Two British-made anomalies: Gibraltar and Singapore
There’s often a bit of banter in schools between historians and geographers. I remember I had a running “battle” with one colleague, each of us playing tricks on the other, each trying to make fun of the other’s subject whenever we got the chance. One of the things I did was to put a poster up above my classroom door that read “In geography, they colour in maps. In history, we change them.” I dedicate this little series to geographers, and as I do, let me say it’s a great subject, really interesting – but they do colour in the odd map or two! Why the dedication? Because this little series is going to give a few examples of where history has trumped geography. Confused? You’ll soon see what it’s about.
The first place I’m going to look at covers just six square kilometres but it has been incredibly important in the course of British history. I’m talking about Gibraltar. Technically, Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. These are bits of this world (and there are fourteen of them in total) that are self-governing but have a constitutional and historical link with the UK and the UK has responsibility for their defence and foreign relations.
Gibraltar was captured by the British Fleet in 1704 during the war of the Spanish Succession. And in 1713, in the Treaty of Utrecht, Spain ceded Gibraltar to the British Crown, and did so in perpetuity. The treaty actually states “the town, castle and fortifications were to be held and enjoyed for ever without any exception or impediment whatsoever.” Yet Spain has never reconciled itself to its loss. And you cant blame it, not really.
Now, if it had been a game of monopoly and the British counter had landed on Gibraltar, you can understand why they would have taken it. The Straits of Gibraltar, between Gibraltar and Morocco, is only around 8 nautical miles (around 12 nautical kilometres if there is such a thing) and though the naval base today is small, the Rock still has the potential to play as important a role as it has in the past. It is still the only access point from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean, an access point that remains vital to the likes of Italy, France and Russia. So, not only can you try and block that point, you can at all times monitor what goes past it; even what goes underneath it. It’s also important as at the other end of the Mediterranean is the Suez Canal.
Equally so, you can understand why Spain wants it back. And boy, did they try. For example, in 1779, what became known as the Great Siege began. The many tunnels that are a feature of the Rock, which most of Gibraltar is, are a legacy from this time. And those tunnels would also be put to good use in WW2. Interestingly, it was also during the siege that a Lieutenant Shrapnel developed the ammunition for the fortresses cannons that still bears his name. The soldiers in the trenches of WW1, on both sides, would come to hate the mention of his name. The siege lasted from 1779-1783 and the Gibraltarians suffered greatly for want of food. But they held out. General Franco would later liken Gibraltar to a severed limb that needed to be sewn back again. Hence his decades-long blockade of Gibraltar lasting from 1969 to 1985. Since Franco, Spain describes Gibraltar as a “colony,” a political condition which it regards as offensive. Quite simply, it’s a matter of national pride.
The United Nations agrees. Its “Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” – thankfully known as the “Decolonization Committee” – includes Gibraltar in the territories still needing to be decolonised. The Treaty of Utrecht actually stipulates that Spain must get first refusal should Britain ever wish to relinquish its sovereignty over Gibraltar. But what if Spain promised the Gibraltarians the same autonomy as they currently enjoy if they agreed to reunite? How would that go down in Catalonia or the Basque Country. Spain as we know it just might unravel. So, maybe its best left as it is.
Twice the people of Gibraltar have voted in referenda to maintain the status quo, in 1967 and again in 2002, with staggering 99% majorities – the only such votes in history outside of dictatorships. And Britain has been consistent in saying that it will not alter the political status of Gibraltar without the explicit consent of its people.
And yet Gibraltarians send out mixed messages and the development of a sense of Britishness does seem somewhat manufactured. In the wake of the Brexit referendum in 2016, Gibraltar’s chief minister, Fabian Picardo, was asked about joint sovereignty. His response was that he felt, “It would strip us of who we are.” Gibraltarians say that they see themselves as British in the same way that Scots and the Welsh are (even though they might not want to be): they may speak English with a strong accent, they may also speak Spanish and their culture is different, but they believe they are British. And indeed, since 1981 there has been no legal difference between UK and Gibraltarian citizens.
Yet, older generations of Gibraltarians can remember the days when their wages could be lower than those of British people doing the same job, and in shops, British people could be served before they would be. And the population would be overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking, while almost a third of marriages before WW2 were between Gibraltarian men and Spanish women. Indeed, the sense of “Britishness” amongst Gibraltarians was really a response to Franco’s attempts to take back Gibraltar. It was strengthened when most women and children were evacuated to Britain during WW2 and strengthened again, by Franco’s blockade. From WW2 onward the British government set out to ensure that sense of Britishness by introducing the national curriculum in Gibraltar’s schools as well as providing free university education in the UK.
But how has Brexit impacted on Gibraltar when 96% of its population voted Remain? Britain had insisted that Spain open its border as a condition to Spain joining the (then) EEC in 1986, but what now? Spain, the UK, Gibraltar and the EU have been in protracted negotiations to resolve the problem of Gibraltar that Brexit produced. And the results of those negotiations are vitally important for Gibraltar and its people. They want to retain their status as a British Overseas Territory but they need their links with Spain (and the EU) to remain close to what they were if Gibraltarians are to continue to prosper. And it works the other way too: some 15,000 people cross the border daily from Spain to work in Gibraltar.
The situation has similarities with Northern Ireland. For a solution without internal border controls, allowing for the free movement of people and goods between Gibraltar and Spain, the EU is insisting that Spain must have responsibility for the EU’s external border which would mean Spanish officials operating in Gibraltar. But Gibraltar won’t accept this, not only does the border play a physical role but it plays a mental role in maintaining a Gibraltarian identity, but there is considerable uneasiness at the thought of becoming part of Spain – the Franco years still leave their scar. And Britain continues to support Gibraltar’s stance. History is a messy business.
And so, onto another British-made anomaly: Singapore. Like Gibraltar its another tip at the end of a country, another town, city in this case, rather than a country. But whereas the population of Gibraltar is around 33,000, the population of Singapore is around 5,5 million. It is a city state and a member of the United Nations. It sits at the end of Malaysia and was, indeed, a part of Malaysia when it became independent from British colonial rule in 1963. But they separated in 1965. And this happened when, in 1959, Singapore had actually gained self-governance as a fully self-ruling state within the British Empire. So, why did it join with Malaysia only to break away after just two years? Well, let’s approach this one question at a time and deal first with why Singapore joined with Malaysia.
In 1959, Singapore became self-governing with the UK only responsible for defence and foreign affairs. The Queen remained titular head of state but she would be represented by a Singaporean. The Singapore government immediately set about making Singapore a modern economically prosperous city-state but at the same time openly supported the idea of a union with Malaya. The resources in Malaya and the additional population would be good for Singaporeans. The Federation agreement stated that “Singapore will be a state within the federation but on special conditions and with a larger measure of local autonomy than the other states forming the federation. Defence, external affairs and security will be the responsibility of the federation government; education and labour that of the Singapore government.” What is more, Singapore citizens would retain their state citizenship and would not automatically become citizens of the Federation, i.e. Malysia. Instead, they were considered “nationals” of the Federation with equal rights, but this also meant that they were subject to the “equal duties and responsibilities under the constitution of the larger federation”, to again quote the Federation agreement.
And everyone involved was sure that the racial and religious differences could be overcome. In Malaysia today, and then, there is a mix of Malays who are mostly Muslim and the distinct majority, Chinese who are a mixture of Buddhist and Christian and Indians who are Hindus. Whereas in Singapore, today, and then, the distinct majority is Chinese but with Malays and Indians as well. However, in 1959, whereas the Singapore government favoured multiracialism, in this sense meaning equality and a meritocracy, the ruling Malay party wanted to ensure the Malays weren’t left behind and favoured affirmative action policies to ensure this didn’t happen. Now, I have lived in Malaysia for a few years and I must say that my observation was that whereas the Malays are truly lovely people, they are not dynamic, they are not a go-getting people, whereas the Chinese are full of energy and extremely hard working.
And this was born out in the economies of Singapore and the rest of Malaysia. Singapore lived by trading and was a modern and dynamic city; Malysia had its rubber and palm oil plantations and its oil and gas reserves. Kuala Lumpur is, like Singapore, a modern city, but the rest of the country not so much. Singapore wanted the Federation to help finance its embryonic industries through a common market throughout the Federation whereas the Malay states saw Singapore as a rival. In fact, the Malay states wanted Singapore to help finance the development of their more backward regions, particularly those off the peninsula: Sarawak and Sabah. And there was some resentment amongst Malays that Singapore held greater control over its own budget than was the case with the Malay states. But it was really the clash in their different approaches to the issue of race that made it impossible for the Federation to work. There was racial violence in 1964.
It came to a head in 1965 when Malaysia pushed for a separation on the grounds that there were irreconcilable differences (it really was a divorce). The Singaporean leadership were deeply upset by what was forced on them. At a press conference announcing the separation, then Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who had led Singapore throughout this story, was overcome by emotion and broke down. And it was a nervous time for Singapore: could a mere city-state survive in the modern world? Well, it did more than survive; it thrived. With one of the world’s great natural harbours, trade was its obvious route to success. But it also invested in education and technology and built a strong financial sector. So that Singapore became a modern, corruption-free and orderly city; and its people have prospered. The government also ensured inclusivity and integration resulting in racial-harmony and a strong national identity. But no chewing gum – they banned it.
The Falklands/Malvinas Islands,
In this episode in my little series on history trumping geography, I’m going to take a look at the rival claims to the Falkland Islands or Las Malvinas. I’m not going to look at the war of 1982, but rather how a group of islands off the southern tip of South America, 800 miles or 1300 kilometres from Britain, is deemed as British. Like Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands are deemed a British Overseas Territory. Remember, these are bits of this world that are self-governing but have a constitutional and historical link with the UK and the UK has responsibility for their defence and for their foreign relations. And just what is the basis of Argentina’s claims to the islands. And by the way, the islands are about 300 miles or 480 kilometres from the nearest point of Argentina. And I will also look into why each side might want these islands as their own.
Buenos Aires is a great city to visit, I love it. I love Patagonia too, a true wilderness and stunningly beautiful. As you arrive in the Ministro Pistarini International Airport, known as Ezeiza locally, it will be made clear to you that Las Malvinas belong to Argentina, the same with Jorge Newbury, the airport used for domestic flights. And the same as you criss-cross the border with Chile down in Patagonia: Las Malvinas son Argentinas (the Malvinas belong to Argentina) is what you’ll see. The message proclaimed loud and clear to everyone entering the country. And in many towns and cities, road signs specify the distance to the islands.
It’s written into Argentina’s constitution: ‘legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas … as they are an integral part of the national territory’. Argentina’s 50 peso note, which went into circulation in 2015 carries a map of the Falklands on one side and on the other, an image of the gaucho, Antonio Rivero, in heroic horseback pose and carrying the Argentinian flag. Rivero was actually a common murderer but escaped British justice because at the time of the murders, a judiciary hadn’t been set up on the islands. It was enough to turn him into a mythical national hero. Though given the state of the Argentinian economy I’m not sure this is the greatest of propaganda ploys. But it’s also made clear to each generation in geography and history classes. Indeed, on April 2nd, the day that marks the Argentine invasion in 1982, school children sing the official 1941 hymn claiming the islands.
The Argentinians have, for a long time, been using maps both to support their claim to the islands (historical maps) but also by showing modern day Argentina as including the islands. The tactic seems to be that if they keep showing the islands as part of Argentina, then it will one day become the reality. It hasn’t worked so far. There was also a move in the 1970s to move the capital to Viedma in northern Patagonia, in the hope that, as Brasilia has been a unifying force for Brazilians, so would a purpose-built capital for Argentina, and it would also bring Las Malvinas into sharper focus.
Argentina’s claims to the islands rest on three arguments. Geographically, they argue that the islands are part of the Patagonian continental shelf and so, part of Argentina. Legally (and historically), they claim that as the islands formed part of Spain’s South American empire, specifically the Viceroyalty of the Rio de La Plata, when Argentina was made independent in 1816 (on my birthday as it so happens), sovereignty of the islands transferred to them. Or should have, had the British not stolen it from them. While emotionally, they claim that until the islands are a part of their national identity and until they are returned to them, the pain of their loss cannot be assuaged.
The geographic argument is flimsy. It would deny the right to an independent status of every island linked to a continental mass, Britain and Ireland immediately come to my mind, as do the Channel Islands, Cuba, Japan and Taiwan too; and there must be many, many more examples. And what if we look at continents themselves: how can we justify the division of Europe into 44 separate countries (which include Russia and Ukraine by the way) or, indeed, the thirteen countries that make up South America? As for the legal claim, well it’s a messy business and it is a fact that Argentina has disputed territory with every one of its neighbours at one time or another: Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil and Uruguay (the latter two we have touched on in my series on Brazil). What is more, until the dispute between federalists and those favouring a unitary state was ended when Buenos Aires was made the federal capital in 1880, Las Malvinas was way off the agenda. Indeed, any emotional attachment is only fairly recent, we can trace it back to the Peron government’s propaganda war in the 1940s, which includes their school textbooks and their border signs, and more recently to the disastrous war (for Argentina) in 1982. Still, Argentina can claim with some justification that Las Malvinas should be seen as a colonial issue still unresolved.
It was actually the French that first laid claim to the islands with a settlement at what they named Fort St Louis in 1764. They named the islands: Iles Malouines after the sailor’s home port of St Malo in Brittany. The Spanish quickly reclaimed the islands though and, adopting the French name, called them Las Malvinas. But no sooner had the Spanish got the islands back than their hold over South America crumbled. As we’ve already noted, Argentina declared its independence in 1816, as I said, on my birthday: July 9th. But the young Argentina’s hold on its own lands took time to be established. It was around the time of the debates between the federalists and those favouring a unitary state that Argentina encouraged Europeans to migrate so as to populate the pampas and Patagonia in order to underscore their claim to the lands: ‘to govern is to populate’ became their maxim. And incidentally it’s how a Welsh community rose in Argentina, though greater numbers would come from Germany, Italy and, ironically, England. And by the way, rugby came to Argentina via Scotland, or to be more precise, Scottish railway workers (though football came to Argentina via the English, as did cricket, but that didn’t take off).
So, what is the British claim to the islands? There are various claims to having discovered the islands in the 16th century – French, Spanish, Portuguese, British and Dutch – but the first documented landing was made by the English in 1690, followed by the French in 1701, and the first settlement was established by the French in 1764 on East Falkland. The British established a settlement on West Falkland in 1765, blithely unaware for two years that the French were their neighbours. Now comes the roots of today’s dispute for when the Spanish got to hear about the two settlements, they nearly went to war with France before France accepted Spanish rights (entrenched in the Treaty of Utrecht, the same treaty, you may remember, that ceded Gibraltar to Britain). And in 1770 the Spanish sent a fleet from Buenos Aires – five ships and more than 1,000 men –which outnumbered the British who surrendered their settlement. At the time, Britain had their hands full in North America where those pesky Americans were stirring (the American war of Independence or the American Revolution would break out in 1775). Indeed, there were similarities to 1982 as Britain felt it couldn’t back down and they regained their settlement (peacefully). But there were rumours at the time that the British had struck a secret deal with the Spanish to evacuate it again “as soon as was convenient”. There are no records of the deal but the rumours were strong and loud. And the British did, indeed, withdraw, in 1774. But they left a plaque proclaiming the islands to be the “sole right and property” of George III. There would now unfold a battle of the plaques. The Spanish ignored the British plaque. Well, not quite, they took it to Buenos Aires. But no sooner had they established their presence on the islands than their empire in South America began to crumble (encouraged by the British). The Spanish governor withdraw from the islands in 1807 and the Spanish colony was abandoned in 1811. But the Spanish left their own version of the British plaque. Whish all begs the question: whose plaque carries most clout?
Then, a little more than ten years after Argentina gained its independence, in 1828 the Argentinian government gave their permission for a German merchant, Louis Vernet, to make what use he could out of the islands which he did, eventually bringing in settlers in 1828, and in 1829 the Argentinian government made him military and civil commander of the islands. But in his attempts to regulate sealing and whalers in the surrounding waters, he seized an American whaler which led the Americans to send a warship which destroyed the settlement. And it was this that led the British to return in 1833, and re-establish their own settlement in 1840 declaring the islands to be a Crown colony, no doubt annoyed that their plaque had been taken.
Now, after 180+ years of continuous British occupation, the island’s population includes many who are descended from many generations of British settlers. And for the record, there are two pubs and a little under 3,000 people living there. The islanders certainly want to keep the status quo, the 2013 referendum clearly showed that: 99.8% voting in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory. Though one could say, a referendum would get a very different result if Argentinians were allowed to live on the islands. In fact, in a 2021 survey of 5,000 Argentinians, more than 81 percent said the country should continue to claim sovereignty over the islands. Only 10 percent said it should stop.
And as with Gibraltar, Britain has never acknowledged any inconsistency with the United Nations 1514 resolution – the Declaration over the Independence of Countries and Colonial People – that establishes that any attempt to break the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the principles and purposes of the UN. They prefer, instead, to point to the UNs Charter which asserts the right to self-determination as a fundamental right for all peoples. Britain insists that the islanders remain free to choose their own futures and the referendum of 2013 seems to have done just that. Though Argentina’s London ambassador at the time saw it differently: “We don’t want to deny them their identity”, she said, “They’re British, we respect their identity and their way of life and that they want to continue to be British. But the territory they occupy is not British.”
The islands are certainly useful as a military base more or less at the point where the South Atlantic and South Pacific Oceans meet, as well as being nicely placed for the Antarctic. And according to some experts, there are somewhere in the region of 60 million barrels of crude oil to be had. Under the waters. Though again, if we go to the United Nations, it has placed a ban on unilateral development and exploitation of territories still under dispute.
Today, Argentina’s priority is to keep the issue alive. But the truth is, if they were handed the islands tomorrow, they don’t have a socio-economic plan for them. Cynics would say that keeping the issue alive mostly serves to distract Argentinians from their economic woes (as the war in 1982 was seen as a distracting mechanism). And we could add that those economic woes stand as a strong argument for keeping the islands British. Millions of Argentinians who live outside of the few prosperous areas in the country, live quite miserable lives, as do those who live in the slums of Buenos Aires and the few other prosperous cities in the country. Why would Falklanders (as they call themselves) want to become a part of that? Argentina hasn’t a lot of support either, not outside of South America anyway. Spain isn’t even supportive of it. As for both the United Nations and the European Union, they define the islands as a territory under dispute.
So, there you are, another geographic anomaly caused by the British and where history trumps geography.