The Truth of the Matter
Lynx
concluded last week that "no country" would allow Spain to dominate both
sides of the strategic Starit of Gibraltar.
DCC
How could Spain physically 'dominate' both sides of the straits?
Imagine for a moment (heaven forbid), Spain got Gib and did not give up
Ceuta.
So what? Will that stop ships transiting the straits?
In this day and age of rapid deployment forces and remote surveillance, a
physical military presence on both or either side has almost become
redundant. It's down to flag waving (e.g. Peregil) and not much else.
With this part of the world dominated by USA (through NATO) and no obvious
adversary , it
matter not one bit who's flag is waving on either side of the waters.
The only issue that is there is:
In the short term, terrorism. That does not require mega-fleets and guided
missiles on the hills pointing to God knows where. Instead it needs
collaboration between the littoral states and others (USA/EU) to know and
hopefully control what is going on in the dark alleys of Casablanca etc. Not
the JFK with all its might parading itself up and down the straits. The rise
of fundamentalism in Morocco is a real problem. An unstable Morocco is bad
news.
In the longer term, I guess China is the concern. Have not doubt, in 30/50
years time they will be a Super-power. Hopefully by then they will have
developed into a democracy (a-la-GWBush) and all will be well. But if China
goes some other way. they'll want to dominate as do the Yanks today. If the
North-Africans got into bed with them because the alternative was not an
option, that would create an interesting imbalance.
And where would Gib be in all that. Unfortunately, a base that almost
entirely belongs to yesterday. Technology is slowly but surely killing the
military relevance of the Rock.
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:3xzre.16518$F7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Jim Watt
>Has he got it right? I am of the view that he has not.
>
>How could Spain physically 'dominate' both sides of the straits?
>Imagine for a moment (heaven forbid), Spain got Gib and did not give up
>Ceuta.
>So what? Will that stop ships transiting the straits?
>In this day and age of rapid deployment forces and remote surveillance, a
>physical military presence on both or either side has almost become
>redundant
You must have missed the patrols of warships in the strait to
prevent attacks by mythical terrorists.
No Spain would not stop shipping, but for your safety and
convenience we are providing protection and the security
charge will be $500 per vessel to transit the zone.
Have you seen how the airline price structure is now, where
the charges for someone to poke at your baggage badly can
be nearly as much as the cost fo the actual flight ...
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Lynx
speaking, if Spain was to obtain command of Gib, with Ceuta across the
Strait, what would stop Spain from striking an accord with, who knows whom,
and guarantee some form of effective control? Wasn't there a time when the
US proposed to the UK renting out the Gib base? The locals, I understand,
almost went on a riot against the whole idea.
Your hypothesis is mostly relevant to today, and what we can almost
perceive, given, in the case of China, their huge economic boom. But China's
boom, is in fact, also the western corporate boom. Who, if not the west, is
investing the most in China?
As for today's technology making holding of geo locations obsolete, yes,
true. But in the case of Britain, it can be said that, Gib being its sole
toehold in Europe, the Rock must still be most important to British
interests.
The strait is a gateway, there is no reason to believe that on account of
modern technology, control of this gateway cannot be achieved, and that
control be put to profitable gains. The very word tariff comes from Tarifa.
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:d8o084$cu1$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
Ken
> entirely belongs to yesterday. Technology is slowly but surely killing
> the
> military relevance of the Rock.
So everyone has been saying for a long time. From the moment a missile can
fly half-way around the world, it was said that strategic position was a
thing of the past as you ncould hit anywhere on earth from anywhere else on
earth. Well such missiles have been with us for a very long time, they DON'T
have to carry nuclear warheads of course. Yet no conflict has ever been
foungh using ICBMs and in every conflict in which the UK has been involved
since crikey-knows-when up to and including the present day, Gib has been of
use.
Ken
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:8uiva1lqkm8p72nbu...@4ax.com...
More than that. The practical minimum cost of a flight anywhere these days
is around £25 each way, with the airline charge being 99p. The rest is
taxes. Bit like petrol prices really. What I'd like to know is how the
airlines manage at these rates!
K
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d8q439$hi0$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Precisely, Gib's been of "use". About time war games were played from
"homesoil" without involving Gib and its people. Who never get a say in
these matters.
Lynx
Passenger load is not their main revenue intake. Cargo is where the manoy's
made.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
THAT was precisely the point made in one of the greatest speeches made in
Westminster in the defence of Gib, against the proposals on joint
sovereignty. To my shame and regret Icannot recall who it was made it. When
the UK went to war he remarked, Westminster voted and in doing so the UK
voted for they had elected the parliamentarians at Westminster. Gib OTOH had
had no such say but were inevitably dragged along. We never had the option
to say that we'd sit this one out. It was precisely for this acquiesence
that Gib needed and deserved every indulgance that the UK could bestow, even
if it didn't want to. It was a debt of honour.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
But these are passenger flights! Go to www.thomsonfly.com to see the sort of
deal I'm talking about, though they are not immediately visible.
Ken
Lynx
I was basically saying that if Spain was to take command of Gib, whose to
say Spain would not strike a geo-political defence pact with one, or a group
of sovereign states, and securing the strait? Far fetched, yes, but
history's full of far fetched incidents. On the other hand, British presence
in the strait, via it's presence in Gib, would have been seen as an ally of
Spain. In the sense that if, in peaceful time, anything of a military nature
had taken place in the strait, Spain would not have been alone. Britain
would have been involved on account of its proximity to the region.
"DCC" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:d8o084$cu1$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg...
Lynx
True, the mind boggles.
Lynx
Yes debt of honour, paid with danger, rewarded with medals. Well, in the
case of Malta, anyway. Gib should not be subject to any other electoral
jurisdiction. I think we agree on that one.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Think not - be certain. Hence the need for constitutional reform.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>I replied to your posting, but can't see where it's gone.
>
> I was basically saying that if Spain was to take command of Gib, whose to
> say Spain would not strike a geo-political defence pact with one, or a
> group of sovereign states, and securing the strait? Far fetched, yes, but
> history's full of far fetched incidents. On the other hand, British
> presence in the strait, via it's presence in Gib, would have been seen as
> an ally of Spain. In the sense that if, in peaceful time, anything of a
> military nature had taken place in the strait, Spain would not have been
> alone. Britain would have been involved on account of its proximity to the
> region.
Though Spain is a very different country than what it was a few decades ago,
the magnitude of the debt owed to Gib, the Gibraltarians through their
sacrifice and to the UK by its actions, by what is now called the free
world. Had it not been for the status of the tiny, insignificant speck of
alnd some of us on this NG call home the political map could look very
different today.
Ken
Lynx
What would the new constitution read, we abide by whatever those elected by
the UK electorate decide? Colonialism by any definition.
Lynx
Absolutely. And some of those sacrifices went unheard. Gib's role goes
further back even, to the time of the Napoleonic wars. Many aussies don't
realize if it hadn't been for the Gib naval base of the time, we'd all be
speaking French today. The western world would indeed have been quite
different.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Not colonialism if by the passage and adoption of the constitution we become
decolonised!
Ken
Lynx
Not likely. Britain would need to renounce the ToU. On the other hand, who
knows how many pack of cards are at play this time round.
Until they come clean with Gib, we'll be in limbo. Where Gib's status is
concerned, that is.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
The Treaty of Utrecht or rather its Article X, if applicable, is
incomaptible with the options for decolonisation. There are three means by
which it could be nullified.
The most amicable would be for the UK and Sp to agree to cease to be bound
by its terms. Yeah, sure.
The second would be for EITHER the UK or Sp to declare it no longer felt
itself bound by its terms, regardless of what the other thought. Yeah, sure.
Certainly Spain never would. There'd be no comeback and if the UK wanted to
show a thread of decency it could do so. For Sp to enforce it (if ever it
could, which it can't, for there are no sanctions written in to the Treaty
in the event of a signatory's non-adherence) she would have to show first of
all that the Treaty remains a valid document - after all if it has become
unenforceable for whatever reason, it cannot by definition be enforced. This
would require referral to the ICJ, a matter neither party has been willing
to see happen.
The third method is for the UN C24 to refer the ToU to the ICJ for
arbitration as to its validity - something the C24 can do, and for which Gib
has been clamouring for many years. Of course, the C24, bastion of all that
is right and proper (place the adjectives of your choice here) has
diligently forgotten where its mandate and duty lies in such matters despite
PC and JB telling them time and again in unequivocal short sentences using
words of no more than two syllables. But it is entirely possible that this
may happen in the not too distant future.
OTOH if Gib freely and democratically chose a method of decolonisation which
is not incompatible with the ToU, then Gib would be decolonised and the ToU
would cease to have any relevance. After a period of cooling off (about 300
yrs should do it) it could be withdrawn from as such in Westminster.
Remember that all the ToU requires in order NOT to invoke the reversionary
clause is that the sovereign of the UK should remain sovereign in Gib. There
is no mention whatsoever as to what form of govt may or not apply in Gib,
nor does the link with the UK have to be any stronger than this.
By this reading, Gib could have a distance to the UK equivalent to that of
Canada, Australia or NZ. The only thing the ToU's reversionary clause would
seem to prohibit would be the trasformation of Gib into a republic, fully
divorced from the throne at Bukkie Pal.
What would happen, I wonder, in the event of the UK becoming a republic?
K
Lynx
I read your posting. But cutting to the quick, Spain and Britain have
repeatedly broken the terms of condition under article X of the ToU. How
then, can such a "treaty" be adhered to? This line of thought, you have to
admit, is farcical.
>
> K
>
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Oh they can keep or adhere to whatever they want - or not. As I said, there
is no sanction that can be applied by either party in the event of
non-adherence by the other. In effect the ToU is used merely as the excuse
by Britain (to stay) and by Spain (to claim). That is ALL it is used for
these days. Everything else has fallen by the wayside. It is the oldest
Treaty that the UK refers to.
K
Lynx
>
>
> Oh they can keep or adhere to whatever they want - or not. As I said,
> there is no sanction that can be applied by either party in the event of
> non-adherence by the other. In effect the ToU is used merely as the excuse
> by Britain (to stay) and by Spain (to claim). That is ALL it is used for
> these days. Everything else has fallen by the wayside. It is the oldest
> Treaty that the UK refers to.
Noticed the trimming, hmmm?!
If I'm not mistaken, and I probably am, didn't the Fronch shortcut their
shortcomings over the ToU, as it affected their colonial holdings in Canada?
Quite a few things went by the wayside, in France proper.