Interview: ‘The over-riding interest is for dialogue and resolution of the substantial issues’.
Gonzalo de Benito, Secretary of State at the Spanish Foreign Ministry speaks to Dominique Searle at the ministry offices in Madrid
You have said that the frontier delays are a small price to pay for a return to dialogue. Do you really think the stern controls are productive? Are you still thinking of a toll?
I think a point that we have to take into account is that there is an over-arching interest which is greater than any of the small incidents that may occur regularly as a result of the closeness and proximity of the two territories - the colony and the Campo de Gibraltar. So, aside from any incidents that may take place, there is a greater interest which is also a shared interest between Spain, UK, Gibraltar and the people of the Campo de Gibraltar.
We have to cooperate and work together so that that neighbourliness and closeness between the two populations develops in the best possible way.
Taking that starting point it is a fact that there are problematic incidents which we all know about. But what I want to highlight is that there is something above all those particular incidents and circumstances which is the need to cooperate. Of course, there are controls at the gates, there is the prohibition of fishing, there is the dumping of the cement blocks... But I think we must not lose perspective.
If we talk about the inconveniences and bother that is produced, and we (in Madrid) are aware of these occurring, we are also the first ones who are interested in that they should not occur. If these exist it is because they are a small price in relation to going to the situation that we do want to have. That is to cooperate profoundly with the UK, Gibraltar and the relevant local Spanish authorities so that neighbourliness is brought about in the best way. That is the background to the controls.
You have stopped some goods from passing such as cement. People are concerned that we are going back to another time. Would you, say, stop food supplies?
No, we do not take any arbitrary measures. What we are saying is that we want compliance with the law. These measures that we have taken are plainly in compliance with the law. The controls are a responsibility of Spain’s. They are an obligation.
EU regulations say they must be random, they are random. They say they must be proportional. They are proportional to a series of trafficking issues that occur at the gates (verja). They must be non-discriminatory. This is why when they are applied they are applied to Spaniards, Gibraltarians and persons from third countries.
The controls, in our view, are in compliance with the law.
The interruption to the importation of cement results from the series of complaints in which we are seeking compliance with environmental regulations because of the dumping, the reclamation and creation of groynes on the eastside etc.
But, as I said, what we want is for us to sit down together and work together - with UK, Gibraltar, the Spanish local authorities to resolve all these issues. It is not a question of any arbitrary stopping of any type of merchandise. This is specifically on goods that are destined for illegal purposes. That is the reason for that action.
A great deal is being drummed up about tax and residence in Spain. Surely all people should pay Caesar what is his? Does it not concern you to focus on one particular community? What about those Spanish residents who carry out unofficial work in Gibraltar such as baby-sitting? They don’t pay tax anywhere. Should you not be looking at such measures in a more general way?
What we have to look at is what occurs in our territory. What happens in Gibraltar is a matter for the Gibraltarians. We found ourselves obliged to look deeply at the situation we are in and the Treasury (Hacienda) ministry has detected some several thousand people who actually reside in Spain but are legally in Gibraltar.
All that is going to be asked for is something that is totally logical which is compliance with the law. If a part of their income, for example from rentals of properties they have in Spain or the taxes due on the properties that they have, are not being met, well, that is going to be required of them. But as I say, we deal with what occurs in our territory.
However, this does not go against a particular group, it is not going against anyone. What we want to see is the application of the law in all areas - the environment, urban, fiscal and so on.
Sr Margallo in the Congreso identified three issues of sovereignty. This is new. Is he trying to make some alternate claim specifically over the waters? Is there a military dimension underlying all this given that UK has always had a fundamental military interest in Gibraltar?
No. In this our intention does not take into consideration any military or defence aspect. You can go deeper into the subtleties of this, but what is clear for us is that the predominant issue is the Treaty of Utrecht. The Treaty of Utrecht talks of the cession of the fortress and so on but it does not talk about the waters. For us Utrecht is there and provides what it provides. Then we are in the area of what is controversial; the waters, which we say are Spanish and which Gibraltar says are British Gibraltar waters. But there is no connotation in relation to British defence interests, nothing at all.
To what extent does Madrid respect the UK - Gibraltar constitutional arrangement and that relationship?
We respect the distribution of competencies and the relationship Gibraltar has with the rest of the UK, just as UK respects our distribution of competencies. This is how we have come to the point we are at. At the end of 2011 we saw that the type of forum that we had from 2006, the Tripartite Forum, was not something we could accept.
We have to bear in mind that the Tripartite Forum starts meeting in September of 2006 and stops meeting in October 2010. That is over a year before the new Spanish government arrives. That is how it is.
The previous Spanish government , as everyone knows, in October 2010 realises that the Tripartite Forum is not viable, and that questions of sovereignty have been introduced into that Tripartite Forum taking advantage of the fact that they were meant to be about cooperation. So it’s not that the new Spanish government discards the Tripartite Forum. This forum had already ceased to exist since October of 2010. So we then produced a policy that is coherent with what you have asked which is that is matters of cooperation have to be discussed by Spain and the UK, the Andalucian regional or local authorities and Gibraltar. This is because they are matters that affect all four.
Now we have a new element proposed by Foreign Secretary Hague which is that the (European) Commission should join these talks. We are in agreement because, as time passes, all these issues - fishing, environment etc - will have increasingly more EU connotations. They involve European legislation.
For example, five or six years ago we did not have the EU environmental laws that we now have. Now we have a SCI of Southern Waters of Gibraltar with its EU regulation and we have the LIK (SCI) Estrecho Oriental (which became a SAC by a Real Decreto del Consejo de Ministros in November 2012) with its EU regulation. So now when we talk about matters of the environment it is convenient that the Commission is present because it is the body with important competencies on the matter of the environment.
This new element of including the Commission, proposed by Foreign Secretary Hague, is positive and we are in agreement. What we want is for all of us to meet as soon as possible in line with the proposal that the minister Sr Garcia Margallo has made. That would be us four plus the Commission but without calling this type of meeting either tripartite or quadripartite.
This is what is being called ad hoc?
Yes.
So that is where the matter stands now?
Yes.
In the minister’s proposed quadripartite talks what status would each participant in that have? I have some difficulty in seeing the distinction between Brussels in its pure form as it began and separating what are the elements in that which included Gibraltar and the Campo Mancomunidad. Tripartite was always two flags three voices. It was recognised that Gibraltar was not a sovereign voice, it was not three flags.
In recent weeks the presentation for anyone who does not know the issue is that Gibraltar was present as a sovereign player, which was never the case.
What the minister has proposed is four voices and the Commission in an advisory role as the party responsible for the regulation which is applicable in matters of fishing and environment. But it is four voices.
Yes that is ad hoc talks, but I am talking about the talks outside of these ad hoc if we were to come to the minister’s broader talks proposal and we were in four voices talks instead of three. Will each party have its own voice and own veto?
I think we must go about resolving this stage by stage. It would be a very good start to be able to meet on a four voices basis with the Commission on fishing on the one hand and separately on the environment. I am sure that, there, a dynamic will emerge which will allow us to have broad meetings on cooperation as four. The Commission, if it is helpful to us and can provide us with advice, can be there. Perhaps eventually we can meet as four, without the Commission. But, as I said, this refers exclusively to matters of cooperation.
So where is the ball now? Who has to make the next move so that that meeting goes ahead?
That is now with the UK.
Secretary of State Hague wrote on September 4th and the Minister replied last Thursday. So now it is simply a matter of agreeing the format. There is an important coincidence between Foreign Secretary Hague’s proposal at that which Minister (Margallo) has made.
In the WSJ Sr Margallo opens with reference to Castiella and mentions him in the Congreso. Surely in a modern democracy one cannot really argue that people can have interests which do not include their wishes? What would Spain say the interests of the people of Gibraltar are?
I think that is important to say that if we want to make progress we should not get bogged down in details or the significance of a single word. When Minister Margallo refers to Castiella he is referring to the fact that as from 1965 there are some annual resolutions from the General Assembly that identify the situation as it is. They call for bilateral talks between Spain and UK over sovereignty and they define the territory as a non-autonomous one that is subject to decolonisation.
That is what is referred to when we speak of Minister Castiella. That first resolution of 1965 at the General Assembly has been reiterated over time. Whether they are interests, aspirations or wishes, I think we have to focus on what are the essentials. To resolve problems, not just that of Gibraltar but generally, one must focus on the substance of the problem and then try with a positive spirit to resolve it.
How can future talks work if an agreement like Cordoba - where there were concrete agreements resolving the pension, airport and other matters - is reneged on by a subsequent government? What trust can there be in any future successful dialogue when you are talking, not just of letting the agreement freeze, but rollback? Do agreements only last the life of the government of the day?
The declaration at Cordoba of 2006 is not a bilateral agreement between Spain and UK. It is ministerial statement. As is logical we respect bilateral agreements and ministerial statements but there can be some aspects that, at a given moment , we have to review in the context of how events evolve. All agreements have a review clause, but, as I said, Cordoba was a ministerial statement. I don’t think it is useful to speculate about what aspects might be modified or not. The ministerial statement is there. Let’s sit to talk about matters of cooperation and then resolve concrete issues. Issues, such as fishing, the environment and what is the coexistence and neighbourliness between the two communities.
You mentioned the Blair/Hain joint sovereignty proposal in your interview on Onda Cero. Hain says he shook on a deal with Ramon de Miguel. Do you think the PP government now regrets not taking this up? Is it asking UK to revisit this?
We are not expressing opinions now on that negotiation of 2000 and 2002 though, incidentally, I was director of Minister Pique’s office so I was up to speed on that. Any solution, that relates to sovereignty and is negotiated between UK and Spain and accorded, is good. If it is agreed then it will be good for the two countries and it will be good for Gibraltar and the Campo de Gibraltar. The co-sovereignty proposal had its moment. It clearly is not possible at this time, but we are not going to say whether it might have been or was not. If UK and Spain come to an agreement on sovereignty it will be good for everyone.
Lots of stick seems to be the Spanish Government’s policy. Have you run out of carrots? Or have you anything to offer the people of Gibraltar?
I think that what I am saying to you is positive. It is truly what we want.
I had the opportunity when I first came to this post to speak to my counterpart David Lidington, Minister for Europe, and we spoke exactly in these terms.
We knew that negotiations on sovereignty would be difficult but we said we should work together for co-operation and for the benefit of the two communities.
What is regrettable is that events have given the lie to that- those two key dates, March of 2012 and July of 2013 with the prohibition on fishing and then the dumping of the cement blocks. We cannot have these done deeds where we suddenly find ourselves with a new situation which prejudices the fishermen nor the lack of compliance with environmental norms.
Truly we want to co-operate, we want to work together and that is the message we want to get across and I am putting to you now.
It’s been a long hot summer, a difficult one. Right now is your feeling that this will now move in a more positive direction or are we bracing ourselves for a new wave of measures and pressures?
I think that if (we take forward) Minister Margallo’s proposal, which responds to Foreign Secretary Hague’s, and which can be done in a matter of days, we will sit down have a meeting in a positive spirit with all four sides and the Commission. That will start to resolve the problems.
What is negative is a situation of non-communication and of not having the possibility of holding meetings and discussing concrete problems. At the end, despite what governments and the press and others say, what we have are very real problems that relate to people, families and communities that are neighbours. People who live in relation with each other and where there are marriages between people from each side of the gate.
We should not continue in this situation of not communicating.
We have to sit together, we have to talk, we have to share the problems and I am sure that in that way there will be a solution.
Más información:
Enlace a la entrevista en GIBRALTAR CHRONICLE