Spain and Morocco, go to your fucking rooms

The BBQ Pit
21

>> Nobody has died (yet) because Morocco acted rationally instead of fighting Spain over principle

Derleth, fine. So how is Spain to blame? They acted just as rationally when they chose to do it in such a way that would cause no actual fighting. Talk to me when someone gets hurt. In the meanwhile Morocco started this and they deserve what they get. If you want to defend the principle that countries should be allowed to keep what they can take, then fine. I do not share that view, if only because it would encourage the attempts to take, which would lead to more deaths. The principle that you do ot change the statu quo by faits accompli is much preferable in my view and in the view of most of the world.

22

I apologise for hijacking - though I don’t think the two issues are entirely unrelated.

23

sailor, I specifically reject the idea of taking by force. But my revulsion against needless killing makes the idea of protecting a worthless piece of rock with human lives over some principle of national pride completely beyond defense.

It matters not who started it. I think we all learned that in the first grade. It does matter who is the first to kill. Morocco hasn’t been, to their credit.

24

Given that in the real world the Spanish were always going to react negatively, I don’t think Morocco deserves any credit at all. They all but invited the Spanish to react militarily; that wouldn’t have absolved the Spanish if it had become a ‘hot’ war, but it doesn’t reflect well on Morocco.

25

Your in luck Wikkit. In another Pit thread they are starting up the Rebel Doper Alliance and I believe they are taking applications for command positions. There’s catering and everything :slight_smile:

26

Sailor: I agree with you, Morocco was the clear ( and rather moronic ) aggressor here and does not deserve to profit from it. Some sort of Spanish response was probably called for ( although to be honest I’d have been amused if Spain had said, “That empty rock? Take it.” :smiley: ).

However, nitpicky history geek that I am…

Well, shoot, I do :). The Almoravids ( al-Mourabitun ) and Almohades ( al-Muwahiddun ) were Moroccan-centered regimes that set the stage for the modern country by establishing centralized administration in the region, but the country and kingdom itself can be said to date to 1269 when Abd al-Haqq I of the Zenata Berber Marinid dynasty claimed the title of Amir after expelling the Almohades ( actually the Marinid conquest of Morocco took from 1244-1274 all told ). Morocco remained pretty well-defined as a “country” with roughly its modern dimensions ( extending a little farther east past Oran and dominating a larger chunk of the western Sudan at times ) from there on out despite a few changes in dynasty and the occasional chaotic interregnum period.

The Portuguese first took Ceuta from the Marinids in 1415 ( it was transferred to the Spanish some time later ).

Now those enclaves certainly pre-date the current dynasty of the Alawis ( took power by 1659, adopted title of Sultan in 1666 ). But not Morocco as an entity. Whether this has any relevance to Moroccan claims to the Spanish enclaves is of course an entirely different question.

  • Tamerlane
27

According to [url"http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/01/001stolz.htm"]this Atlantic article, Ceuta and Melilla are a bit of a problem in terms of illegal immigration from Africa to Spain and hence the entire EU.

No particular point, just adding background.

28

Trying again: “According to this Atlantic article…”

29

**Derleth[/], if Morocco feels it has a valid claim it can take it to the UN, to the ICJ, to the Arab League, to Aunt Martha or to her fucking mother but if they want to change things by force don’t come crying for me Argentina when the other guy turns out to be bigger and meaner.

As far as I know not a single shot has been fired and not one person has been injured, much less killed, over this incident so you can take your bleeding heart and your revulsion against needless killing to other threads dealing with real calamities or just stay in that fantasy world of yours. We’re dealing with the real world here. And while you are here regretting needless loss of life I will point out to you that Morocco encourages the illegal crossing to Spain where people lose their lives by the dozens every week. Spain is trying to stem this tide but gets no cooperation from Morocco who uses those lives as a way to kick Spain in the shins because they know in Spain people are sickened when they see on TV the news footage of dead bodies washing up on the shores while the Moroccan government uses them for their own ends. So take your pity and use it for people who are really dying not for your imagined deaths which have not happened.

Tamerlane, you are more knowledgeable about Moroccan history than I am (which is easy as I know close to nothing) so I am not going to get into details but if we are talking 1415 which is almost 600 years ago, I would say Spain has a valid claim. If we are to open our history books and go back to the statu quo in 1400 we’d be in some trouble. It would mean a big evacuation of Americans back to where they came from and a lot of southern Spain would have to be given to Morocco. I refuse to go along with this plan if only because I have no idea what the map of Europe looked like at that time and I am not about to study that much history again. And why 1400 and not 1200 or 1600 or 1800? Who chooses what page to open the history book?

All this incident has been devised by Morocco for internal consumption. Now they get to play victim and unite in fervent, patriotic ardor against the infidels.

30

Dammit, can’t a man rant about silly international incidents without being bombarded by facts?

Yes, I know there’s a lot more to Spain-Moroccan relationships than meets the eye. Shit, the animosity goes back to the Moorish occupation of Spain that lasted until the 15th century.

But you know what? I don’t care.

They’re fighting over a silly rock.

Morocco can be blamed for irresponsibility with regards to letting people row the Gibraltar straight without a problem. Spain can be blamed for maintaining their stupid enclaves on Moroccan soil. But this is about a stupid rock.

31

Ahhh!! I made an error! Howcome nobody caught it? Were you all asleep during your 6th grade Moroccan history class :p?

It was Abd al-Haqq’s son, Ya’qub, who was the first to proclaim himself Amir al-muslimin ( a title taken from the Almoravids and Almohades ). Silly me :).

Anywho, in a strict sense I agree with you sailor. If the natives of those enclaves prefer Spanish rule ( I have no idea ), considering how long they’ve been in existance, I’d personally just as soon leave well enough alone. But there is a real problems with perceived territorial integrity in this era of national states and I’m afraid that in that sense Gibraltar really is broady analogous.

Spanish rule of Melilla dates to 1497. They gained Ceuta in 1580 ( after the union of the Portuguese and Spanish crowns that year, occasioned by the mass slaughter of King Sebastian I of Portugal and the bulk of his nobility at the battle of al-Kasr El Kebir in 1579, fighting, you guessed it, the Moroccans - Spain actually owes their possesion of that enclave to Moroccan martial success :smiley: ). However Portuguese Goa in India dated to 1510 and it was still perceived by India as important to seize in 1961. Portuguese Macao in China dated to 1557, but they still had to surrender it ( more or less ) to China in 1999. It’s just the way these things tend to go - Especially when said enclaves are a visible reminder of a recent past of Imperial oppression. shrug

Coldfire: Yeah, but maybe it’s a really pretty rock ;).

  • Tamerlane
32

sailor, this thread is hardly about the refugees, which Morocco should be pressured to help get to Spain or wherever else they’re going as a condition of getting any international trade, or the enclaves, which Spain should be pressured to abandon as a condition of getting any help from anyone else if Morocco does decide to attack it, or anything else you can pull out of the anus of history.

It’s about Spain and Morocco damn near going to war over a worthless rock.

Hell, I can see one clear goal for the UN: Nuke the rock. Give everyone involved a few months’ notice to get off and then make the rock uninhabitable for a few million years. If the nations can’t find a nonviolent solution, neither of them deserve it.

33

Tamerlane, you obviously know your Moroccan history but I have to take issue with you about your concepts about territorial rights. A quick overview of how I see it:

#1- Any change to the statu quo must be peacefully agreed by both sides. Any side who initiates the use of force loses any rights to whine and moan when they take a beating and all other rules are suspended. The UN should just issue a declaration saying “I told you so”.

#2- Geographical contiguity may be apparently a reason to clain a territory if you are a third grader or if you hate learning geography, but in the real world that’s not how it works or Alaska would belong to Canada etc. Geographical contiguity is a factor with very little weight. I am not saying it has no weight but not as much as most people think. The fact that Ceuta is located closer to Morocco than to Spain does not give Morocco any rights except in the demagoguery of Moroccan politicians. Of course, it does have some weight and when you are talking about Macao which was so far away from Portugal that it was really another world, then the weight increases.

#3- The wishes of the local population. Again, this is not a major point. Local populations exist within the context of the greater country and do not have any right to self determination. If all the population of Oregon tomorrow decided they wanted to leave the US and join Canada, it is not like they can do it without consulting the rest of the US. That is because the rest of the US have rights over Oregon which the people of Oregon cannot unilaterally nullify. The fact that the people of Ceuta want to remain Spanish of the people of Gibraltar want to remain British has some weight but not much. It is Spain as a whole who has rights to Ceuta and the UK as a whole who have rights to Gibraltar, not just the locals. And those enclaves could change hands without the individuals losing their citizenship. Of course, if you have a case like Macao or Honkong where the distance is huge and the majority of the population belong to the contiguos country, then things begin to add up.

#4- Practical viability. This means that if the enclave is not practically viable or the present owner cannot defend it, then you are in trouble.

#5- But the main source of any rights are historical rights and this is what carries most weight. Sometimes they are conflicting and/or difficult to evaluate.

So, no two situations are equal and all have many factors which need to be weighed. A quick look at some examples:

Ceuta, Melilla and other Spanish possessions including the Canaries: Very strong historical claim by Spain. Geographically well connected with Spain by sea. The population is mainly Spanish and wants to keep the statu quo. I think Morocco’s claim is very weak and based only in geographical proximity.

Gibraltar: Taken by the UK about 300 years ago. There is a treaty stipulating the conditions (of which I know little). It seems there is a lot for both sides to discuss here because the treaty stipulates the UK cannot alienate it in any way except to return it to Spain. Then the UK have built the airport in part which was supposed to be neutral and I am sure Spain have also messed up in a few places. So, the situation is a bit complicated and there is a lot for both sides to discuss. The locals want to remain British but this cannot be the determining factor, although it has to be taken into account because no one wants a solution which would antagonise the local population. What has to be understood is that the locals do not have a right of sovereignty over Gibraltar. The UK has it and the UK cannot cede it to anyone but to Spain. The British citizens of Gibraltar can retain their citizenship no matter what. At any rate, Spain and the UK are talking about this and no one is going to go to war over it.

Macao: Strong historical claim by possession but weak in every other respect. majority of Chinese population and not very effective Portuguese control or government. The place is just a gambling town. Portugal was happy to get rid of it as it had no use for it. In fact they tried to give it back to China sooner. No problem there.

HongKong: VERY strong historical claim by the UK to Hong Kong but the New Territories were leased and due to be returned and without them HongKong was hardly viable. Add to that the majority of Chinese population, the distance factor and the reality of China growing power and the UK made the right decision in agreeing to return it. It was a practical decision but it does not mean the UK did not have a valid historical claim to HK.

Guantanamo: Any argument that the people there want to remain American is laughable from the point of view of sovereignty rights. US rights are based strictly on whatever lease the US signed with Cuba. The fact that it is strictly a military base means US claim is not strengthened by time as much as if there were a civilian town. I think the US may have some claim to the use but little claim to actual sovereignty.

Channel Islands: Does France even want them?

Israel / Palestine : this has been discussed in many threads taking into account all factors: historical rights, practical viability, wishes of the populations etc.

I cannot think of more examples but I am sure there are many and each has to be evaluated on its own merits. The only rule is that whoever starts a fight cannot whine later if he takes a beating. At least not to me.

34

Oh I forgot the case of China / Taiwan which is very interesting in itself. China sserts historical rights going back centuries but in fact has not effectively ruled Taiwan for the last century. The people of Taiwan are adamant about not being taken over by China but reality is that internationally they don’t have as much support as they need to effectively declare independence. It is an interesting conflict of interests with much to be said for both sides of the argument. The main rule here is that whoever starts the use of force loses any support from me. Talk all you want but don’t use force.

>> the enclaves, which Spain should be pressured to abandon as a condition of getting any help from anyone else if Morocco does decide to attack it

Derleth, I know I am trying to have a reasonable discussion in the Pit where we should just be ranting but I am glad we’re here so I can tell you frankly that the stupidity and ignorance of your posts is overwhelming. To say that if Morocco would threaten to attack the Spanish towns in Northern Africa the thing to do is pressure Spain to abandon them is so utterly stupid that it is hard for me to believe anyone would actually think like that. Believe me when I say you have nothing intelligent to contribute to this thread and you can go now and waste your time in other threads. Learn your limits and learn to shut up when those who are superior to you in intelligence have something to say. Or do your homework and gather something intelligent to say.

35

Yes, yes he can.

And I, as a real-life, red-blooded American, can help.

We need to send a special Ambassador over to the region. Ambassador Eisenhower is refueling right now, so I’m thinking maybe Ambassador Truman or Ambassador Carl Vinson.

Step one: Leaflets. We’re nothing if not a humane world’s policeman.

Step two: Reconfigure island such that it is well below sea level.

Bah-da-bing, bah-da-bang.

Or heck, we can keep using it – that will make the Vieques protestors happy.

36

sailor: No reason to take issue - I wasn’t really arguing with you :). To the contrary in some respects. Just pointing out the obvious - That the emotional side of the debate often ends up trumping the legalistic, especially when nationalism comes into play.

I will point out just in passing that the Canaries are a slightly different case than Ceuta and Melilla, since they were taken from indigenes that have subsequently died out ( slaughtered and/or disease ), where as the other two are political enclaves taken from a “country” ( “region”, “state”, “kingdom” ) that is still in existence.

But I’m not arguing for Morocco’s side. Or any side, really.

  • Tamerlane
37

Tamerlane, I wasn’t arguing with you either. You obviously know much more about the area’s history than I do. A couple of curiosities: It is interesting to note that the Moroccans/Moors/Whatever-they-were-called-at-the-time lost Ceuta and Melilla to the Christians earlier than they lost a great part of what is now southern Spain. So if Morocco claims historical rights to Ceuta and Melilla after 600 years, they could just as well claim rights over Southern Spain.

In fact, one of the questions asked of the Spanish foreign minister was her views on the fact that in Morocco school children are taught with maps which show southern Spain as part of Morocco. She brushed it off saying it was of no importance to bilateral relations but, if indeed Morocco is teaching their kids that Southern Spain belongs to them, nothing good can come from that.

In the end, it is always the same story: authoritarian regimes have domestic problems and use exterior problems they create to divert attention and gather nationalistic support at home.

I cannot believe we’re giving this incident so much attention here. There was no fighting at all. Spanish troops were under strict orders not to open fire except as a last recourse of self defense. The ragtag Moroccans got a warm meal, a medical checkup and were sent home bearing their arms. Gimme a break. Tourists continued to cross the border as if nothing was happening because, in effect, nothing was happening except that minor show set up by Morocco.

How many people were killed in DC alone fighting over “rocks”. It is ironic that anyone in the US would want to lecture Europeans about being peaceful when the US is such a violent country. Any summer weekend there is more violence in any large American city than there was in this incident. Not to mention riots. The fight between Morocco and Spain was in the form of treating the guys to sandwhiches and Americans are saying : “Let’s teach them to be peaceful. Let’s teach them a lesson they’ll remember. Yeah!. Let’s Nuke 'em. That will teach them to be peaceful!”

38

Let’s see, Morrocans test Spaniard’s patience by provoking a small bilateral conflict.

Option one: Spain does nothing. Morroccan’s have now added, free of charge, about 1.5 km2 to their territory.

Morroco-1 Spain-0

Option two: Spain tells Morroco to behave, leave the rock and go party with the hermafrodite ermm…dictator, no, wait not that either…King! yep that’s it. Morrocco plays a deaf ear to diplomatic demands and say 'they are here to stay"

Morrocco- 1 Spain-1

Option three: Spain get’s righfully ticked and boots the squaters off the rock. Won’t leave until they get a firm promise that such hanky panky won’t happen any time soon. Morroccans flaunt and flail at the “disporportionate show of strenght by the Spaniads,” going as far as labeling it as an “act of war” Guess their original incursion was only just a picnic.

Morrocco-1 Spain-2

Situation under control, Spanish goverment willing to back to the status quo as long as there are no further provocations.

Spain wins on all fronts, acts correctly while doing so and sends a much needed message of strenght to their rebelious neighbours to the South. Doubt they’ll want to ‘play’ much in the foreseeable future.

So what’s with all the fuzz? If anything, a toast is in order for a job well done.

Viva España!

39

Hm, I’m not so sure about that, being a citizen of Quebec. But let’s not get into it now.

40

[quotete]
Morocco have called the Spanish reaction a “declaration of war”. It seems Morocco is trying to build a confrontation with Spain over this or anything else and Spain doesn’t want to play along.
[/quote]

Recently, Morocco has jumped on any issue it could find to be confrontationnal with Spain (Western Sahara, immigration policy, etc…) and the officials, and more particulary the king, denigrate Spain as often as they could. I’m beginning to wonder whether the king has a personnal hatred for Spain or something like that, since Morocco stance doesn’t seem very reasonnable in most cases. Or is it that they want to put pressure on Spain : “as long as you won’t do whatever (but what could be this whatever???) we’re going to pester you”? I know it’s more a general question, but does anybody has some insight on this?