THEY’RE MARCHING ON GIBRALTAR. WHY?

A series of three marches are taking in place across the border in Spain. The first, last Sunday, saw the protestors descend on the military base at Morón de la Frontera in Sevilla province – the 26 th year the demonstration has taken place. This Sunday the Plataforma Andaluza Contra Las Bases Militares will be protesting at the US naval base in Rota and the following Sunday it will be Gibraltar’s turn, or I guess La Línea’s as I doubt they will cross the frontier.

The marches are largely symbolic rather than of the style of the Aldermaston ‘Ban The Bomb’ protests in the UK of old. On Sunday the thousand or so participants (the actual number depends on whose figures you believe) tramped just three kilometres from the Paso de la Nena to Morón which took them an hour and a half. Never let a demonstration get in the way of making time for a good lunch.

At the gates of the US Air Base they read out the manifesto of this series of marches which in essence was the same as the first 26 years ago. It called for the dismantling of the bases and denounced the treaty between Spain and the USA allowing that country’s military to be housed on Spanish soil. The protestors have two aims: disarmament and peace; laudable enough objectives.

Of course the protest this year has an extra edge as the PSOE government in Madrid is allowing Rota to become a major cog in the USA’s and NATO’s anti-missile defence system wheel. This will see many extra military personnel and three warships based at the Cádiz naval station.

The banners held by the demonstrators make familiar reading: “OTAN no, bases fueras” and “Jamás Cesarán”. They also take a human rights stand arguing these bases are used in bombing campaigns to protect the West’s petroleum interests. For La Plataforma they represent a strategic military, political and economic control over the Med and Persian Gulf and are directly implicated in the crimes committed against Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

Whilst in the light of recent developments the march against Rota can be explained by the anti-missile shield not such case can be made against Gibraltar. It is not on Spanish territory unless you subscribe to the doctrine of “Gibraltar Español”. As the protestors are drawn from the left in Spanish politics the rights of the people of Gibraltar to self-determine their own future should surely be a paramount dogma.

The days of Gibraltar being first and foremost a military base are long gone. Indeed Spain itself has played a major role in this downgrading pressuring Washington to send its warships to Rota rather than the Rock and having NATO re-organise its commands so now that Gibraltar is primarily a British rather than a Western Alliance base.

Therefore we have the situation whereby protests at Morón and Rota, on Spanish territory, can be explained away easily enough. In addition given the enhanced role of Rota at the heart of the USA’s controversial policy to establish an anti-missile shield it could well increase the threat of attack, military or terrorist, on Andalucía and Spain. However not only is Gibraltar not part of Spain but the military establishment is no-longer in the front line. There are no RAF aircraft stationed here. Royal Navy warships and submarines are all too rare visitors. So why march on Gibraltar?

MACSHANE: A LESSON IN CONFUSED THINKING

The former Minister for Europe in the Labour Government between 2002 - 2005, Denis MacShane, has written an article “Una nueva era” in the Spanish daily El Mundo. One might question why a socialist MP is writing in a newspaper that is to the extreme right of the political spectrum but then MacShane was a Blairite, so a Thatcherite with a smile.

I have crossed swords with Mr MacShane before. In the great Pantheon of politicians he would be a cleaner. You might ask would I rate the chief minister higher? Indeed I would, he would be at least a doorman.

The article has aroused a lot of interest not because of its basic thesis on USA – Spanish relations after the signing of the agreement under which Rota will be used as a base for NATO’s anti-missile shield. Rather because of a few lines out of eleven paragraphs in which MacShane writes: “Londres tiene que custionarse ahora sis u negative a discutir un acuerdo sobre Gibraltar tiene algún sentido estratégico.” Yes the venerable MacShane writes in Spanish.

There are two aspects to his article. The first suggests that the accord between the USA and Spain is a blow to the so-called US – British ‘special relationship’ because now Madrid is Washington’s best friend and not London. Hardly so. It also goes on to argue that because Rota has been honoured with this role it is to the detriment of Gibraltar – “La nueva base relegará la de la Royal Navy en Gibraltar a un apostadero de segundo nivel, para reparaciones y escalas de descanso del personal.”

In reality Rota has been a US naval base since 1953 (the US airbase at Moron just 75 miles away opened the same year). Under the accord four new U.S. ships will be based in Rota from 2013 as part of NATO’s anti-missile security shield. This will bring 1,100 more American families to the area – 3,400 people in total – and will create about 1,000 direct and indirect jobs. A good deal for Rota but hardly world changing.

Due to political pressure from Madrid, as has been revealed in the Wikileaks papers, US Naval vessels have largely by-passed Gibraltar for Rota. The US Naval Attaché has long since set sail from the Rock and the arrival of one of its warships is a rare event indeed. Hence whether the US sets up its base in Rota or Tangier would not make one iota of difference to Gibraltar. If MacShane is right and the US Navy will now dock at the Rock for repairs as well as ‘R and R’ that would be a welcome development.

The second aspect is because of what MacShane sees as disastrous development in US – UK relations (which is a fallacy) London and Madrid should talk about Gibraltar and do a deal. Obviously MacShane learnt nothing during his period as Minister of Europe when he was Gibraltar’s minister.

As MacShane well knows the future of Gibraltar is not a matter for London and Madrid but one for the people of the Rock alone to self-determine. London has not been negative with Madrid on this issue; it is just the British government has grasped the reality that has escaped MacShane. Gibraltar is not a pawn on the international chess board to be moved around or sacrificed in the interests of US – British – Spanish relations. It is a nation, albeit small, whose people enjoy all the rights of other peoples be they British, Spanish or US citizens. Sadly confused politicians such as MacShane wander around bumping in to reality as they go but learning nothing.

Put Down In Parliament:

The following exchange on Tuesday October 18 took place between the Secretary of State for Defence, Philip Hammond, and MacShane – obviously the new minister does not suffer this fool lightly either.

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): The right hon. Gentleman is the seventh Secretary of State since the conflict started, and we all wish him well. The statements, though, have not changed, even if Secretaries of State have come and gone. We hear about cautious optimism, determinism, determination and some interesting development statistics, then the next Secretary of State comes along and repeats the same statements. May I urge him to be the first one to grab hold of strategy and tactics from our 250-odd generals and ensure that whatever presence we maintain in Afghanistan, there are no more funeral cavalcades through Royal Wootton Bassett? Our men should stop being Taliban target practice.

Mr Hammond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He may detect a similarity in the statements, and I may detect a similarity in his questions.

HMS TIRELESS SAILS BACK IN TO BAY

Don’t go rushing down to the naval dockyard to see but HMS Tireless has just sailed back in to the bay. I have no idea where the nuclear submarine is in the world, it certainly isn’t Gibraltar, but the luckless vessel has been used by Spain as a reason why US nuclear subs should go to Rota and not to Gibraltar.

Last week I reported in Panorama on the remarks of Senator José Carracao to a committee on foreign affairs where he stated his personal view that US nuclear vessels engaged in operations off Libya should be refuelled and take on supplies in Rota and not the Rock.

When I questioned him on this view he stated that it was logical as Rota was a joint US – Spanish base and he argued that the Cádiz port had adequate security systems for handling a nuclear vessel which he alleged Gibraltar did not.

His second point took me by surprise because if there was a legitimate argument for a nuclear vessel to go to Rota instead of Gibraltar surely it was because it would not have to navigate the crowded waters of the bay or be docked in a populated area but he didn’t mention that.

Pressed on the security issue the Ministry of Defence said: “The MOD can reassure your readers that the security of our, and visiting nations’, personnel and equipment is of paramount importance to us and we continually keep our security measures under review.”

However according to WikiLeaks telegrams published in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten the crowded bay is the very argument that Zapatero’s government used to its USA counterpart.

After the scandal of HMS Tireless, the nuclear submarine that spent nearly a year in Gibraltar over 2000 – 2001 because of a breakdown to its refrigeration system, there has been widespread disquiet over nuclear vessels docking at the Rock. Madrid argued that to avoid causing concern amongst the residents of the Campo de Gibraltar and protests from environmentalists US nuclear subs should go to Rota instead.

According to leaked cables the Spanish director for European and North American affairs, José Pons, contacted the US Ambassador Eduardo Aguirre in July 2006 when one of that country’s nuclear subs was due to arrive in Gibraltar. Pons said for the sake of public sensibilities it would be better if the vessel went to Rota.

It is not that Rota was more acceptable to environmentalists than Gibraltar. Francisco Castejón who is responsible for anti-nuclear campaigns at Ecologistas en Acción stated it was more difficult to detect a submarine in Rota than it was in Gibraltar adding: “The Rock is more accessible and the environmental groups work close to the port. The geography of Rota is more steep, has less visibility and the zone is less populated.”

In the event the Ambassador advised the US Armed Forces of Spain’s view but stressed that Spain had no authority over questions related to Gibraltar. The US nuclear submarine didn’t go to Rota but the Rock and when Pons asked for an explanation he was told preparations for its arrival were already advanced with family members already booked on flights to Gibraltar.

An intriguing series of events then took place. It appears that in January of 2007 the US said it would send more submarines to Rota if Spain lessened the bureaucratic procedures for doing so. This soon was put to the test when the USS Minneapolis – Saint Paul docked to land the bodies of two junior officers who had died after an accident days before off the UK port of Plymouth. The nuclear submarine advised it would stay in Rota whilst an investigation was carried out but the Spanish Government insisted on an exhaustive report to ensure the vessel had not suffered a similar breakdown to Tireless. It was at this point that WikiLeaks says that Aguirre told Madrid the USA had taken note of its preference for nuclear powered subs to dock in Rota rather than Gibraltar but added that if the Spanish government demanded detailed information then the Rock would return to being the more attractive option.

On July 3 2008 a telegram revealed that 93 per cent of the warships flying US flags docked in Spanish ports and only 7 per cent used Gibraltar. This was despite the fact the British Government was more flexible in issuing licences. Since then under the recent US-Spanish accord over the use of bases in Spain those regulations have been toughened further no doubt making Gibraltar more attractive still. This may explain why two US nuclear submarines, USS Florida and Providence, recently were sent to Gibraltar rather than Rota.