THE SPANIARDS AND GIBRALTAR: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING?

"Bone of contention," "obstacle," "anachronism": such negative terms and many others have been used for years by politicians and scholars all around the world to qualify the situation of Gibraltar. Journalists too insist on the bitter dispute between London or Gibraltar on the one hand, and Madrid on the other. Words such as "resistance" or "pressure" often appear in their titles, whether the articles were written in the 1950s or very recently ("The Rock of Contention: Spanish Pressure on Gibraltar," The Round Table, 1965;"The Land of Broken Plates," Time, 1999). Do reporters lack originality or is the case of Gibraltar and Spain the longest cold war ever? What makes it so difficult to find a solution to the problem posed by this tiny British rock situated at the southernmost tip of the Iberian Peninsula and claimed with insistence by its big neighbour, Spain?

Gibraltar: a colony?

The Rock has a history of its own and is definitely not a traditional case of colonialism. Actually, in 1704 nearly all the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar chose to leave when the Anglo-Dutch invaders took possession of the territory. Admiral Rooke and his men did not colonise a population but only a rocky promontory of 6 sq. km. The place had no spring, river or natural resources; however, its key strategic position, between two seas and two continents, was very valuable at the time.

Since the beginning of the 18 th century, Gibraltar has been peopled by members of the British Army and by a growing number of civilians of various nationalities who settled there fully aware that they would from then on live under British rule. Today, the inhabitants of the enclave are neither of Spanish nor of English blood exclusively: they are Mediterranean people whose roots can be traced to Genoa and the rest of Italy, to Portugal, Malta, Spain, the British Isles, North Africa, etc. Gibraltarians are a unique ethnic and cultural mix, and their ancestors did not arrive on the Rock more than three centuries ago. Unlike the native peoples of Kenya or India, who had lived in their countries for generations before they fought for independence, Gibraltarians would never have been able to throw their colonisers out to recover their full sovereignty because they have never been independent of Britain, and have always valued their Britishness. Now citizens of what London discreetly calls an "overseas territory," they would even like to be integrated with the "motherland." In such circumstances, are the Spanish demands for "decolonisation of Gibraltar" justified and, above all, meaningful?

Only the few non-Gibraltarian British persons who work on the Rock and sometimes settle there could "go back home"; but they represent less than one-seventh of a total population of 30,000 inhabitants. In any case, if these residents left Gibraltar, those staying behind would never be fully Spanish nor willing to become Spanish. So if "decolonising" means "giving a land back to its people," Gibraltar cannot possibly be decolonised for it already belongs to the Gibraltarians. Neither would it be realistic to hand it over to the descendants of the Spaniards who used to live there in 1704. Some of the defenders of a Spanish Gibraltar still reside in San Roque, an Andalusian town nearby founded by their Gibraltarian Spanish forebears. In fact, even they acknowledge that, if they were to see the Rock reintegrated into the Spanish national territory, they would not move from their village to El Peñón anyway.

The other difficulties Gibraltarians have to face lie in the parallel often drawn between their territory and Hong Kong: the Spaniards assert that the Rock could now become theirs by the same process as Hong Kong was transferred from Britain to China a few years ago. But the conditions of British occupation in Gibraltar and in the Far-Eastern colony were quite different. Gibraltar was officially ceded in perpetuity to the British Crown by the Kingdom of Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. As for Hong Kong, it was first ceded to Britain by China in perpetuity, but in 1898 the two sides, meeting in Peking, agreed that most of the colonythe New Territorieswould be held by Britain under a 99-year lease. In 1984, however, London decided that Hong Kong as a whole would be returned to China in 1997, i.e. the New Territories as well as the island of Victoria and the peninsula of Kowloon, both of which the British could have kept forever. A Spanish journalist jumped to thetoo easy -conclusion that "[Britain had] recognised that its sovereignty over Victoria and Kowloon was based upon an outmoded colonial system, which now operated only in places like Hong Kong and Gibraltar" (quoted without ref. by Peter Gold, A Stone in Spain's Shoe, 1994, 73), although the real reason for this change was simply that the New Territories formed 92 per cent of Hong Kong and that the rest, Victoria and Kowloon, would not have been viable separately, so there was no reason for the British to hold on to them.

The Spanish definition of a colony

Madrid keeps saying that Gibraltar should no longer be British. Since the days of General Franco, the vocabulary and the arguments have been the same, whatever the political leanings of the government. Spanish ministers complain that Gibraltar is the last colony in Europe, and consider this situation "anachronistic" and "morally intolerable" (Peter Gold,101). And yet, their proposed alternative to British "colonialism" is not self-determination for the people of Gibraltar; on the contrary, Spain would like to see the Rock "decolonised" only to be able to have it come within its jurisdiction against the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who have always refused to become Spanish. In September 1967, they were asked in a referendum whether they preferred to remain British or to pass under Spanish sovereignty. Only 44 of them were willing to become Spanish nationals, whereas 12,138 expressed their allegiance to the United Kingdom. In November 2002, a new referendum was organised with a slightly different option, and the answer was just as manifest: 99 per cent of the voters rejected a system of co-sovereignty over their land, proving that they were more determined than ever to stay out of Spain.

Of course, even if the Rock has had its own local government for decades, an increasing number of Gibraltarians would like their homeland to be granted a new status, but without being integrated with Spain. At the moment, the Spaniards are blocking any move in this direction, claiming that the only option for the Gibraltarians is to join them. What really annoys Madrid is not the fact that the territory is a colony, but that it does not belong to Spaina contradictory attitude bordering on neo-colonialism which does not seem to shock anybody, either in Spain or in the European Union, let alone the United Nations. One should remember that in 1969, Franco closed the border between his country and Gibraltara border which is in fact the only land frontier the Rock has -, thus imposing the longest "siege" the enclave has ever been subjected to. The dictator died in 1975, but it took King Juan Carlos and his ministers many years to fully reopen the gate, although Spain was supposed to have switched to democracy. Actually the blockade was longer under the new democracy (ten years) than under Franco's dictatorship (six years). It was only because Spain was eager to join the European Community, and would never have been admitted if it had continued to ban communications with Gibraltar, that it reopened the border, by strategy. But nowadays, the pressure remains: not only is crossing the border still a hassle because of the numerous checks, but Madrid's attitude has not changed either: it still refuses to recognise Gibraltarians as a people. Which situation is anachronistic, then: is it the British flag flying on the Rock, or the Spanish claim?

Another recent event shows that the Spaniards' attitude can be even more colonialistic than the stance they reproach the Britons with. In November 1987, London and Madrid agreed on a joint use of the Gibraltar airport by Gibraltarian, British and Spanish aircraft. The document they signed stipulated that it was subject to the approval of the Gibraltar Parliament, which immediately vetoed it. The Spanish authorities tried to convince London to do without the Gibraltarians' consent, and even suggested that the Governor of Gibraltar should use its reserve powers to impose the decision. Spain was complaining, on the one hand, that the Rock was still a British colony; on the other, that the British authorities were not colonialistic enough. Indeed, London refused to force the Gibraltarians to approve the airport agreement.

Mistakes on both sides

If many Spanish scholars or politicians do not accept to take the Gibraltarians into account, London too made quite a lot of mistakes in the past. From 1704 to the beginning of the 20 th century, the authorities often changed their minds as to how useful or valuable Gibraltar was to Britain, and they were unable to decide what they were going to do with it, whether they should maintain British rule or sell the Rock. Some British statesmen contemplated exchanging the colony for another territory, which would have had the double advantage of choosing a new place of strategic importance, and of getting rid of this bone of contention between the UK and Spain. This attitude prevailed all along the 18 th century; it even manifested itself more recently, at the end of the 19 th century and in 1940.

In 1967, by organising the referendum, London showed at last that it was starting to consider the Gibraltarians as a real people who had the right to decide their future. Nevertheless, as Madrid's point of view has not changed, the continuing existence of the British territory claimed by Spain is still poisoning relationships within the European Union. Spain periodically blocks the vote of directives which it thinks could lead to giving more legitimacy or rights to the people of Gibraltarwho became citizens of the EEC more than ten years before the Spanish did. Sometimes, Madrid even blackmails the other Member States, as for instance when it refused to discuss the "open skies" issue as long as its partners took Gibraltar's airport into account.

Spanish ministers insist that Spain should recover sovereignty over Gibraltar as if it were a mere piece of land without anybody living on it. When it comes to negotiation, they maintain that the Rock ought to be decolonised, and that the integrity of their national territory is paramount. At the same time, they still refuse to consider granting the Gibraltarians self-determination; they never address the authorities of the colony directly, nor do they accept Gibraltarian representatives as a third party in talks with Britainthey can only be part of the British delegation as observers. Indeed Madrid still does not recognise the government of Gibraltar. The residents of the Rock, on the contrary, consider that the future status of their homeland should be debated exclusively by themselves and London.

A dialogue of the deaf

When it comes to the issue of Gibraltar, communication between London and Madrid seems thoroughly impossible. Former Gibraltar Chief Minister Joe Bossano says that "[the two governments] repeat to each other incompatible messages. It's a dialogue of the deaf" (personal interview, 12 Sept. 2001). And in fact, this unequivocal expression has been used for years, by Gibraltarians and foreign journalists alike, to describe the sterile negotiation process. However, communication is also difficult between Gibraltar and London and, at present, the inhabitants of the Rock are convinced that the government of the UK is not supporting them as it should or as it promised to. After having granted Gibraltar a government, a parliament and, at the end of the 1960s, a new constitution, the British authorities completely changed their strategy when they accepted, at the beginning of the 1980s, to discuss the matter of sovereignty with the government of Spain.

Today, the British still pretend that Spanish proposals could materialise whereas, unless they betrayed the Gibraltarians and withdrew their protection, they would never force the Rock's residents to agree to their bigger neighbour's rule. But this is not reassuring enough to the Gibraltarians, and another reason for their mistrust of the British Government is that the latter, in order to be on good terms with Madrid, refused to support the 2002 referendum or even take the results into account. Surprisingly, Tony Blair's friendship with former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar was thus seen as a threat by many a Gibraltarian, who realise that, to London, the political alliance with Spain is probably more vital than the loyalty of a few thousand inhabitants whose existence is unknown to most Europeans.

Gibraltar: a "pseudo-problem"

But if Spain can apparently easily influence Britain, a Spanish professor from the university of Barcelona, Jesús Mosterín, is deeply critical of his country's views on Gibraltar. He regularly publishes articles on the subject in El País. In one of them ("Ni espagnol ni britannique"), he argues that Gibraltar and its people are Gibraltarian and not Spanish, and that they have the right to be left alone. He goes on to assert that it would be better for all sides if Gibraltar was authorised to form a small independent state. To him, the only obstacle is Madrid: Spanish diplomats are "hypocritical" and their positions on the question are thoroughly unjustified. About the age-old accusations of illegal activities on the Rock, Jesús Mosterín explains that there is now much less smuggling of tobacco than there used to be, and that only a tiny fraction of the population is, or used to be, involved; as to money laundering, though he finds it unacceptable, he underlines that every country, not just a few tax havens like Gibraltar, is affected by the problem, and that the economic prosperity of the enclave cannot possibly result from it. To Jesús Mosterín, the Rock has always been a "pseudo-problem."

Indeed, many contradictions appear in Spain's nationalistic stance and in the arguments it uses. We may wonder whether the Spaniards need fan the flames of the dispute with the Rock. Do they not have enough difficulties with Basque separatism? Which of the two problems is the more serious threat to their national or territorial unity, or even to their fellow citizens? There has never been any violence in Gibraltar, while ETA terrorist actions have caused many casualties. The authorities and people of the Rock would not be a cause for concern to the Spanish leaders if the latter simply stopped focusing on them. It seems as if Madrid were trying to compensate for its failure to fight terrorism by bullying Gibraltar. Or maybe the Spaniards would like to re-appropriate the small territory across the southern border because they fear they may soon lose much more land in the north. Both Gibraltarian people and politicians agree that the "problem" of Gibraltar was actually created by Madrid, which uses the colony as a scapegoat or smokescreen to cover up much more serious internal problems. The Rock dispute would thus only be a way, for the Spanish authorities, to divert the public's attention from the country's many troubles. This phenomenon is not new: it dates back to the Franco era. It is described in a book by a French scholar (Jean Mathiex, [1972] 1994), written for a student readership and devoid of any polemical intentions. Finally, a Spaniard, author of one of the latest works published on Gibraltar (Manuel Leguineche, 2002), acknowledges that the Caudillo was already using the Rock for the same purposes. The recovery of Gibraltar was seen as the only cause which would unite all Spaniards.

Finally, we can add that the enclave, which has no natural resources, has lost part of its strategic value with the advent of satellite technology and nuclear weapons. Under these conditions, we may wonder why the Spaniards keep on wasting so much energy in attempting to recover such a tiny piece of land: on the map of the Iberian Peninsula, the Rock is a barely visible, insignificant dot. Without the Canary and Balearic Islands, continental Spain covers 492,713 sq. km, more than 82,000 times Gibraltar. Then, how can Madrid objectively claim that the British rock disfigures the map of Spain and destroys its territorial integrity? In fact, the ordinary Spaniards buying this thesis admit that their reasons are not very practical: to most of them, it is simply a matter of honour and national pride.

Geographical logic?

Indeed the Spaniards argue that the Rock should be reintegrated into their country because, physically, it is part of the geographical unit made up by Spain. If there has to be some logic in the way countries' borders are designed, then the map of the world is far from being perfect: for instance, why is Alaska a state of the United States and not a province of Canada? Why is the Republic of Ireland deprived of six counties to the north-east, six counties which are part of the neighbouring isle? How can Lesotho be a legitimate sovereign state although it is surrounded by the South African Republic and creates something like a "hole" in the South African territory?

If geographical logic is any good, Spain could go as far as to challenge the independence of Portugal. Interestingly, the argument would be partly justified historically too, as much as the Spanish position on Gibraltar is. From 1580 to 1640, Philip II of Spain was also king of Portugal, whose population finally rebelled. So, a few decades before Gibraltar was taken by the British, Portugal too was part of Spain. But Spain has never called into question its western neighbour's sovereignty, maybe because it considers that a people's legitimacy is proportional to the number of its members and to the area on which they live. All this seems quite unfair, especially because the fact that a very small territory was once part of a larger state does not mean that it has to be reintegrated into it. After all, both Spain and Gibraltar are members of the European Union, and the latter is shortly going to admit a number of very small countries as full-scale member states.

On the other hand, it might be exaggeratedif not completely ridiculousto insist on comparing tiny Gibraltar to Northern Ireland or Portugal, let alone Alaska. A major difference is that Gibraltar is not independent. If this is sufficient to justify Spanish views, and if we admit that the Rock is undoubtedly part of Spain and ought to be handed over to it, then and in the same way, there is no reason why Ceuta and Melilla should remain Spanish enclaves in Morocco. The two ports, located on the other shore of the strait of Gibraltar, have been under Spain's sovereignty since 1580 and 1497 respectively. They were originally conquered for their convenient location as military bases, just as the Rock was. They have never been called "colonies" but this is the only feature they do not have in common with Gibraltar. Ceuta, situated just south of the Rock, is considered the second "key" to the Mediterranean. It covers 19 sq. km, where 80,000 civilians and 7,000 members of the Spanish military live. As to Melilla, it is slightly smaller, with 12 sq. km and 60,000 inhabitants. Ceuta and Melilla are accused of harbouring the same criminal activities as Gibraltar: they too are tax havens known for the smuggling of tobacco and narcotics (cocaine and cannabis); in addition, it is from there that illegal immigrants from all parts of the African continent try to cross over to Spain, risking their lives on overcrowded boats.

The Spanish Government, while claiming Gibraltar and criticising the British position, also refuses to return Ceuta and Melilla to the Kingdom of Morocco. Spain does not wish to abandon the last pieces of its former colonial empire. Interestingly, Morocco uses exactly the same adjective to refer to the two ports' situation as the Spaniards themselves do regarding Gibraltar: it claims Ceuta and Melilla on the ground that their status is "anachronistic" (Jean et André Sellier, Atlas des peuples, [1995] 2000, 64).

When frontiers are altered, not merely geography and politics but also ethics are involved. Is it better to satisfy the territorial claims of a state than to give priority to the aspirations of a people? Perhaps the problems that Gibraltarians experience are mainly due to the cultural gap between them and the Spanish population, which makes communication difficult, even impossible most of the time. From a cultural as well as a political point of view, it is clear that the inhabitants of the Rock are not living in the heart of a controversy, as is often said, but rather of a huge misunderstanding. It is hard to anticipate a resolution of the dispute as long as such a misunderstanding exists.

Julie Michot Université de Metz

Main sources BOSSANO, The Hon. Joseph John (Joe), Chief Minister of Gibraltar (1988Gibraltar ( -1996))

  , Opposition and Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party Leader, Gibraltar, personal interview, 12 September 2001. GOLD, Peter, A Stone in Spain's Shoe: the Search for a Solution to the Problem of Gibraltar, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994. LEGUINECHE, Manuel, Gibraltar : la roca en el zapato de España, Barcelona : Planeta, 2002. MACINTYRE, Donald, "Why 30,000 Gibraltarians can't be allowed to dictate British policy," The Independent, 21 May 2002, [n. p.]. MICHOT, Julie, "Les Gibraltariens : des Britanniques à part entre Europes et Afrique," unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Metz, 2003. MOSTERÍN, Jesús, "Ni espagnol ni britannique : Gibraltar en petit Luxembourg de la Méditerranée" (from El País), Courrier International 257, 5 octobre 1995, 18. "Les problèmes de la Méditerranée et de ses régions riveraines. Questions d'ensemble et États de la rive Nord," in Jean MATHIEX, Aujourd'hui (de 1945 à 1990), t. 2, Paris : Masson, [1972] 1994, 278-310. "The Rock of Contention: Spanish Pressure on Gibraltar," The Round Table 219, 1965, 242-251. SELLIER, Jean, et André, Atlas des peuples d'Europe occidentale, Paris : La Découverte, [1995] 2000. USHER, Rod, "The Land of Broken Plates," Time, 19 April 1999, 46.


Julie Michot

A FEW 'KEYS' TO UNDERSTANDING GIBRALTAR

Keywords: straits of) Gibraltar, nationalism, self-determination, decolonization, Spain, the UK

British Gibraltar, the last colony in Europe, has a population whose cultural identity is uneasy to define: to demonstrate how unique they are, the Gibraltarians wave a flag depicting a coat of arms granted by a Spanish queen. But their land is a bone of contention between London and Madrid. From the outside, the 'eternal' dispute is based on the fact that the strait is the key to the Mediterranean; and yet, it is rather a human problem. A few decades ago, Gibraltar was locked from the outside by Spain; nowadays, the traditional 'Ceremony of the Keys' gives the impression the inhabitants still feel besieged. The Rock's fate is thus closely linked to geography and imperialistic pretentions, making it harder for Gibraltarians to be recognized as a genuine people having the right to decide its future. Self-determination is definitely the most precious 'key', the one Gibraltarians do not possess yet.

Introduction

The history of Gibraltar is complex and its sovereignty has been in various hands. Tariq ibn Ziyad is said to have set foot on the Rock the very day he started his conquest of Spain for the Arabs in 711 (but in fact, for practical reasons, he most probably landed in the bay, around the old Roman town of Carteia) (Chichon, [n. d.]: 14); the Spanish Catholic kings eventually recaptured the place in 1462 after many unsuccessful attempts and sieges; and the peninsula finally became British at the beginning of the 18 th century, in 1704. The very shape of the Rock and its central position, both between Europe and Africa, and the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, have made it a mythical place worth possessing, and, although the Spaniards signed the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 by which they ceded the territory in perpetuity to Great Britain, they have never ceased to claim it ever since.

But today, Gibraltar may not be so valuable. So what are the reasons for Spain's attitude and its consequences on the Gibraltarians' daily lives? Interestingly, although Gibraltar's history is sometimes difficult to understand, the theme of 'keys' is omnipresent and seems to be a useful guide for those who want to know more about most aspects of the last colony in Europe, and want to understand its present situation. Indeed, from its flag to its people's aspirations, a collection of 'keys' is to be found in Gibraltarwhether they are real keys to the gates of this fortress, or abstract ones emphasising the symbolic role the promontory has always played thanks to its privileged geographical position.

From the outside, the 'eternal' dispute over Gibraltar seems to be based on a piece of land. However, it is above all a human problem. At first, the Britons used to lock the fortress at night but a few decades ago, Gibraltar was locked from the outside by Spain during the socalled 'blockade' period. Gibraltar's past, present and future are thus closely linked to geography and imperialistic pretentions, giving to this small territory (both in size and number of inhabitants) more weight than expected but also making it harder for Gibraltarians to be recognized as a genuine people having the right to decide its future.

I-The Castle and Key Symbols

Surprisingly, although Gibraltar is now proudly British and has been so since 1704, its flag is a Spanish one. The first 'key' in the history of the Rock is that of its coat of arms, which was granted by Queen Isabella of Spain in 1501 and has been kept by the British occupants to the present day. The story even goes that the sovereign herself embroidered the original flag with the help of her daughter, Juana La Loca, thus showing that, though tiny, the territory of only 6 sq km was of paramount importance for her country. (Vallejo, 27 April 2003).

The other element of the coat of arms, which was of even greater size than the key, was a fortified castle. One should not think that this castle has anything to do with the Moorish castle built by the Arabs and now one of the only architectural testimonies of their long presence on the Rock. Indeed, how could the Spaniards have chosen a Moorish emblem after such a painful Reconquista of their native land? The symbolic castle given to Gibraltar was that of the kingdom of Castile and was truly meant to assert Spanish domination over the Rock. Indeed, the flag of Castilla La Mancha is red and white with a golden castle. This flag was slightly changed for Gibraltar; the two strips were displayed horizontally instead of vertically and the castle became a red one, standing out against the white band of the flag. More importantly, a golden key was added, hanging from the castle gate.

When the Britons captured the Rock, the Spanish residents were left the choice to leave the territory or remain on condition they accepted Queen Anne as their new sovereign.

Many of them refused and settled in nearby Spain (West, 1956: 151). They called the town they founded 'San Roque' ('Saint Rock', in English) as a homage to their homeland, which can be seen from there. Today, the original coat of arms of Gibraltar is still kept in the town hall of San Roque by the descendants of the 18 th -century Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar.

Thus, it is no surprise to discover that San Roque's and Gibraltar's seals are comparable. The most notable difference being that San Roqueños have added a crown on theirs. They did not change the elements depicted on the flag because they claimed they were the original Gibraltarians, and in fact they still do. Many natives of San Roque still believe that the Rock is theirs and that they will go and live there one day, as soon as it is given back to Spain (Pérez Girón, 13 & 14 November 2002). Observing the Gibraltar flag and doing research about its history already raises the question of the disputed status of the Rock and of its sovereignty.

Gibraltar had been the entrance into Spain for the Arabs, so that the Spanish castle and its key can also be interpreted as the image of an invincible fortress at the southernmost tip of the Iberian Peninsula, defending Spain against any other attacks coming from the African continent opposite. In fact, Queen Isabella baptized Gibraltar 'the key to Spain', which means that the country's safety depended on how strong Gibraltar could be. The semi-island was of such importance to her that, according to historians, before she died, she made her people swear that they would never let it fall back into Moorish hands. This gigantic block of limestone, with its steep slopes and the sea nearly all around it, is in itself a natural citadel, but this does not mean that these characteristics are sufficient to defend it and make it impregnable. Certainly, Queen Isabella and her successors did not realize that more fortifications should have been built seaward, that the existing ones should have been looked after, and this double weakness was exploited by Admiral Rooke in 1704 when he successfully conquered the Rock, stealing the coveted 'key' from the late Isabella of Castile, which must have made her turn over in her grave. If the queen never saw Gibraltar British, her pride is now embodied in the behaviour of some Spanish politicians or citizens who never hesitate to claim in public that Gibraltar has to be given back to Spain.

Another Spanish sovereign thought the Rock was of paramount importance. In the Spanish Campo de Gibraltar, north of the Rock, is a hill (in fact, not far away from the town of San Roque) with a particular shape called 'the Queen of Spain's Chair'. A legend indeed has it that, during one of the sieges of Gibraltar in the 18 th century, the Queen of Spain sat there and declared that she would not go until she saw the Spanish flag flying on the Rock.

Since her soldiers failed to capture the place, it is said that the British Governor of Gibraltar, having heard of the sovereign's determination, gentlemanly decided to hoist the Spanish flag for her to be able to leave her uncomfortable position. This funny story once again shows how important Gibraltar has always been to its Spanish neighbours, for whom it is a sensitive subject, and how tenacious they can be.

The fundamental point about the coat of arms is to remember that the Gibraltarians of today are proud of their rich heritage and mixed cultural influences, and that they wave Isabella's flag as a demonstration of their unique (and of course non-Spanish) identity, which could seem paradoxical at first, and which is certainly seen as an insult by some Spaniards. It proves that Gibraltarians do not reject Spanish culture and do not deny their history.

II-The Key to the Mediterranean

Another 'key' is very similar to the one depicted on the flag, although it is not visible as such.

It is also linked to geography, more precisely to maritime routes and the strait. The strait of Gibraltar represents the only natural entrance to the Mediterranean and, until the Suez Canal was dug, and opened in 1869, there was no other way for ships to sail into that sea and trade in the basin. Even after the opening of the canal, Gibraltar remained a port of call for vessels bound for India. Situated at the east entrance to the strait, Gibraltar has often had an invaluable strategic position in wartime, of course, but also in peacetime. The Rock has been de-scribed by travellers as a threatening 'watchdog', 'lion' or 'sphinx' guarding the entrance to the strait (Poitou, 1869: 192-202, quoted by Bennassar, 1998: 475-476). In Ancient Times, Gibraltar was used as a landmark beyond which it was dangerous to wander, and Roman and Greek sailors considered the mountain as one of the two Pillars of Hercules, as the limit of their known world.

But in fact, Gibraltar's role and strategic value have varied along the centuries, depending on the wars or rivalries between countries and on the evolution of military and maritime techniques. In the Antiquity already, there were fights to control the strait and the Carthaginians' priority was to exert their trading domination over this route. Like the Phoenicians before them, they invented a series of dangers to deter other peoples from crossing the strait and venturing into the Atlantic (Larsonneur, 1955: 11). And anyway, they used to sink all ship sailing towards the Rock. But, after a long war, the Carthaginians were defeated by Rome in 146 BC and the Romans thus became the 'possessors' of the strait. Then, the Vandals settled in the south of the Iberian Peninsula in the 5 th century AD, followed by the Visigoths, and the strait lost its traditional role because navigation was not a priority for those peoples.

Gibraltar was only restored to its primary use and importance with the Moors in the 8 th century. It appears that no population had lived permanently on the Rock before the Arabs crossed the Mediterranean and founded the first town of Gibraltar (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1968: 7), which means that the territory's destiny was closely connected with what happened in the strait. It also means that, in the Antiquity, the strait was more important than the Rock itself. Indeed, Gibraltar is a place where life is difficult since the promontory occupies most of its area, and there is no water. Moreover and as strange as it may seem, the semi-island had no real strategic value at the time because the strait there has its maximum width (around 15 km). So locking the strait from the Rock was then totally impossible for military possibilities did not allow it. The only advantage of the place was to be used as an observation post.

The relationships across the strait between what is now Spain and North Africa were numerous and regular during the whole Moorish period. The Arab invaders were the first to build fortifications in Gibraltar and it is assumed that the place was used as a stronghold by Tariq as soon as he arrived in Europe with his troops. Afterwards, the walls and bastions of Gibraltar were still of paramount importance for the Moors as Gibraltar was supposed to be the guarantee of a safe retreat in case of a Spanish upheaval. Strategically, Gibraltar was thus already important but its guns were turned to the north and not to the sea. The Rock was however besieged many times by the Spaniards, who temporarily reconquered it between 1309 and 1333, before the Moors got it again but definitively lost it in 1462. The end of the Reconquista was marked by the capture of Gibraltar which became one of the strongest symbols of Spanish nationalism and the most valuable Spanish fortress at the same time.

But the Spanish Crown did not take advantage of Gibraltar's privileged position and did not make good use of this 'key to the Mediterranean'. Of course, all relationships between Spain and North Africa disappeared but what is more serious is that foreign vessels could enter and leave the Mediterranean freely. Although it possessed Gibraltar, Spain had no control over the strait and was not turned to the basin either. In the middle of the 16 th century, though, a maritime rivalry developed between the Spanish and the English but the Spaniards were unable to forbid the access of English ships to the Mediterranean. Unlike what happened in Moorish times, Spanish Gibraltar should have guarded the strait. But the Spaniards' weaknesses prevented the Rock from playing that role because the Spanish fleet was less numerous than the English one. The fortress and town of Gibraltar thus became weaker and weaker and the two and a half centuries of Spanish possession were synonym of sharp decline. As a matter of fact, the activity of the harbour progressively disappeared.

Consequently, although the Rock is physically impressive, it is not naturally strong and the possibilities of defence and commercial opportunities offered by the place depend on the efforts of its possessors. It is obvious that Spain was content with using Gibraltar as the 'key to Spain' and never used it as the 'key to the Mediterranean'. It tends to prove that the Spanish desire to regain Gibraltar has never been founded on logical, practical or strategic reasons but rather on passion.

During the War of the Spanish Succession, the English themselves, when they took Gibraltar, did it almost by accident and anyway without much conviction, only because they had failed to capture Cadiz and Barcelona which were seen as much more valuable but were also better defended and fortified. In 1704, Admiral Rooke conquered the Rock quite easily in three days only, due to the small number of soldiers in the fortress (Larsonneur, 1955: 42-43).

From the start of their occupation of the territory, the English thought they would not keep it for too long. Although they finally kept it, they considered exchanging it several times, especially in the 18 th century. Indeed, England was then turned to the Atlantic, not the Mediterranean, and one of its major imperial routes was that of the Cape of Good Hope which led to India; the kingdom also traded a lot with America. In this context, Gibraltar was of no obvious interest. Moreover, it was particularly difficult to maintain a garrison there because Spain refused to sell agricultural products or anything else to Gibraltar. The citadel was thus isolated, which weakened it even more. The living and housing conditions of soldiers and civilians were really bad; there were problems of discipline among the troops; corruption was the rule and many smugglers were based there. The port was not a good one either: it had not been modernized by the English, had no hinterland and, because of the strong winds and currents, it was hard for sailing ships to get to Gibraltar.

It was thus understandable that Britain should have wanted to abandon Gibraltar all the more as it cost a lot. The Rock had a diplomatic value, though: the English statesmen knew how Spain was eager to get it back and, someday, they would certainly be able to be given an interesting territory in its place. But if the Rock had undoubtedly a symbolic value for Spaniards, public opinion in Britain, although divided on the question, was more and more favourable to keeping Gibraltar because the Rock had acquired a sentimental value for the English too, and it increased their national pride and sense of international power and domination.

But towards the end of the 18 th century, with the War of Independence, a new imperial era started for Britain when the country lost part of its empire, having to leave America. London looked at the Mediterranean and the East with a different eye and Gibraltar suddenly appeared as a possession of great importance and, from then on, there were rational reasons to keep it. It all started in 1805 when Gibraltar was crucial for Britain's victory in the naval battle of Trafalgar since English ships could take shelter in its harbour; the 19 th century was that of a prestigious Gibraltar playing an essential role as 'key to the Mediterranean'. The traffic constantly increased in the basin and India became one of the keystones of the British Empire. With the opening of the Suez Canal, a new route was adopted to join South-East Asia, across the Mediterranean. It had the advantage of being 100 % maritime and much shorter than that of the Cape of Good Hope. Thanks to Gibraltar but also Malta and Cyprus, the Britons dominated it. They also became the main shareholders of the canal and their military occupation of Egypt followed in 1882.

In the 19 th century, efforts were thus made to develop and fortify Gibraltar and its natural qualities as an observation post were used more than ever to invigilate the strait. The military dimension of the Rock thus increased, as well as its commercial importance. Indeed, with the appearance of more powerful steamers, the navigation in the bay of Algeciras was possible and Gibraltar's deep harbour became accessible at last, which means that the economic role of the territory also grew as port of call and commercial harbour, constantly extended and modernized. The colony was used as a coaling station on the road to India; it was also a place where goods coming from Asia were stored before being reexported; numerous insurance companies settled there and subsidiaries of the most active English shipping companies also opened on the Rock. Gibraltar was the pride of Victorian England.

However, the opening of the Suez Canal and the technical progress in steamboats were double-edged for Gibraltar. As soon as the end of the 19 th century, the territory started to lose power. Indeed, as the capacity of steamers increased, they no longer needed to be supplied in coal in a place like Gibraltar, which became 'too close' to England, quite paradoxically (Mariaud, 1990: 26-27). The commercial importance of the harbour declined gradually.

To make matters worse, Gibraltar also revealed some weaknesses on a strategic point of view. Steamboats were now able to sail along the African coast, which was too far away from the Rock for it to remain the guardian of the strait (Larsonneur, 1955: 83). In the early 20 th century, the development of submarines was also a serious threat since the strong currents in the strait made it impossible to use anti-submarine nets or mines, which would have been carried away, and enemy ships would be able to cross the strait without being stopped, which happened as early as 1915. Because of progress in armament, the British possession was also becoming vulnerable since it was no longer protected from the possible attacks of wide-range cannons located on the Spanish territory, or from air raids. Some British intellectuals or army officers once again suggested exchanging Gibraltar. But Andalusia was so little developed at the time that Gibraltar, in spite of its drawbacks, was rather safe.

During the two world wars, the Rock was nicknamed 'the key to the Mediterranean' again. Between 1914 and 1918, Gibraltar and its harbour were most useful and played the role they had played when the battle of Trafalgar took place, but on a much wider scale, not only for Britain but for its Allies. Battleships could get food and water for their crews, coal or oil fuel, and even be repaired there; the fortress also served as military headquarters.

During the Second World War, Gibraltar's vital importance was even more obvious.

In fact, its strength seemed to lay on its past glory, on the common acceptance that it was invincible, on what the shape of the Rock symbolized, and it was commonly thought in the United Kingdom that the colony would never or could not fail to its duty. The place was so famous that its reputation had reached the other side of the Atlantic long before the 1940s: in the 1890s, the Prudential Insurance Company of America chose the Rock as its logo and "Strength of Gibraltar" as its slogan. i Although, at the end of the 19 th century, the colony had started to show some flaws, it proved to be 'rock solid' and reliable during the 1939-1945 conflict, which increased its world fame and helped build its legend. During World War II indeed, Gibraltar resisted and was a fundamental asset since it was used as a base for a great deal of military operations against the Germans and the Italians. Though the Rock alone could not lock the western entry to the Mediterranean and was bombed several times in 1940, it was one of the keys to the strait and it had an ideal strategic position for the Allies.

This position was so perfect that it became tempting to Germany and, as early as 1940, Hitler had set up a plan to try and capture the naval base, thanks to the combined action of planes, parachuted troops, U-Boats and panzers; then, the Kriegsmarine would have locked the strait. The project, whose code name was 'Operation Felix', was very well prepared but, having failed to come to an agreement with General Franco, the Führer finally gave it up; indeed, the Caudillo refused to involve Spain in the conflict and did not let Hitler's troops cross his country or use its airfields. Meanwhile, the Rock was heavily fortified by the Britons and, after the conflict, Goering declared that the Germans' most fatal error was not to have carried out the attack on Gibraltar (Larsonneur, 1955: 98).

However, the British Government was not aware that the Germans had changed their minds and, knowing that, in case of a Nazi attack, Gibraltar would fall into enemy hands, it had planned 'Operation Monkey' in 1941. It consisted in training a handful of men prepared to live in a secret confined place inside the Rock in order to spy on the Germans. 'Stay Behind Cave' ii was an artificial sort of cave or rather a network of small tunnels in which those men could have lived for years if necessary; they had a large quantity of food supplies, rain water coming from a little water catchment, two openings allowing them to see what was happening in the bay and the strait, and a radio to communicate information to the British campthis radio worked thanks to a dynamo and a bicycle. Those agents would have been 'walled up alive' so that no entrance to this cave could have been found by the enemy. But this scenario never took place and, although constantly under threat (and fully evacuated of its civilian population), Gibraltar played a great part in many critical episodes of the war and was extremely useful to the Allied Forces. The colony's defences were improved, especially with respect to air raids. From 1940 to 1942, huge tunnels were dug inside the Rock. iii They served as casemates for the troops since thousands of men could live there for months; there were hospitals, kitchens, an impressive generating station, radio rooms, etc.; ammunition, tanks and lorries were stored there too.

The ballast thus retrieved from the promontory was used to widen the isthmus towards the west and build a runway.

From 1940 to 1943, the British troops sailing for Egypt, to try and defend Suez from Italian and German attacks, had to cross the Mediterranean, which was dangerous, so they stopped at Gibraltar and were escorted from there by a Royal Navy fleet based in the colony and called 'Force H'. Gibraltar was also the keystone of the November 1942 British-American invasion of North Africa, 'Operation Torch', commanded by General Eisenhower who had his headquarters inside the Rock. During the preparation of this operation, lorries, tanks and even planes were hidden in the tunnels and the airfield was of course widely used when the offensive took place. iv Did Gibraltar have this key role, all along World War II, by accident? It seems that the weaknesses of the Italian navy and air force, Spain's neutrality and the Germans' decision not to attack the colony were decisive factors for the promontory to remain British and play, almost undisturbed, a crucial part in the conflict. But whatever the reasons, the Rock was an invaluable military base in the Second World War and its prestige was enhanced.

However, now that actual conflicts have disappeared from the area, can the Rock still be considered 'the key to the Mediterranean'? In a way, yes. Indeed, even in peacetime, it is essential to keep an eye on the strait since it is the second in the world in terms of navigation (Péroncel-Hugoz, 25 February 1999) (oil tankers, cargo and container ships are seen permanently off Gibraltar). The smuggling of cigarettes and drugs between Morocco, Gibraltar and Spain is still quite active and the strait is also sadly known for the illegal African immigrants who try and cross over to Europe and very often pay for it with their lives.

The top of the Rock (called 'Rock Gun') is equipped with radars and so is the area of 'Windmill Hill Flats', to the south of the territory; Gibraltar is a NATO base and, in a very protected area inside the Rock, civilian and military personnel monitor all movements in the strait thanks to the latest technology. So, even if satellites have replaced cannonballs, the British colony remains of great strategic value. Some Spaniards have already made clear that a British Gibraltar was unfair, that the validity of the Treaty of Utrecht was disputable and that the Rock had to be given back to them without any compensation. Consequently, Spain would find it normal to own the two 'keys' to the strait: Gibraltar and Ceuta. v One of the major sources of Spanish nationalism is undoubtedly Gibraltar, whose possession by the British is seen as an insult. But, already in the early 20 th century, the desire to recover the Rock was based on national honour more than on its military value.

III-The Ceremony of the Keys

Unlike the Spanish, the Britons knew that taking Gibraltar did not mean they would keep it without effort. Its first governors were conscious of the weight of national pride in Spain, and of the ideal position of the territory, at the crossroads between a sea and an ocean (the Medi-terranean and the Atlantic), and two continents (Europe and Africa). High defensive walls and bastions were built around the town (now the old town) with only four gates which were locked at sunset for the night. In the early 18 th century, there was only one land entry to the town, through Landport Gate, while Waterport, Chatham and Southport could be approached by sea.

From the late 18 th century, the impressive keys to the gates of Gibraltar were the object of a ritual every evening: the governor used to hand them to the Port Sergeant who would march to each of these gates, with his armed escort, and lock them. At each gate, a sentry would challenge him with these words: 'Halt! Who goes there?', to which the answer would be: 'The Keys!'. vi The Port Sergeant would then return to the Convent (the official residence of the military governor) and hand the keys back to His Excellency with these words: 'Sir!

The fortress is secure and all's well'. The keys were collected again in the morning for the doors to be opened for the day.

The most famous governor of Gibraltar was General Sir George Augustus Eliott. He was at the head of the fortress during the Great Siege, so called because it was the longest military siege in the history of the Rock (1779-1783). The Britons managed to keep Gibraltar and the victorious Eliott became a 'national' hero at a time when Britain was losing its American colonies. He was so obsessed with the safety of the colony that he has always been described as carrying the four keys with him everywhere and even sleeping with the bunch under his pillow. Whether this is a legend or not, it shows the importance of the keys. Moreover, Eliott is traditionally represented with at least one of the keys in his hand and the other three hanging from his belt. An early 19 th -century statue, kept at the Convent and carved out from the wooden mast of a Spanish ship taken at Trafalgar, is a good example of the association between Eliott, the keys and the safety of the fortress. Finally, Eliott's most famous portrait, visible at London's National Gallery, also shows him holding one of the keys of Gibraltar. vii A copy of this painting decorates the wall of the dining hall of the governor's residence.

Most of the fourteen sieges of the Rock took place under British domination, in the 18 th century, and the threat of a military attack disappeared afterwards; nonetheless, locking up the town at night remained a habit until 1914. Nowadays, of course, this no longer happens and the bulk of Gibraltar's population lives outside the fortifications of the old fortress. But this tradition is part of the culture of the place and, since 1933, 'the Ceremony of the Keys' has been held twice a year, in April and October; this ceremony is a parade during which the closing of the fortress is partly reenacted. It takes place in Casemates Square, the north entry to the old town where one of the four gates, Waterport Gate, used to be.

To Gibraltarians, who have very little folklore of their own, these events are a matter of pride and are highly popular among them and tourists alike. In 1997, the Rock had its first civilian governor but the ceremony has not changed and is still performed by the Royal Gibraltar Regiment with marches, music viii and the participation of His Excellency. The original bunch of keys is used on this occasion and, the rest of the time, it is kept in the Convent. The governor of the colony has the title of 'Her Majesty's Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Gibraltar' and, when he leaves the place (generally after four years in office) he symbolically hands over the keys of the fortress for them to be kept by his successor.

IV-Gibraltarians under Lock and Key

Does this mean that the people of Gibraltar still have the impression they are under permanent siege? This feeling could logically have developed from their history because, even if the last military siege took place more than 200 years ago, another dramatic event of the same kind made them suffer greatly in the second half of the 20 th century. Indeed, in June 1969, angry and frustrated for not being able to recapture the Rock, General Franco decided to close the Spanish border at Gibraltar. ix In fact, relationships with Spain had been bad for 15 years, since Elizabeth II's official visit to the colony. In the 1960s, two important events had also upset Madrid. In 1967, a referendum was organized by London on the Rock and its results were unambiguous since 12,138 voters wished to stay British whereas only… 44 would have wanted to become Spanish (Time Magazine, 22 September 1967); the message to their neighbours could not be clearer. Moreover, in 1969, a constitution was granted by Great Britain to Gibraltar, meaning much more autonomy for the enclave. Those were the two main reasons for the blockade, which was aimed at causing the Gibraltarians' surrender.

It was thus no longer possible to cross the isthmus over to Spain. At the same time, Franco decided to ban all communications (ferries, mail and telephone) between his country and the colony. Since the Rock is a peninsula, the only way for its inhabitants to 'escape' and go to Spain for a few hours was to take the ferry to Tangier and, once in Morocco, take another ferry to Algeciras, instead of simply crossing the isthmus where the frontier lies, or sailing across the bay to reach Algeciras, only 8 km away. Not everybody could do this as it was an obvious waste of time and money.

In their everyday life, Gibraltarians were trapped, locked up, and could no longer communicate with their Spanish relatives (many natives of the Rock had a Spanish spouse) or friends. But people had to 'survive' and the Rock's society changed. Gibraltarians had to adapt to these new circumstances and they learnt to cope. For example, many new associations or sporting groups were created during the period of the frontier closure, for the inhabitants to be able to enjoy themselves on their small Rock.

Though the Caudillo died in 1975, the democratic government that followed did not reopen the border until 1985, x and only then because Britain was vetoing Spain's entrance into the EEC. A great number of middle-aged Gibraltarians spent their youth in the shadow of the Rock, quite isolated, and today, they generally speak about this period with bitterness.

Even some Spanish authors or historians admit that the blockade of Gibraltar was a blatant mistake and that it only succeeded in developing deep resentment and distrust towards the Spanish government, whereas keeping full contact with Gibraltar and its people would have been the only way to a possible integration into the Spanish national territory (Gold, 1994: 3).

The blockade was a painful period for Gibraltarians and one should not underestimate the consequences of this long episode. The way the inhabitants of the colony experienced it serves to understand why Gibraltar has now 'closed its door' to Spain. Although no weapons were used, the blockade is referred to as 'the fifteenth siege', which means that there was an actual state of siege both economically and psychologically. Some Gibraltarians go as far as to say that the fence was 'the second Berlin Wall' (Gibraltar Heritage, 2002), which also shows the shameful view they had of it.

Today, crossing the frontier often remains long and difficult because of the queues of vehicles and of the Spanish customs officers' checks. It is the only EU internal border where you have to show your ID card or passport. xi By crossing over into Spain, Gibraltarianseven those who were born after 1985 or are too young to remember the sixteen years of the blockadecan only be reminded how 'different' they are. During the blockade, 'the concept of the "other" had been magnified (…) [and] Gibraltarians [became] more conscious than ever before that they did not belong to Spain' (Gibraltar Heritage, 2002). The closed frontier altered the cultural relationships between Gibraltar and Spain forever. 'Franco's political aimto strangle Gibraltar into submissionhad had the opposite effect of consolidating the identity of its people and breathing new life into their particular identity and culture' (Gibraltar Heritage, 2002). Thus, the unexpected result of the closure of the frontier is that it definitely strengthened the Gibraltarians' feeling of belonging to a unique community or nation, their feeling of togetherness and of a shared destiny. Without the pressure exerted by their neighbours, they would not be so 'patriotic' and so fond of their Rock today.

V-The Key to Gibraltar's Future

A Gibraltarian identity does exist and the people of the territory do not hesitate to show how united they are and how proud they feel to have been born on the Rock. They are also proud to be British, although they would like to be treated as more than second-class citizens by London, and wish they had more support from the British government. Above all, they do not want to yield to Madrid or become Spanish, simply because they are not Spanish. For the moment, the British government wants to preserve the good relationships it has with Spain and the people of the last colony in Europe consider they are alone in their struggle against the threat of a forced integration into the Spanish territory.

In the 20 th century, the administration of Gibraltar underwent tremendous changes and, today, the Rock is much less colonial and much more autonomous than it used to be in the 18 th and 19 th centuries. Gibraltar is no longer characterized by a colonial economy almost exclusively based on the army and civil service. The British soldiers massively left the place in the 1980s and the MOD thus stopped being the major employer in the colony. Gibraltarians turned to other activities (financial services, tourism, etc.) and their economy is now prosperous without any financial help from the 'motherland'.

Gibraltarians were also granted full British citizenship in 1981 (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993), which marked a major turning point in their history. Indeed, during the previous centuries, 'the fortress came first' xii and the civilian population of Gibraltar had no importance for London. xiii The military governor had all powers; he was the commander of the garrison at the same time as the head of the colony since those were one and a same thing. But at the beginning of the 20 th century, the powers of His Excellency were reduced greatly and, nowadays, governors are not necessarily military officers and they only have a symbolic role.

Gibraltar is no longer a fortress in the imperial strategy of Great Britain although it can still be useful in case of conflict. xiv But 'decolonisation' has not taken place yet in Gibraltar and its people keep fighting for their basic rights.

Even if the border was reopened a long time ago, restrictions still exist and Spain has not abandoned its claim to Gibraltar's sovereignty. But the more Spain claims Gibraltar, the more it strengthens its people's cohesion. In the same way as during the blockade, the current attitude of Madrid reinforces the Gibraltarians' sense of belonging to a unique 'nation'.

Gibraltarians sometimes demonstrate with flags and banners but there is one particular day of the year when they can show how determined they are: their national day, whose celebrations are held each 10 th September to commemorate the anniversary of the first referendum held on the Rock, in 1967. The national day celebrations started in 1992 (Bole-Richard, 10 December 1994) and have always been very successful. Gibraltar even adopted its own national anthem in 1995. On national day, all residents, whether they are native Gibraltarians or not, dress in red and white, their national colours and those of their castle-and-key flag, and gather in the streets before meeting in Casemates Square to sing their anthem and listen to the speeches given by their Chief Minister and other leading political figures, in favour of their rights. Behind the stage is a huge Gibraltar flag with these words: 'Self-determination is democracy'.

Self-determination is indeed the keyword to try and understand the situation of Gibraltar, its current problems and its people's claims and aspirations. This word is always used by the Rock's politicians, whatever their party and, although government and opposition members have traditionally been at loggerheads, there is a consensus of opinion that Gibraltarians should be free to decide their future. Most of them claim that the Rock should be decolonized without being given back to Spain. Unfortunately, the United Nations have always refused to grant the Gibraltarians this right, and they even took sides for Spain in 1964.

The problem is that, according to Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, if the Britons abandoned the colony, it would have to be given to Spain in priority (Miège, 1995: 464).

Thus, if they ceased to be a colony, Gibraltarians would condemn themselves to become Spaniards, which would be a new form of colonialism, and a much worse situation for them.

The dispute could be solved only if Spain accepted to abandon its claim over Gibraltar; but since Madrid has always refused to change its views, and continues to call the Rock 'an anachronism', there seems to be no way out. What is even more striking is that the Spaniards consider that it would not be 'anachronistic' to force the Gibraltarians to pass under their sovereignty.

In September 2001, just before national day, the 'Self-determination for Gibraltar Group' organized a collection of keys and encouraged all Gibraltarians to give as many keys as they could. The campaign was a success. Its aim was to have these keys melted in order to make a huge one representing 'the key to the Gibraltarians' future'. The argument and message of the group was that this keywhich, of course, was supposed to symbolize self-determination -'lies in the hands of the people of [the territory]'.

Fighting for the right to self-determination has become a habit, a way of life, almost an obsession. In Gibraltar, everybody is involved in politics, in the sense that they all have an opinion about their situation, and generally denounce it. Even when the Catholic Bishop is interviewed (Caruana, 1 May 2001) about religion on the Rock, he ends up talking vehemently about politics. Life in Gibraltar can be expected to change only if its people are granted the right to choose their future. History seems to repeat itself as, year after year, the claim is the same but there is no solution in sight.

Conclusion

A large variety of keys can be found in Gibraltar's history. From the coat of arms to self-determination, and whether the keys are real or symbolic ones, they help cast light on the Rock's complicated past, present and uncertain future. Too often, Gibraltar has only been considered as a fortress with a key location making it a strategic military base that could be used as a lock to protect the whole Spanish territory from foreign attackers, or to try and prevent German vessels from entering the Mediterranean during the First and Second World Wars. Today, many places of interest still recall the military past of the semi-island with its regular sieges, and guns, batteries or bastions of different periods can be seen all around Gibraltar.

Even if the setting up of the Tripartite Talks in December 2004 can be seen as a step in the right direction, the present situation is still quite tense, if not militarily, psychologically speaking, since London fails to support the Gibraltarians as much as they think it should, and Madrid exerts continuing pressure to try and recover its sovereignty over the place. It may be difficult to determine if the Rock 'belongs' to Spain more than to its present population; but, beyond territorial 'logic' and national passion, it is certain that Gibraltarians belong to their Rock, the most impressive proof being the enthusiasm and unrivalled patriotism that can be observed on national day and also on many other occasions, when the inhabitants proudly put out flagsincidentally, it is to be noticed that in reality no particular occasion is necessary for them to do so. The Gibraltar flag is in fact the most valued symbol of its people's nationalism.

And yet, the human dimension of the Rock has generally been ignored by authors of books on the colony, or by statesmen. However, for three centuries now, people of mixed origins have settled in Gibraltar and have acquired a growing consciousnessthat of being a unique community of British nationality, maybe even more Gibraltarian than British, and certainly not Spanish, especially after such an episode as the closure of the border. Thus, Gibraltar is not a traditional colony whose inhabitants would like to emancipate from the 'mother country'; their ancestors have never been forced to be loyal to the British Crown but today, if Gibraltarians were to be 'sold out' to Spain, they would have to accept a nationality that is not theirs and in which they do not recognize themselves. It would be creating a new colonial people in 21 st -century Europe.

History tells us that Gibraltar is not a natural fortress and that Hitler could have taken it easily in spite of the important garrison present there. So is the expression 'as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar' justified? Would Gibraltar's reputation be much superior to reality? Now that most British soldiers have left the place, Gibraltarians act as the defenders of their homeland; their forefathers successfully resisted numerous sieges and the latest one, the frontier closure, was the longest and the toughest, even if no troops were involved. The population's best weapon was, and still is, its specificity, cohesion and determination, and the mythical 'strength' of Gibraltar is now embodied by its people.

Gibraltarians do have a historical heritage and a cultural identity of their own, comparable to no others, and they claim to be a nation, even if they know that, with 33,000 souls only, they are too small to form a country, and are anyway far from being politically independent. But they want to be taken into account, and the most precious key is the one they do not possess yet: the key to a future that would be in accordance with their wishes. STEWART, John David ([1966] 1967), Gibraltar: the Keystone, London: John Murray. VALLEJO, Tito, Gibraltar historian (27 April 2003), personal letter. WEST, Dr Michael (1956), 'Bilingualism in Gibraltar', Oversea Education, n° 27: 148-153. i See the Prudential's website: 'Prudential is a company that our customers trust, and our symbol, the Rock of Gibraltar, signifies our strength and commitment to integrity'. http://www.prudential.com/pxb/privacy. Accessed 26 th January 2015. ii This cave still exists but is not open to the public. It was discovered only ten years ago by accident, although many historians had wanted to find it for decades. This shows how well kept the secret of its location was. Besides, there is strong evidence that there are other caves like this one, but they have remained undiscovered to this day. iii There are no less than 30 miles of tunnels in Gibraltar, the vast majority of them dug for military purposes and the oldest dating back to the 18 th century (the 'Great Siege Tunnels'). iv During World War II, some soldiers serving on the Rock adopted a key badge. This key was that of the coat of arms but it rather symbolized the role of Gibraltar as 'Key to the Mediterranean'. Different versions existed whether the badge was that of the Gunners from the Gibraltar Defence Force, that of the Fortress Engineers, or that of the Royal Artillery in Gibraltar. It can be noticed that 'today the [Royal Gibraltar] Regiment (…) wears its key with pride (…) on the right sleeve of the service uniforms'. (Regiment: The Military Heritage Collection, December 2004: 41.) v Ceuta is one of the Spanish enclaves in North Africa and it is still claimed by Morocco, in the same way as Gibraltar is claimed by Madrid. However, most Spaniards will say, without being able to justify themselves, that Ceuta and Melilla are 'different' from the Rock and that they have no reason to be retroceded to Morocco. vi Interestingly, the other two places in the world where a 'Ceremony of the Keys' is held are in the United Kingdom. The Edinburgh ceremony is connected with the Queen when she spends some time in Holyrood Palace and is symbolically offered the keys of the city. But the most similar ceremonial is the daily 'Ceremony of the Keys' which has taken place every night at the Tower of London since the 14 th century. The question of the sentry and answer made by the escort to the keys are exactly the same as in Gibraltar, which means that London was taken as a model by the colony since such tradition is not that old on the Rock (in the 14 th century, Gibraltar was not British yet). vii George Augustus Eliott, Lord Heathfield, by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 1787. viii Originally and in times of peace, the fifes and drums were a means to let aliens know that they had to leave the place since its gates were about to be locked. ix On the Gibraltarian or British side, the fence has always remained open. As for the two padlocks that locked the frontier for so many years on the Spanish side, they are now kept in a museum in La Línea, the border town.

Main

x In December 1982, the fence was partially reopened, for pedestrians only; it was fully reopened to all traffic in February 1985. xi Apart from Spain's hostility, there is a second reason to the checks: the United Kingdom did not sign the Schengen Agreement. xii The title of a book by Thomas James Finlayson ([1991] 2000): The Fortress Came First: the story of the civilian population of Gibraltar during the Second World War. xiii Interestingly, the first book dedicated to Gibraltar's civilian population was written in 1951 only (by Dr Henry William Howes). xiv Gibraltar was used as a military base during the Falklands War and the Gulf War. xv Here, 'Gibraltar' does not refer to the British territory but to the whole strait and to the Spanish coast bordering it.

  Sources AZOPARDI, Keith (18 November 2009), 'Sovereignty and the stateless nation', The Gibraltar Chronicle, [n. p.]. BENNASSAR, Bartolomé, et Lucile (1998), Le Voyage en Espagne : anthologie des voyageurs français et francophones du XVI e au XIX e siècle, Paris : Robert Laffont. BETHELL, Nicholas (6 May 1980), 'Why Gibraltar prefers the siege life', The Times, p. 12. BOLE-RICHARD, Michel (10 December 1994), 'Ni Britanniques ni Espagnols : "Gibraltariens" !', Le Monde, p. 7. MARIAUD, Elizabeth (1990), Gibraltar : un défi pour l'Europe, Genève : Institut universitaire d'études européennes. MICHOT, Julie (2003), 'Les Gibraltariens : des Britanniques à part entre Europes et Afrique', unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Metz. MIÈGE, Jean-Louis (1995), 'Gibraltar', in Encyclopaedia Universalis, corpus 10, Paris, pp. 464-465. 'Nuevo incidente frente al Peñón entre guardias civiles y agentes de Gibraltar' (25 April 2011), El País, [n. p.]. PÉREZ GIRÓN, Antonio, San Roque's archivist, and journalist (13 & 14 November 2002), San Roque, personal interview. PÉRONCEL-HUGOZ, Jean-Pierre (25 February 1999), 'Zigzags dans l'histoire, entre les colonnes d'Hercule', Le Monde, p. 26. 'Picardo pushes ahead with Madrid speech' (26 January 2015), The Gibraltar Chronicle, [n. p.]. PLÁ CARCELES, José (1955), Gibraltar, London: Hollis & Carter. POITOU, Eugène (1869), Voyage en Espagne, Tours : A. Mame. Regiment: The Military Heritage Collection (December 2004), issue 62 (dedicated to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment).