[Talk-es] Attached OSM type map of how the Spanish territorial waters of CEUTA - MELILLA and the rest should be drawn - Adjunto mapa tipo OSM de como deben dibujarse las aguas territoriales españolas de CEUTA - MELILLA y resto

[Miguel Sevilla-Callejo]

Absolutely,

Let's focus the threat and future movements of the community trying to 
fix the Spanish maritime area close to Ceuta andMelilla which were 
removed unilaterality some time ago.

Let's try to find a proper source to redraw them or, I guess, we could 
restore the limits removed.

Cheers

Miguel

On 03/05/2021 16:20, David Marín Carreño wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I think we shouldn't mix Western Sahara with Ceuta, Melilla and other 
> Spanish places of sovereignty in the North African coast, as they are 
> totally different cases.
>
> Ceuta, Melilla and the other small Spanish places of sovereignty are 
> officially and de-facto controlled by Spain.
>
> Western Sahara, as you said, was abandoned by Spain in 1975.
>
> This thread is only about the status of Spanish territorial waters of 
> Ceuta and Melilla and the rest of places of sovereignty.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
>
> El lun., 3 may. 2021 11:21, Philippe Verdy <verdyp en gmail.com 
> <mailto:verdyp en gmail.com>> escribió:
>
>     The problem of Wesern Sahara is that its status at the United
>     Nations has been left undefined, when Spain abandoned it when it
>     was a colony, without organizing the transition with their
>     inhabitants to choose their future. So Morocco claimed it (along
>     with Mauritania, that abandoned its claim after seeing that it
>     could have troubles with Algeria, and seeing that it could not
>     sustain the military forces that only Morocco could sustain,
>     leaving all powers to Morocco).
>     At the United Nations, this is still a land to decolonize by
>     Spain, but Spain does not want to invest more in this area. It
>     just chose to pass an informal agreement with Morocco (in the hope
>     that Spanish claims on Melilla and Ceuta would be respected).
>     Morocco's claims on Western Sahara was based on an historic claim
>     when Morocco was still not united and had several powers, that
>     were united later. This is debatable, because most parts of
>     Westerne Sahara were never in control of the older (smaller)
>     current rules of the Moroccan kingdom. Before independance of
>     Morroco, that brought its unification, it was a trust of France,
>     which had a peace agreement with Spain since long, and the
>     Moroccan kingdom did not violate the agremeent between France and
>     Spain there. The Morrocan claim on Westerne Sahara was an later
>     extension for political reasons to give strenght to the new of the
>     fully independant Morroco. As well France did not want to be
>     involved there (avoiding new conflicts with Algeria) and did not
>     defend the old agreement with Spain.
>     But it's a fact that Western Saharan were never involved in the
>     process to choose their own future: they were not involved in the
>     independance of Morroco, but they had more relations with
>     Mauritania, Mali and Algeria. Their own local political system was
>     largely based on oral traditions and peaceful trades with various
>     nomadic people in this area, and not ruled forally by any former
>     kingdom, just nomadic chiefferies. The exceptions being in a few
>     harbours that evolved to cities now invaded by Morrocan
>     troups (based on the illegal agreement between Spain and Morroco,
>     not ratified formally and without any instrument to the United
>     Nations, where it was never a country since the creation of the
>     united Nations or the former Society of Nations that preceded it,
>     where Morocco did not participate).
>     It's an area without formal right. Just a defacto situation with
>     conflicting political claims, where no voice was given to Western
>     Saharan inhabitants (even if legally they should still have a
>     Spanish citizenship and rights to be represented locally).
>     It's difficult to state any legitimate right without involving the
>     inhabitants, but now most of them are refugies living in
>     surrounding countries, where they have more local right than
>     inside Morocco. It's a common problem for many minoroties living
>     in anouther countries without their own locals represented in
>     legal institutions. May be Morocco could have become a federation
>     of states, but the new independant Morocco wanted to adopt a
>     centralized system. And both Morocco and Algeria (the two major
>     players involded now) cannot decide themselves, and instead insist
>     on consolidating their own countries, where they
>     legitimetely think that they have no other choices to satisfy
>     their majority population (even if they have minorities, some of
>     them represented inequally, but others not at all). Morocco has
>     started to recognize the rights of Berbers (Algeria too). But Peul
>     peoples are left behind, And only Arabs are well represented (and
>     by using the religious language of Islam as the only legal
>     language, even if Arabs were themselves former invaders of the
>     region (after Greeks, Romans, and later the newer European
>     regimes, when there was still no international right anywhere in
>     the world...).
>
>     Moroccan claims are inherited from old rights before the creation
>     of international order (not effective before the end of the 19th
>     century).
>     Time has passed. We cannot reinvent rules based only on historical
>     people that lived there. We have to live with present people, even
>     if we share multiple values of the past with multiple cultures and
>     many migrations. Those that made the history are not those that
>     ruled what would be our present (of course, present peoples were
>     never represented, but today, it is only these present people that
>     can decide on their current life and prepare the life of their
>     descendants, without necessarily taking all decisions for them:
>     any successor can decide differently, they have new problems to
>     solve collectively, and they should not inherit of the past
>     conflicts: it's our current colllective responsibiltiy to give
>     peace to our children and later descendants, and not transfer them
>     the cost of past conflicts; and there's only one way to solve it:
>     all people living today need to be represented and should have the
>     right to organize themselves and be respected by recognizing their
>     organizations instead of fighting them using old laws and brutal
>     forces).
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-es mailing list
>     Talk-es en openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-es en openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-es mailing list
> Talk-es en openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/attachments/20210506/21b9a5d1/attachment.htm>