Mr Chairman,

I am grateful for your invitation to participate in this Seminar in representation of Gibraltar, its Government and people.

First of all I would like to take this early opportunity to thank the Government and people of the Republic of Cuba for hosting this Seminar and our visit to this country. I would also like to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, for your recent appointment as your country`s Foreign Minister.

Overview of the Situation in Gibraltar

I am glad to be able to report to the Special Committee, through this Seminar, that the economic and social situation in Gibraltar is good, as is our internal political situation.

Economically, Gibraltar is prosperous. We enjoy a high standard of living. Our economy, which is based mainly on thriving tourism, successful and well regulated financial services and important port related activities like ship repairing, ship bunkering and general services to shipping, is entirely self sufficient. We enjoy high levels of employment.

Under our current constitution from our Administering Power, the United Kingdom, we enjoy a very high degree of self government in practice in all areas of Government activity except internal security, defence and external affairs. The Government of Gibraltar, elected exclusively by the people of Gibraltar, in effect has full control over all aspects of economic, social and other policy areas and their implementation. We control our own revenue raising and public expenditure mechanisms. Through our Parliament, we make all our own laws. We operate our own administrative, judicial and law enforcement authorities.

Gibraltar has a highly developed, thriving and stable political process, based on the adversarial political party system, a system of Government and Opposition.

Our physical infrastructure, our institutions, our public services, our media and our community as a people are all highly developed.

We are, however, less well off when one considers our inalienable right as a colonial people to self determination, and our relations with our neighbours, the Kingdom of Spain, which persists with an anachronistic claim to recover the sovereignty of our homeland, which she lost 297 years ago in 1704.

The Position of the Kingdom of Spain.

The position of Spain is that the people of Gibraltar do not enjoy the right to self determination, nor any political rights in our homeland and that Gibraltar should be decolonised, not by the application of the principle of self determination, but by the return of Gibraltar to her by the UK, our Administering Power, regardless of the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. In support of this contention, Spain relies on several General Assembly resolutions of the 1960`s which alluded to the principle (which we contend is not applicable to the situation of Gibraltar) that the principle of self determination could not be applied to disrupt the territorial integrity of a member country.

Spain further asserts that, under the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, if the United Kingdom surrenders sovereignty of Gibraltar, it is obliged to offer it first to Spain. Spain contends that this redundant treaty, incompatible as it is with the Charter of the United Nations and subsequent international law, further deprives Gibraltar not just of the right to self determination, but also of the right to constitutional advancement, to self government and decolonisation itself.

The Gibraltar Position

Needless to say the people of Gibraltar reject all these Spanish contentions. We do not do so whimsically or without proper legal and political foundation.

Gibraltar is, of course, a territory on the UN`s list of Non Self Governing Territories. This seminar, the Special Committee itself and indeed the Fourth Committee of the UN have repeatedly declared that in the process of decolonisation self determination is the only applicable principle and that the Declaration on Decolonisation applies to all the territories on the UN`s list (see for example Note (a) of the Conclusions of last year`s seminar in the Marshal Islands).

Indeed at conclusion number (5) it was declared that:

Furthermore, in approving this statement, the International Court of Justice has declared that the principle applies to all territories on the UN`s list.

Well, Mr Chairman, if the principle of self determination applies to all territories on the UN`s list, and Gibraltar is on the UN`s list, and if it is the doctrine of the UN that in the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self determination, what basis can there be for Spain`s assertion that it is the doctrine of the UN that self determination does not apply to the listed territory of Gibraltar?

The answer is that it is a fundamental misconception and abuse of the principle of territorial integrity to apply it to the decolonisation of Gibraltar instead of the principle of self determination. The doctrine of the UN is that: "in the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self determination" AND NOT that "in the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self determination except in listed territories that are the subject of a territorial or sovereignty dispute in which case the applicable principle is the territorial integrity of the claimant state".

This point has been specifically addressed by the International Court of Justice (in the Western Sahara case) when it declared that "Even if integration of a territory was demanded by an interested state it could not be had without ascertaining the freely expressed will of the people, the very sine qua non of all decolonisation".

That is a perfectly clear and unambiguous statement of international law which fully proves the doctrine of the UN, which is that in the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self determination even where integration of the territory is demanded by an interested State.

There is thus no UN or international law doctrine to the effect that decolonisation is possible by the application of the principle of territorial integrity. That latter principle and doctrine means that no part of an existing country can seceed by advocating the right to self determination.

And the reason why the principle of territorial integrity is not applicable to the decolonisation of Gibraltar (or anywhere else) is that by definition a Non Self Governing Territory is not part of any existing country and the decolonisation of that territory by the application of the principle of self determination cannot therefore disintegrate, and does not result in the disintegration of any country. This is the fundamental misconception at the very root of the position of the Kingdom of Spain.

And then, Mr Chairman, if self determination is "a fundamental human right" as declared at conclusion (5) of the Marshal Islands seminar, how can it be denied to the colonial people of a territory simply because that territory is the subject of a claim by a third party? How can the unadjudicated claims of a third party displace "a fundamental human right"?

And yet, Mr Chairman, despite the clarity of these issues, the much greater influence wielded at the UN by Member States than by listed territories, and the inappropriate influence given in seminars such as these, to interested Member States, sometimes results in statements by the Seminars and by the Special Committee itself which are incompatible with the Declaration and the rights and interests of the peoples of the listed territories which they are bound to protect and advance.

I remember, Mr Chairman, when I went to the Caribbean Regional Seminar in Antigua and Barbuda in 1997, I was horrified to see that the Spanish representative had retired with the Special Committee members and others into the drafting room to help draft final conclusions and recommendations of that seminar. These seminars are surely to give the territories the opportunity to interact with the Special Committee, and not to give interested Member States the opportunity to impose their own self interest on the rights of the people of any listed territory.

Such influence results in contradictory statements emanating from these seminars and the Special Committee itself. For example, in conclusion (32) of the Conclusions of the Marshal Islands Seminar last year it was said as follows:

Well, Mr Chairman, what is the proper basis for the exception in respect of representatives of territories in which there is a sovereignty dispute? Where is it stated in UN doctrine that we are not entitled to a Work Programme or to participate in its elaboration?

Of course, if the Special Committee should consider that the existence of a sovereignty dispute displaces the inalienable right of a colonial people to self determination and that listed territories which are the subject of a territorial sovereignty dispute are not cases of decolonisation by the principle of self determination in accordance with the terms of the Declaration, but merely sovereignty disputes, then such territories would be outside the brief and jurisdiction of the Special Committee and would have to be delisted for that reason. They would then be an ordinary political, sovereignty dispute as exist all over the world. But as we are on the list and while we are on the list we cannot be discriminated against, we cannot be made the subject of special principles, considerations or treatment. The Declaration must be applied to us like everybody else. That is the doctrine of the UN.

And so, Mr Chairman, at Conclusion (39) last year, this Seminar concluded and recommended that:

This recommendation results in Gibraltar`s exclusion from the Fourth Committee`s Omnibus resolution in favour of a Special Consensus Decision crafted by the UK and Spain and in terms which calls on the UK and Spain to engage in bilateral dialogue between themselves, "with the object of reaching a definitive solution to the problem of Gibraltar in the light of relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. But Mr Chairman, nobody tells the people of Gibraltar what this convenient piece of diplomatic engineering actually means:

In any case such bilateral dialogue is not compatible with the right of the people of Gibraltar to self determination. It is a pointless, sterile exercise. And, in fact, there has not been such a meeting between the UK and Spain since December 1997.

Independently of our right to self determination, the Gibraltar Government is not opposed to dialogue with Spain to resolve such problems as we have with them. Indeed we would greatly welcome it. Such dialogue may even be relevant to our exercise, in practice, of our right to self determination, though not to its existence. Furthermore, dialogue about Gibraltar cannot be structured bilaterally between the UK and Spain. There must be a proper and separate voice for the people of Gibraltar through their elected Government. To repeatedly call for dialogue other than on these terms is completely futile.

In the meantime, Gibraltar itself continues to work towards its decolonisation. To this end our Parliament has, by motion presented by the Government, convened a Select Committee to review our current constitution with a view to putting proposals to our Administering Power for its modernisation and reform. Such reforms will be aimed at bringing about a modern, non-colonial relationship with the UK, based on maximising Gibraltar`s self Government and Gibraltar`s consequent delisting from the UN`s list of Non Self Governing Territories. We do not envisage this breaching the Treaty of Utrecht, even though we reject the view that that Treaty curtails our right to self determination.

In rejecting the Spanish hypothesis relating to Gibraltar we do so with the confidence of a people who are willing to have our views tested in international law. I have therefore proposed to the Special Committee the following Action Plan for Gibraltar:

We seek this Seminar`s support for our position.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.