Morocco takes back its rock

dathi1

Morocco takes back its rock and Spain threatens military action??? Then what happens...The EU backs Spain up. Bad timing on the whole military alliance debate here with Nice. Would a future EU military alliance threaten war with Morocco or some other country in such circumstances? What do yez think?






NICE to be NICE

mike65

It a bit funny really, Spain wants Gibraltar "back" and yet has this piece of insignifcent rock plus two towns from Morroco on excatly the same basis - ie a treaty from centuries ago.

Mike.

Sand

Things rarely make sense when national pride and jingoism come into play. Gibraltars status seems unassailable, the majority dont want to be Spanish and thus chained to British pride it would be very hard for any politician (even Blair) to sell them out. Id love to know what the situation (Do they want to stay spanish or go Morrocan? ) is with Spanish Morroco though.... the island that was taken was basically uninhabited afaik, so the Spanish right to it by treaty seems pretty solid. Course you got Morrocos national pride now hinging on a useless rock, so things might get tricky unless an outbreak of common sense occurs.

Dont worry about EU milatary action Daithi. As the Kurds and Iraqi rebels learned in the aftermath of the Gulf War theres a difference between a Western state offering support and a western state actually doing anything.

sceptre

Originally posted by Sand
Id love to know what the situation (Do they want to stay spanish or go Morrocan? ) is with Spanish Morroco though

I only know a little about Ceuta (nothing about Melilla). it's essentially in two halves. the eastern part, on the peninsula, is totally inhabited by Spaniards. On the west side it's more Moroccan - it's where all the Arabs live. The population is about 80% Spanish, 19% Moroccan, 1% Indian. Most people in the territory want to stay with Spain - the Spaniards for the obvious reason, the Moroccans due to the favourable tax structure. Officially everyone pays Spanish taxes, but only at half the rate that applies in mainland Spain. Both Ceuta and Melilla are duty-free ports (no VAT). Meanwhile the residents gain all the benefits of the SPanish doube-taxation treaties. In short, from a financial perspective, the residents enjoy nearly all the benefits that residents of Gibraltar do.

Perejil (the island) is uninhabited, yeah. It's only half a mile wide. Spain has had sovereignty over it since 1668 but hasn't had any presence on the island for the past forty years. Because of this, Morocco claims that it was effectively included in the 1956 settlement that ceded most of northern Morocco back to them. Ceuta, Melilla and the three other small territories (all islands: Penon de Alhucemas, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, and Islas Chafarinas) were specifically named in that treaty. Perejil wasn't.

Chaos-Engine

Its 200 metres from Moroccian Mainland. Its uninhabitated and has been for over 100 years. As far as I see Spain has no real claim to it other than legal and historical.
Gilbralta is totally british. Population affiliation is number one in sovernty claims. As this rock has no population Frontiers take centre stage...

Back down Spain and butt out EU. This rock(Football pitch) is Morocco's.

deco

Ah the joys of the post colonial era.....

This type of mess just shows the amazing number of problems that empirialism left behind.....

Even though it would be cool to see the Spanish bomb the hell out of the Morrocans....

Ah my bloodlust knows no bounds;)

Fidelis

I think there's only 8 Moroccon troops on the football sized island of Perejil. They've hoisted up a Moroccon flag aswell. The Spanish are sendings frigates and all sorts down there & the Spanish Legion (based in Ceuta & Melill) have been put on high alert!

Dazzer

An army v 8 troups? Sounds fair game to me ...

Victor

Originally posted by Fidelis
I think there's only 8 Moroccon troops on the football sized island of Perejil. They've hoisted up a Moroccon flag aswell. The Spanish are sendings frigates and all sorts down there & the Spanish Legion (based in Ceuta & Melill) have been put on high alert!

Well, it's more than a 'rock' (legally rocks are covered at high tide (?)). I think common sense needs to prevail, what the Moroccans should have done is sent a goat herder to live there (the islands main inhabitants are goats) and claim sovereignty through "continuous peaceful occupation". Of course there is the matter of needing to rationalise the land and sea boundaries.

And I thought the Spanish Foreign Legion was based on Fuerteventura?

---

This may be important on the world stage, as the consent of both is needed for American aircraft carriers to legally enter the straits (only having Spanish (and British) consent would hugely restrict manoeuvrability).

dathi1

Even though it would be cool to see the Spanish bomb the hell out of the Morrocans....

what if Gaddafi has sold his long range condor missiles to the king.... then Spain would be out of the picture and the EU would come to the rescue??? North African / EU war....not cool.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Fidelis
I think there's only 8 Moroccon troops on the football sized island of Perejil.

Maybe the 8 Moroccan troops are using Perejil as a bridgehead for an assault on the Spanish mainland. Yiz never considered that , did ye. Huh, huh?

Dazzer

Taken from the RTE website.

09:52) Spain has said it has forcibly removed Moroccan troops who set up an observation post last week on a disputed island off Morocco's Mediterranean coast.

About a dozen Moroccan soldiers were on the island of Perejil.

The Spanish government said in a statement the operation to remove the Moroccans had been carried out without any injuries to either side.

It said it had informed its allies of the move.

Fidelis

The Moroccon's claimed that they occupied the island because it was being used as a jump off point for illegal limmigrants.

As for the Legion: to the best of my knowledge, they withdrew from Infi & the Spanish Sahara in 1956, but have remained in Ceuta & Melilla to this day.

gurramok

Spain has said it has forcibly removed Moroccan troops who set up an observation post last week on a disputed island off Morocco's Mediterranean coast

What is the fate of the Moroccan troops?
Prisoners/deportation ??

dathi1

they have just been handed over to the Moroccan authorities after the Spanish re-occupied the rock. Now the |Moroccans will be looking for the start up keys to their rockets. Then the EU will rush through legislation to form an EU military response in the case off an immanent attack on Spain. Then Bertie will go hell for leather to get Irish troops involved Then we will have to vote yes to Nice for security.. Then the arabs wont like us any more.....sorry just gettin carried away here.

mike65

They could end this pretty quickly with a few very big bombs, enough to put this rock just below the waterline!

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
They could end this pretty quickly with a few very big bombs enough to put this rock just below the waterline!

Think of the goats, where would the goats live? Would you engage in mass deportations of said goats or just turn them into one big kebab?

mike65

The kebab option seems best...:D

Mike.

gurramok

That would be environmental terrorism !
think of the ecosystem that would be destroyed by the bombs, Greenpeace would be down there in a flash !!

vorbis

From what I saw, theres only goats there. Are they exceptional milkers or something. Its like Britain taking Achill Beag.

Clintons Cat

hmm surely this not a dispute about oil getting out of hand?
any one up for a game of "my gunboats bigger than yours"?

Morocco-Spain oil prospecting problem must be solved by comprehensive negotiations
Morocco-Spain, Politics, 5/24/2002

"Only negotiations can bring a solution to the Moroccan-Spanish problem of the off-shore oil prospecting license given by the Spanish authorities to Repsol company," Moroccan minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, Mohammed Benaissa, said Wednesday.

Speaking at the House of Representatives (lower chamber), the foreign minister said Morocco had from the onset "categorically rejected" the license when the Spanish government approved it.

Under international customary law, Morocco has entire sovereignty over its continental shelf, which extends beyond the median line, erroneously taken into consideration in the prospecting license, he went on. There is a clear difference between the continental rights of the states, and those of islands controlled by other states, which is the case of the Canary Islands, the head of the Moroccan diplomacy further insisted.

Morocco had rejected the Spanish decision to grant an oil exploring license to Spanish company "Repsol" to prospect oil in a maritime zone located in front of the Moroccan southern city of Tarfaya, and reminded Spanish authorities of the need to respect international laws and customs, that ban unilateral maritime delimitation between countries having opposite or contiguous coasts. International laws and customs stipulate that such delimitation should be set in agreement between the two countries in order to reach a fair solution for all sides and taking into account specificities of each region.

Last December, Spain's government approved a decree authorizing Spanish company "Repsol" to conduct oil prospecting in a maritime zone located between the Canary Islands, precisely along the islands of Fuerte Ventura and Lanzarote, in front of the Moroccan city of Tarfaya.

Clintons Cat

moroco claim they need the rock to act as a look-out post to find smugglers...given that its 200 meters from the coast they could always wait till they come out from behind it.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by vorbis
. Its like Britain taking Achill Beag.

There's a precedent for that ...... as you know. Remember '82 when Mrs Torture took another rock called Malvinas 12,000 miles further west of Achill and condemned over two hundred sailors on the Belgrano to a watery grave (outside the exclusion zone) to force a war.

vorbis

Just wondering :-)

mike65

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

There's a precedent for that ...... as you know. Remember '82 when Mrs Torture took another rock called Malvinas 12,000 miles further west of Achill and condemned over two hundred sailors on the Belgrano to a watery grave (outside the exclusion zone) to force a war.

I think you'll find a barbaric military Junta invaded those rocks to distract a mardy nation from its own plight, pro_gnostic_8 and I'm not refereing to Mrs T.

Britian did'nt force a war, the Galiteri "government" did that. You should read more...

Mike.

Clintons Cat

what mike said.

plus the morocan flag raising on parsely island has more simillarities to the argentine landing a small contingent of quasi military contractors on leith island (another uninhabited and soveriegnty contested island in the s atlantic) prior to the full scale invasion of the falklands.
Britains failiure to contest soverignty militarily was misread by the junta as a sign of weakness and that when push came to shove that britain would not contest a full scale invasion/reoccupation of the falklands/malvinas.
History proved otherwise.maybe spain with its "over reaction" is acting to protect its intrests in Ceuta and Melilla and off shore drilling from morocan "misinterpretation".

mike65

Originally posted by Clintons Cat

off shore drilling

Aha! It had to be about oil or gas in the end did'nt it...?

Mike.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by mike65



Britian did'nt force a war, the Galiteri "government" did that. You should read more...

Mike.

Weird how when I read an insulting comment like that I get an uncontrollable urge to respond! And, I don't require any further reading to know that the said General's name was in fact GALTIERI.

That Britain did "force a war" is indisputable. I would recommend a study of newspaper commentaries of the period rather a cold historical record of the time. The Belgrano was steaming away from the exclusion zone (Argentina had indicated a desire for a peaceful resolution to the dispute) when that ship was torpedoed. Rather than Argentina "distracting a mardy nation from it's plight" the opposite is the case. Thatcher wanted that war.

Who was wrong and who was right in 1982? Reckon I know your viewpoint on that, but I will remind you that the Irish Government of the day recorded it's opposition on moral/ethical grounds to any British claim on the Falkland Islands and condemned the subsequent British military action.

BTW, the soubriquet "barbaric" might also be conferred upon the Thatcher woman for her treatment of the Hunger Strikers a few short years earlier on this island and her capitalistic emasculation of the mineworkers in particular and the working class in general in her own country.

Shinji

I've no time whatsoever for Thatcher, but fundamentally you're dealing with a situation in the Falklands where the Argentine military government wanted to perform a hostile occupation of a number of islands whose inhabitants considered themselves British and wished to remain so.

Those therefore are British subjects and the government had a duty to protect them from invasion. It's that simple. You can blather about ulterior motives and hunger strikes until the cows come home, but Britain was entirely justified in engaging in military action in the Falklands to defend its people. That's what the army and navy is THERE for.

dathi1

Regardless of how the occupants see themselves the Malvinas are much Argentinan as the Aran Islands are Irish.. forget the trophys of war sindrome etc..

Sand

Rocks, dirt and trees have no nationality. People do. If the Falklanders reckon theyre British, good for them. Theyve a slightly more expert opinion on what they are than the Argentinians do. The same might apply if any morocans lived on that island morocco tried to grab off Spain, but they dont from all reports.

Otherwise Ireland is as much British as the Aran Islands are Irish, Britian is as much French as Ireland is British, etc etc, if nationality is going to be based on geographical proximity.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dathi1
Regardless of how the occupants see themselves the Malvinas are much Argentinan as the Aran Islands are Irish.. forget the trophys of war sindrome etc..

Too right........ how would we feel if China had occupation on Cape Clear.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Sand
Rocks, dirt and trees have no nationality. People do.

NO, they don't......... not if they are implanted into a place thru' force of a colonial empire.
Check out Dathi's post again............ Argentina have a more superior moral claim to Malvinas than does a 12,000 mile removed England.

Shinji

Daithi and pro_gnostic; are you honestly trying to say that the people themselves don't have any say in what nation they're governed by?

By your reasoning, Ireland should still be governed from London.

mike65

BTW, the soubriquet "barbaric" might also be conferred upon the Thatcher woman for her treatment of the Hunger Strikers a few short years earlier on this island and her capitalistic emasculation of the mineworkers in particular and the working class in general in her own country.

I think Pro_gnostic_8 is just indulging in some Brit-bashing,
he seems cool with Galtieri as a Meat-Packer resposible for 30,000 dissapeared while all angry about Maggie Thatcher
not caving in to men who killed and maimed.

The working class are better off now than they were in 1978 at the fag end of the Callahan Labour government. Thatcher was vital at the time (1979), another Labour government would have been cutains for Britain.

Mike.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Shinji
where the Argentine military government wanted to perform a hostile occupation of a number of islands whose inhabitants considered themselves British and wished to remain so.

Those therefore are British subjects and the government had a duty to protect them from invasion.

The moral entitlement of ownership to Malvinas by Britain is something I will dispute until the day I die........... but, my point is that Thatcher (when Argentina was willing to negotiate the dispute) scuppered a peaceful outcome by deliberately targeting the Belgrano and thereby sending 230 young men to a watery grave. She got her way, and cost a lot of British servicemen's lives (HMS Coventry, e.g.) in the process. Not that any of that cost her a night's sleep, tho'.

dathi1

By your reasoning, Ireland should still be governed from London.

Irish people live in Ireland.
English people live in England.
and Argentinan people live in Argentina and its surrounding islands.

dathi1

forgot to say Palestinians live in Palestine.

mike65

Here's a simple question for the Republicans here -

Do you belive in the concept of the majority having
its views respected? Should Gibratarians or Falklanders
be coerced into a state they wish not to be part of?

Or do the views of ppl on small islands not count for anything?

Mike.

dathi1

ok you try moving to Parsley island off Morocco and declare sovereignty for the island of Mike 65. You will be in the majority and then the Spaniards will remove you. Question answered.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
BTW, the soubriquet "barbaric" might also be conferred upon the Thatcher woman for her treatment of the Hunger Strikers a few short years earlier on this island...

Why, what did she do to them?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Shinji
Daithi and pro_gnostic; are you honestly trying to say that the people themselves don't have any say in what nation they're governed by?

What about the people of Hong Kong? It happened just a coupla years ago that they were handed over en masse to China.
This reply also addresses Mike65's post of 17.56.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Why, what did she do to them?

Howzit goin, Biff,

I mentioned the "barbaric" thing 'cause it was raised in a previous post in relation to the Argentinian Government of 1982. I woz just making a comparative analogy with the Thatcher admin of the same period.
What did she do to them?................. she ignored the valid 5 demands (against all conventions for the acceptable treatment of POW's) so she could demonstrate she was a woman with "balls".

mike65

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

What about the people of Hong Kong? It happened just a coupla years ago that they were handed over en masse to China.
This reply also addresses Mike65's post of 17.56.

Hong Kong was under British governance by dint of a 150 year lease which was always going to expire in 1997. That some did'nt like that fact is by the by, though the UK government could have done more by way of issuing passports of HK citizens...

Mike.

Sand

NO, they don't......... not if they are implanted into a place thru' force of a colonial empire.

News flash, Argentinia is a relatively young country, formed by colonists in South America. As such the Argentinians dont have nationality or the rights to call themselves a nation ( being implanted into a place thru force of a colonial empire). You can even continue that logic to the fact that anybody implanted into Ireland by the force of a colonial empire doesnt have a right to call themselves Irish. Looking at the map it seems Chile has a good case for ownership of the Falklands if geography is all that counts. Of course The Falklanders do not consider themselves Argentinian or Chilean, they consider themselves British and that doesnt change because the middle class and white brigade say otherwise. Assuming the Argentinians actually took control of the Falklands, what would happen to the (british) population? Be forced into national re-education programs? ethnically cleansed?

People have a right to self determination. Flagpoles arent particualry arsed whose flag flies from them, people are.

dathi1

As such the Argentinians dont have nationality or the rights to call themselves a nation

true enough... but at least they dont declare themselves as Spaniards.

Shinji

And if they DID declare themselves as Spaniards en masse, wouldn't that frankly be their business? Who the hell is to tell them they can't?

Same rules apply to the Falklands. They choose to be British, as do the people of Gibraltar. No nation has the right to take that away from them. Whether Thatcher was right to call for the sinking of the Belgrano is beside the point; she WAS right to protect the rights and interests of the British subjects on the Falkland Islands.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by mike65



he seems cool with Galtieri as a Meat-Packer resposible for 30,000 dissapeared

Mike.

I realise the following is in very bad taste, but I have to ask: is the above quote the final, incontrovertible proof that General Galtieri was the original SPAMMER? Seeing as SPAM (the delicious tinned meat) originated in Argentina.
Mod:-- I'll understand absolutely when you delete this post.

mike65

I hope they have a keen sense of black comedy in Argentina!

Mike.

dathi1

They choose to be British, as do the people of Gibraltar.

no one has the right to occupy a foreign country draw a border around themselves and then declare themselves part of another country. I still think the Malvinas are as Argentinean as the Aran Islands are Irish. I will admit however that the Brits put up a good fight to win back the trophy.

mike65

Originally posted by dathi1
no one has the right to occupy a foreign country draw a border around themselves and then declare themselves part of another country. I still think the Malvinas are as Argentinean as the Aran Islands are Irish. I will admit however that the Brits put up a good fight to win back the trophy.

Where does that leave those who live in a territory which is subject to an agreement like Gibraltar is or Hong Kong was? Pretend it does'nt exist and that the views of those in that territory don't matter?

Mike.