Moroccan Occupation of Ceuta & Melilla

[Catalan]

This was a topic that my uncle and I were discussing with a lieutenant colonel friend of his who also is a professor at the Politécnica of Madrid, and I thought was pretty interesting what he said. It should be noted that when Morocco 'invaded' (if we can call it that) Perejil Spain responded with overwhelming force, but have Spanish external politics changed since then (especially with Zapatero)? Furthermore, we've all witnessed the willingness of the Spanish government to renounce the Western Sahara after the Moroccan Green March, although admittedly that was also due to the decolonization of the continent and the fact that this territory probably offered Spain little or no economic benefit (and was not politically correct at the time - 1976). Regardless, what do you believe would happen if Morocco launched operations to occupy Spanish Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa?

 

This can either be a military occupation, or something similar to the Green March - a civilian led offensive, in which Spanish troops would find it difficult to shoot back (with Moroccan militants intermixed between civilians). In the former case, what the colonel said was that the war would be so expensive - regardless of the fact that Spain could win a war against Morocco in a matter of weeks - that it would be more economically beneficial to simply give the two cities to Morocco (I doubt that this would happen, but it's just a matter of comparing the costs). In the latter's case, how would Spain take charge of the situation?

 

What is the United States' position, especially with Zapatero still as president? I know that during the Perejil exercise the United States warned Morocco about the presence of a nuclear submarine off their coast, which is what probably finally put a halt to Morocco's willingness to go to war with Spain over the small island off their coast. Would the United States do the same now, even if Spain is in NATO? The United States has not cared about re-arming Morocco (even though I don't think their F-16s will pose a threat; the FREMM frigate, OTOH, might). In any case, I think the more realistic scenario is a 'second Green March'.

 

What do you think?

[BansheeOne]

I don't know about the US position, but something struck me and made me look it up: According to Article 42 (7) of the EU Treaty as modified by the Treaty of Lisbon, all members owe to render all the aid and assistance in their power in case of an armed attack on another's sovereign territory period. IOW it's lacking the restriction of "in Europe" of Article 5 WEU Treaty, which itself was already stricter than Article 5 NATO Treaty which requires each party only to take action "as it deems necessary". That would include all overseas territories of EU members, like French Guyana, the Falklands, Aruba and every other last French/British/Dutch/Spanish/Portugese island in the world. Never occurred to me before.

[Tomas Hoting]

This was a topic that my uncle and I were discussing with a lieutenant colonel friend of his who also is a professor at the Politécnica of Madrid, and I thought was pretty interesting what he said. It should be noted that when Morocco 'invaded' (if we can call it that) Perejil Spain responded with overwhelming force, but have Spanish external politics changed since then (especially with Zapatero)? Furthermore, we've all witnessed the willingness of the Spanish government to renounce the Western Sahara after the Moroccan Green March, although admittedly that was also due to the decolonization of the continent and the fact that this territory probably offered Spain little or no economic benefit (and was not politically correct at the time - 1976). Regardless, what do you believe would happen if Morocco launched operations to occupy Spanish Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa?

 

This can either be a military occupation, or something similar to the Green March - a civilian led offensive, in which Spanish troops would find it difficult to shoot back (with Moroccan militants intermixed between civilians). In the former case, what the colonel said was that the war would be so expensive - regardless of the fact that Spain could win a war against Morocco in a matter of weeks - that it would be more economically beneficial to simply give the two cities to Morocco (I doubt that this would happen, but it's just a matter of comparing the costs). In the latter's case, how would Spain take charge of the situation?

 

What is the United States' position, especially with Zapatero still as president? I know that during the Perejil exercise the United States warned Morocco about the presence of a nuclear submarine off their coast, which is what probably finally put a halt to Morocco's willingness to go to war with Spain over the small island off their coast. Would the United States do the same now, even if Spain is in NATO? The United States has not cared about re-arming Morocco (even though I don't think their F-16s will pose a threat; the FREMM frigate, OTOH, might). In any case, I think the more realistic scenario is a 'second Green March'.

 

What do you think?

 

Slightly OT: Did you kick good old Juan Carlos out of Spain and declare a republic, with Zapatero becoming El Presidente? Last time I checked he was still only Prime Minister?

 

IMHO the whole scenario sounds a bit like the Falkland war in 1982. The US might try and mediate between Spain and Morocco, kinda like Haig's shuttle diplomacy, but in the end, why should they favour Morocco over a NATO ally after an international aggression? When Argentina invaded the Falklands, the Reagan administration was in a bit of quandry as they had to "choose" between an ally in the struggle against communism in Latin America (Argentina) and their most important ally in the NATO (UK). On the one hand, the US criticized colonialism (depends on wheter or not you consider the Falklands to be a British colony) and brought up the example of the Suez crisis, feared a loss of respect for the US and European democracies as the result of a British military reponse and therefore an increase of Soviet influence in Southern America. On the other hand, Argentina's invasion and military aggression was a clear breach of international rules and regulations, endangered world peace and also violated the right of self-determination of the Falklanders under Article 1 of the UN charter. I suppose the people in Ceuta & Melilla prefer to stay Spanish citizens and have delcared so in the past numerous times. It's obvious that the last points were of much bigger importance for the US in the end.

 

One possible solution might be a condominium, a joint administration between Spain and Morocco where both nations have equal rights, or maybe a "leaseback" arrangement for 99 years after which Morocco's sovereignty is recognized. If Morocco doesn't accept one of these solutions (which IMHO would provide the most positive outcome for them I can think of), the US and the EU would certainly support a Spanish military response.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Tomas Hoting

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 20, 2024 by Junior FO

[Guest JamesG123]

Since it is recognised Spanish territory would it also not trigger NATO treaty obligations?

 

Regardless, I'm pretty sure the Moroccans would get thier clocks cleaned in short order.

[BansheeOne]

Since it is recognised Spanish territory would it also not trigger NATO treaty obligations?

 

Not by the letter of the treaty.

 

Article 6 (1)

 

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

 

* on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

 

* on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

(1) The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.

 

(2) On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.

[Richard Lindquist]

I am not too familiar with the demographics in this case.

 

In measuring a US response, I would think that you have too weigh the demographics of the case to detrmine which vitally important nation (Spain with its regional US bases or Morrocco as one of the few remaining sane governments in the Islamic world) you are going to back.

 

In the case of the Falklands, you had a "colonial" power hanging on to a colony largely populated with natives of the colonial power. Argentina in this case wasn't trying a reunification with Argentines, merely a land grab of something for "national glory".

 

If these Spanish enclaves are mostly populated by Spaniards, you would have to side with Spain. If they are primarily ethnically and linguistically Moroccan with a small cadre of Spanish administrators (like the cases of Macau and Goa) you would have to side with Morocco.

[Catalan]

I have never been to Ceuta or Melilla (although, I would like to visit the two cities when I get a chance), but they are fully Spanish cities and are represented in congress. I believe that it has a large Spanish population, but obviously, and especially with so much immigration in Spain (immigration in Spain is second only to the immigration into the United States) the two cities have large Moroccan populations. However, I'm under the belief that it's a similar situation to the Gibraltar - neither the majority of Spaniards nor the majority of Moroccans want the cities to pass to Rabat's rule, because obviously the economic benefits for Moroccan citizens in Ceuta and Melilla is that they are Spanish cities and therefore have a higher level of economic opportunity than they would otherwise have if they were Moroccan.

[Mikel2]

I am not too familiar with the demographics in this case.

 

In measuring a US response, I would think that you have too weigh the demographics of the case to detrmine which vitally important nation (Spain with its regional US bases or Morrocco as one of the few remaining sane governments in the Islamic world) you are going to back.

 

In the case of the Falklands, you had a "colonial" power hanging on to a colony largely populated with natives of the colonial power. Argentina in this case wasn't trying a reunification with Argentines, merely a land grab of something for "national glory".

 

If these Spanish enclaves are mostly populated by Spaniards, you would have to side with Spain. If they are primarily ethnically and linguistically Moroccan with a small cadre of Spanish administrators (like the cases of Macau and Goa) you would have to side with Morocco.

 

 

By the same token, pretty soon the US will have to give much of its territory to Mexico

 

Or if proximity to Morocco is a factor, why shouldn't Germany be entitled to France? After all, France is in Germany's doorstep...

 

Spain has had Ceuta, Melilla for 400 years, long before any of the modern african states were stablished. I personally couldn't care less if Spain gave them to Morocco, but certainly NOT under those terms.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Mikel2

[Richard Lindquist]

By the same token, pretty soon the US will have to give much of its territory to Mexico

 

Or if proximity to Morocco is a factor, why shouldn't Germany be entitled to France? After all, France is in Germany's doorstep...

 

Spain has had Ceuta, Melilla for 400 years, long before any of the modern african states were stablished. I personally couldn't care less if Spain gave them to Morocco, but certainly NOT under those terms.

 

 

As to your first point, we have already seen that happen where Albanians moved into Kosovo, crowded out the Serbs then splt from Serbia. Yes, some mexicans call moving into the SW US the "reconquista".

 

Unless the populations of Ceuta and Melila are majority Spanish, I would have to classify them as the equivalent of Hongkong, Macau, Goa, the Canal Zone in Panama, and Guantanamo Bay and other small enclases of that sort.

[RETAC21]

As to your first point, we have already seen that happen where Albanians moved into Kosovo, crowded out the Serbs then splt from Serbia. Yes, some mexicans call moving into the SW US the "reconquista".

 

Unless the populations of Ceuta and Melila are majority Spanish, I would have to classify them as the equivalent of Hongkong, Macau, Goa, the Canal Zone in Panama, and Guantanamo Bay and other small enclases of that sort.

 

Not likely to change since immigration there is tightly controlled and muslims who want to be Moroccans remain a minority. Also, the whole Spanish strategic premise is overwhelming superiority over Morocco so even if they take them, they will loose and Algeria will be willing to share the spoils.

[swerve]

As to your first point, we have already seen that happen where Albanians moved into Kosovo, crowded out the Serbs then splt from Serbia. ...

 

Not really. According to Yugoslavian censuses Albanians outnumbered Serbs in Kosovo about 2:1 from when the territory was regained by Serbia in the First Balkan War, almost 100 years ago, to the 1961 census. Their population share was quite stable in those 50 years. Any large-scale immigration was before that date, anecdotes suggesting that the population mix changed drastically when large numbers of Serbs left in two major waves during the 17th & 18th century Habsburg-Ottoman wars, to settle along the Austrian Military Frontier (more recently called Krajina - the border areas of Croatia which attempted to secede in the early 1990s) & Vojvodina, & were replaced by land-hungry Albanians who moved onto their vacated farms. Note that these migrations were prompted by external factors, not Albanian pressure. There were significant population movements during the 19th century, during the various wars of independence of the Balkan states, as Moslems were evicted (pretty thoroughly: the Moslem third or so of the population of Southern Greece completely disappeared, for example) from the new states, & fled to territory which was still Turkish-held, from which some Christians were evicted, with massacres on both sides. It seems that the already substantial Albanian share of Kosovos population rose during this period, & this may be when it became a majority.

 

The "ethnic cleansing" slowed down in the 20th century, but didn't stop. Greeks expelled Bulgarians, Makedonians, Turks & Albanians, Turkey expelled Greeks (exchanged for Turks from Greece) & Armenians (& killed rather a lot), Bulgaria expelled Greeks (exchanged for Bulgarians from Greece) & Turks, & Serbia planned to expel a few hundred thousand Albanians & Turks to Turkey in the 1930s, but the Turks decided they wouldn't accept them, so the plan was canned.

 

The crash in the Serb share of the population after the breakup of Yugoslavia was accompanied by a drop in the total numbers of Albanians, not an increase. The smaller drop in the Serb share of the population in the 30 years before that was due to two main factors (as well as, perhaps, pressure from Albanians): differing birthrates, & differing rates of rural-urban migration. Rural Serbs had better opportunities to find work in the relatively prosperous cities & towns outside Kosovo than Albanians, who were worse-educated, spoke Serbo-Croat less well or not at all, & may have suffered from discrimination when seeking work. So Albanians stayed in their impoverished rural backwater, while Serbs moved to get far better-paid jobs in Belgrade, etc. Comparing rural-urban migration rates in different areas of the former Yugoslavia, the low rate of Albanian out-migration is striking, while Serb out-migration was quite normal, for such a poor part of the country. In fact, it was lower than for some overwhelmingly Serb districts within Serbia proper. The odd thing about Kosovo was that for somewhere so poor, so few people left. The Serb population was stable in the 1960s, fell about 5% in the 1970s, & 10% in the 1980s. The rapid increase in Albanian population over the same period was due entirely to natural growth, not immigration.

 

So as you see, it's not a simple "Albanians moved in and forced Serbs out" thing. In recent years Serbs moved out of poor areas (but not quite as poor as Kosovo) inside Serbia proper just as fast, & often faster; the periods of Albanian in-migration in the past were accompanied by mass movements of Serbs for reasons mostly unconnected to Albanian pressure; and the Serbs mostly gave as good as they got, & sometimes better.

Edited April 23, 2008 by swerve

[swerve]

...

 

Spain has had Ceuta, Melilla for 400 years, long before any of the modern african states were stablished. I personally couldn't care less if Spain gave them to Morocco, but certainly NOT under those terms.

 

Ceuta was formally recognised as part of Spain in 1668, which is after the establishment of the modern kingdom of Morocco. It had been Portuguese territory when Spain annexed Portugal in 1580, & was kept after Portugal regained independence. But Melilla has been Spanish for over 500 years, having been seized from the Kingdom of Fez. That was overthrown by the Saadians, who ruled Morocco from Marrakesh until overthrown by the present dynasty in the mid-17th century. Hang on - Spain has also changed dynasty & borders since then, & has had a period of foreign rule followed by reinstatement of the ancien regime.

Edited April 23, 2008 by swerve

[Guest bojan]

Swerve, nice but you are forgetting two things:

1. WW2 cleansing of the Serbs from Kosovo and post-WW2 forbidding of return*. Instead those were replaced with peasants from poor areas of Montenegro and Herzegovina.

 

2. Albanian immigration from Albania that was a major factor in movement of educated Albanians from Kosovo to other parts of Serbia/Yugoslavia**.

 

*Overplayed (in it's part in Serb/Albanian balance. Largely ignored when it came to really important thing, loss of educated Serbian population) in Serbian sources, but it still happened.

 

**Relations between those Albanians that lived on Kosovo before and those that came during/after WW2 were mostly bad, sometimes worse then Serb/Albanian relations - Former considered later uneducated, ungrateful f***s, while later considered former Serb lackeys and sell-souls. Most of Albanians in Communist leadership came from 1st part, majority of troublemakers in 50/60/70/80s came from 2nd. Only in the mid-late 80s did 1nd part started revolting - Azem Vlasi being most famous example of former Communist party official.

[RETAC21]

Ceuta was formally recognised as part of Spain in 1668, which is after the establishment of the modern kingdom of Morocco. It had been Portuguese territory when Spain annexed Portugal in 1580, & was kept after Portugal regained independence. But Melilla has been Spanish for over 500 years, having been seized from the Kingdom of Fez. That was overthrown by the Saadians, who ruled Morocco from Marrakesh until overthrown by the present dynasty in the mid-17th century. Hang on - Spain has also changed dynasty & borders since then, & has had a period of foreign rule followed by reinstatement of the ancien regime.

 

Ts, ts, what period of "foreign rule"? you won't be referring to the Napoleonic invasion? At that time a coolaborationist government was set up but a legitimate government, in the form of the juntas remained and I don't think the French considered the country are being under their "rule", quite the contrary in fact.

[swerve]

Swerve, nice but you are forgetting two things:

1. WW2 cleansing of the Serbs from Kosovo and post-WW2 forbidding of return*. Instead those were replaced with peasants from poor areas of Montenegro and Herzegovina.

 

2. Albanian immigration from Albania that was a major factor in movement of educated Albanians from Kosovo to other parts of Serbia/Yugoslavia**.

 

*Overplayed (in it's part in Serb/Albanian balance. Largely ignored when it came to really important thing, loss of educated Serbian population) in Serbian sources, but it still happened.

 

**Relations between those Albanians that lived on Kosovo before and those that came during/after WW2 were mostly bad, sometimes worse then Serb/Albanian relations - Former considered later uneducated, ungrateful f***s, while later considered former Serb lackeys and sell-souls. Most of Albanians in Communist leadership came from 1st part, majority of troublemakers in 50/60/70/80s came from 2nd. Only in the mid-late 80s did 1nd part started revolting - Azem Vlasi being most famous example of former Communist party official.

 

Things I didn't know about! Thanks for the information.

 

You highlight even more, how complicated the whole thing is. But in the Balkans, everything's always complicated, isn't it?

[swerve]

Ts, ts, what period of "foreign rule"? you won't be referring to the Napoleonic invasion? At that time a coolaborationist government was set up but a legitimate government, in the form of the juntas remained and I don't think the French considered the country are being under their "rule", quite the contrary in fact.

 

OK, let's call it occupation, even if it was never quite complete.

[Catalan]

OK, let's call it occupation, even if it was never quite complete.

 

It was actually quite the feat; until recently, we had to tie our bullets to our guns so that when we fired them we could haul them back in and reuse it. We're too poor to afford more than two bullets per soldier.