabiting that part of the east coast wanted to be Irish , then it would be Irish under the rules of self-determination, if it was so when the UN was formed and when the UN charter (Including the rights of all peoples to freely determine their futurewas drawn up).
And if they had a Treaty stating the land was theirs, it would be pointless looking for legal loopholes whose aim was to deny them a voice in their own destiny, and hypocritical in the extreme to call any such aim “decolonization”.
Spain employs double standards.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!