Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Dec '12 10:28
    The Spaniards insist on maintaining their control over two African cities while raising loud complaints about continuing British rule over Gibraltar.

    While one might logically support or oppose continuing foreign control over all three territories, is there any possible logic to Spain's desire to reincorporate Gibraltar into Spain while being unwilling to hand Ceuta and Melilla back to Morocco?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Dec '12 15:17
    I'm going to hazard a guess here that the people of Ceuta and Melilla would rather remain under Spanish sovereignty. According to Wikipedia,

    Regarding Ceuta:

    On November 5, 2007, King Juan Carlos I visited the city, sparking great enthusiasm from the local population and protests from the Moroccan government.


    Regarding Melilla:

    On 6 November 2007, King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia visited the city, which caused a massive demonstration of support. The visit also sparked protests from the Moroccan government.


    Though I don't know much about those cities, one would think that its people might be better served being part of an EU/OECD nation (albeit a troubled one) than a country that does not crack the top 100 in most major economic indices, even if it is showing solid economic growth and democratic reforms in recent years.

    As far as Gibraltar goes, keeping their own autonomy as they essentially have now seems to be in their best interest.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Dec '12 18:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    The Spaniards insist on maintaining their control over two African cities while raising loud complaints about continuing British rule over Gibraltar.

    While one might logically support or oppose continuing foreign control over all three territories, is there any possible logic to Spain's desire to reincorporate Gibraltar into Spain while being unwilling to hand Ceuta and Melilla back to Morocco?
    This summary is from the wiki article on Ceuta:

    The Spanish position states that both Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of the Spanish state, and have been since the 16th century, centuries prior to Morocco's independence from France in 1956, whereas Gibraltar, being a British Overseas Territory, is not and never has been part of the United Kingdom.[21] Furthermore, Ceuta has been under Christian rule (Spanish or Portuguese) for a longer period than major cities in peninsular Spain such as Málaga, Granada or Almería, and has been so since before the creation of the Spanish state in 1475. Morocco denies these claims and maintains that the Spanish presence in Ceuta and the other presidios on its coast is a remnant of the colonial past which should be ended. However, the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories do not consider those Spanish territories to be colonies, whereas it does declare Gibraltar as a non-decolonized territory.[22]

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


    Agree or disagree but the arguments are hardly illogical. Gibraltar is also relatively geographically distant from the UK which is not the case as regards Ceuta and Melilla vis-a-vis Spain.
  4. 11 Dec '12 00:34
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm going to hazard a guess here that the people of Ceuta and Melilla would rather remain under Spanish sovereignty. According to Wikipedia,

    Regarding Ceuta:

    On November 5, 2007, King Juan Carlos I visited the city, sparking great enthusiasm from the local population and protests from the Moroccan government.


    Regarding Melilla:

    [quote ...[text shortened]... s, keeping their own autonomy as they essentially have now seems to be in their best interest.
    So you agree with me - ie, that the population of all three territories is entitled to remain as they are now?
  5. 11 Dec '12 00:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Spanish position states that both Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of the Spanish state, and have been since the 16th century, centuries prior to Morocco's independence from France in 1956, whereas Gibraltar, being a British Overseas Territory, is not and never has been part of the United Kingdom.

    Well OK, but Gibraltar was ceded to Britain by Spain legally according to the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Surely this treaty ended any reasonable Spanish legal claim to it.

    Gibraltar is also relatively geographically distant from the UK which is not the case as regards Ceuta and Melilla vis-a-vis Spain.

    True, but Ceuta and Melilla are self-evidently part of a completely separate continent from mainland Spain!
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 Dec '12 01:03
    Uh oh, the Continent Card has been played.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    11 Dec '12 01:07
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    So you agree with me - ie, that the population of all three territories is entitled to remain as they are now?
    Unless the people of those cities are screaming for change (which does not seem to be the case) I see no compelling reason to change anything.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    11 Dec '12 01:09
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    [b]The Spanish position states that both Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of the Spanish state, and have been since the 16th century, centuries prior to Morocco's independence from France in 1956, whereas Gibraltar, being a British Overseas Territory, is not and never has been part of the United Kingdom.

    Well OK, but Gibraltar was ceded to Brita ...[text shortened]... uta and Melilla are self-evidently part of a completely separate continent from mainland Spain![/b]
    Istanbul is not part of mainland Turkey and is on a different continent. Our definition of continents are arbitrary anyway.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 Dec '12 02:00
    Originally posted by sh76
    Istanbul is not part of mainland Turkey and is on a different continent. Our definition of continents are arbitrary anyway.
    Istanbul was colonized by Turks in the late 1400s. Byzantium was a Greek/Roman Christian city originally.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Dec '12 02:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    [b]The Spanish position states that both Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of the Spanish state, and have been since the 16th century, centuries prior to Morocco's independence from France in 1956, whereas Gibraltar, being a British Overseas Territory, is not and never has been part of the United Kingdom.

    Well OK, but Gibraltar was ceded to Brita ...[text shortened]... uta and Melilla are self-evidently part of a completely separate continent from mainland Spain![/b]
    You asked for a "logical" reason, not necessarily one I agree with. I'd say all three are foreign imperialist enclaves and should be returned to their rightful owners. Centuries old treaties made after aggressive wars notwithstanding.
  11. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    11 Dec '12 07:46
    I'd be interested to know how the notion of returning these exclaves to their 'original owners' (Spain and Morocco, presumably, unless it is possible to raise the dead and hand them the keys to the city) squares up with Catalan (and Basque) aspirations to independence, on the one hand, and the disputed status of the Western Sahara, on the other.
  12. 11 Dec '12 20:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage to No1Marauder
    I'd be interested to know how the notion of returning these exclaves to their 'original owners' (Spain and Morocco, presumably, unless it is possible to raise the dead and hand them the keys to the city) squares up with Catalan (and Basque) aspirations to independence, on the one hand, and the disputed status of the Western Sahara, on the other.
    With regard to your quote of 'original owners', No1Marauder wrote 'rightful owners'.
    Or did he originally write 'original owners' and then edit it to 'rightful owners'?

    With regard to 'imperialist enclaves', should the United States return Guantanamo
    (which the US leases--against Cuba's will--for a token amount) to Cuba?

    It's nice to know someone else who's aware of the Western Sahara's struggle
    for independence (represented by the Polisario Front) from Morocco.
  13. 11 Dec '12 21:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You asked for a "logical" reason, not necessarily one I agree with. I'd say all three are foreign imperialist enclaves and should be returned to their rightful owners. Centuries old treaties made after aggressive wars notwithstanding.
    It does strike me as odd that postcolonial anxieties about "centuries-old" wars seem to trump the actual, legal terms established in "centuries-old" treaties, not to mention the actual, present wishes of the living inhabitants of the territories in question.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Dec '12 21:05
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    With regard to your quote of 'original owners', No1Marauder wrote 'rightful owners'.
    Or did he originally write 'original owners' and then edit it to 'rightful owners'?

    with regard to 'imperialist enclaves', should the United States return Guantanamo
    (which the US leases--against Cuba's will--for a token amount) to Cuba?

    It's nice to know someone e ...[text shortened]... ra's struggle
    for independence (represented by the Polisario Front) from Morocco.
    No, I didn't.

    Yes, Gitmo should be returned to Cuba.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Dec '12 21:06
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    It does strike me as odd that postcolonial anxieties about "centuries-old" wars seem to trump the actual, legal terms established in "centuries-old" treaties, not to mention the actual, present wishes of the living inhabitants of the territories in question.
    Basic principles of justice seem to often strike you as "odd". What does present IL say about the acquisition of territory by force?