MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

Gibraltar Tripartite talks a “model” for dispute management

The Gibraltar Tripartite Forum model, with all parties having their own voice and with an open agenda for discussion, provides a mechanism for the management (if not the resolution) of any dispute. That is one of the conclusions reached by Professor Peter Gold of the University of West England in a recent academic article on the Gibraltar ‘problem’.

Prof Gold says this formula enables bilateral relations to be improved and reduces (even if it does not eliminate) the use of aggravating tactics in order to highlight grievances by the party that is dissatisfied with the status quo.

But he also concludes that: “One thing, however, is plain: the Forum of Dialogue is clearly not the answer to the ‘problem of Gibraltar and only the passage of time will reveal whether it marked the first step towards the answer.”

His article published in Mediterranean Politics looks to disputes such as the Western Sahara and Ceuta - Melilla as possible areas that might look to the example.

He argues that if there is no possibility of the sovereignty claim being abandoned, “the Forum structure at least allows for it to be put to one side while providing opportunities for collaboration on matters of mutual benefit, such as cross-border economic growth and environmental protection. It also paves the way for closer ties that over time could reduce the hostility or resentment caused by earlier attitudes and actions.”

“What is clear from the Gibraltar example is that in any negotiations over practical matters the involvement of representatives of the local residents is a sine qua non, and it is helpful if some decisions reached do not need to be sanctioned by central governments,” says Prof Gold.

He suggests that such an approach is likely to maintain both broad popular support for the process and also responsible negotiating by the participants.

“Ultimately the mutual confidence and trust created and the benefits that are produced could result in a change of attitude by the inhabitants of the contested territory towards the fundamental issue of sovereignty, and in turn this could cause the sovereign power to consider alternative future scenarios.”

However, he says, such a change is likely to take longer (or may not occur at all) if the party seeking a change of sovereignty finds it impossible to put the sovereignty issue aside (due either to pressure from political opposition parties or to entrenched attitudes from decades, if not centuries, of cultural conditioning) and allows a concern for the fundamental issue to determine its reaction to issues of less significance.

“As the case of Gibraltar illustrates, a combination of hypersensitivity on the part of one party to the question of the status of the disputed territory and the overriding significance of the long-term goal of regaining sovereignty require a determined commitment to the process of dialogue by the other parties involved which may be difficult to maintain.

Meanwhile, Prof Gold suggests that Chief Minister Peter Caruana saw Spain’s contribution to the agreement reached in Cordoba as ‘down payment’ on the PSOE Government’s desire first expressed in 2004 to have a ‘different sort of relationship with Gibraltar.

“There can be no doubt that the tripartite Forum of Dialogue has served substantially to improve Gibraltar relations with both Madrid and the Campo, even though, as the results of the October 2007 elections indicated, only about half the Gibraltar population were persuaded that it represents more of an opportunity than a threat.”

“A combination of the Forum and the new ‘non-colonial’ Constitution agreed in March 2006 means that Gibraltar’s relations with London have also improved since the low point of 2002 and the abortive join sovereignty negotiations,” he says.

For Prof Gold it is of equal significance that Britain and Spain can have a cooperative relationship that is not defined by the resolution of the issue of the sovereignty of Gibraltar.

But he notes that Spain continues to oppose any changes to the status quo that go beyond improvements to practical cross-border cooperation or to long-standing issues that have disadvantaged ordinary Spaniards, such as pensions to former Spanish workers in Gibraltar. He concludes that “although the Forum agreements have brought about a degree of normality in the way in which Gibraltar and Spain relate to each other on specific operational issues, there is no sign that on a strategic level Spain’s position is any different today from what it was 50 years ago.”

He notes Spain’s position that the Brussels Process remains fully in force.

“Although this position can to a degree be seen as diplomatic posturing ‘no meeting under the Brussels Process has taken place since 2002 as and there is no likelihood of one occurring in the foreseeable future, it demonstrates Spain’s entrenched view on the central question of sovereignty, which at central government level has not been changed one iota by the Forum process.”

“No doubt the same is true of the positions of Britain and Gibraltar, although as defendants of the status quo they do not feel the same need to be quite so forthright about it. In the light of this, it is small wonder that the population of Gibraltar appears divided (on the basis of the 2007 election result) on the question of whether the Forum is a good thing for them or not”.

By Dominique Searle and published in the Gibraltar Chronicle

Professor of Hispanic Studies Peter Gold works for the Department of Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies at the University of the West England, Bristol.