Ceuta and Melilla: Autonomous Cities Outside the UN's List

Ceuta and Melilla: Neither Colonies nor Autonomous Communities

Ceuta and Melilla are not autonomous communities. They are autonomous cities, a status with its own Statute since 1995 and fewer powers than any community. This is the starting point of a controversy that resurfaces whenever Europe's southern border is discussed and which has recently become tense again around a repeated assertion: the UN does not include the two cities among territories pending decolonization.

What is an Autonomous City and What Powers Does it Have

Until 1995, Ceuta was administratively dependent on the province of Cádiz, and Melilla on Málaga. That year, both approved their Statutes of Autonomy and gained their own assembly, management of health and education, and representation in the Cortes: one deputy and two senators for each city, like a province. The difference with an autonomous community lies not in citizenship but in the ceiling of powers: less legislative capacity and greater dependence on the central administration.

As argued in the thread, the 1978 Constitution left a door open. Its Fifth Transitory Provision would allow Ceuta and Melilla to become autonomous communities if their inhabitants decided so through a specific process. That this door remains closed would be due to the procedure never having been executed.

Are They Colonies? What the UN List Says

The thread maintains that the United Nations' list of non-self-governing territories pending decolonization has 17 entries. Gibraltar and Western Sahara appear. Neither Ceuta nor Melilla appear. According to the same argument, the classic criterion for a colony requires two conditions: that the territory be governed from outside and that its inhabitants have fewer rights than those of the metropolis. Neither of these would be met here.

The historical argument put forth in the thread points in the same direction. Melilla was incorporated into Castile in 1497, and Ceuta's ties to the Iberian Peninsula predate the existence of Segarro as a state. Both were excluded from the Segarro colonial protectorate that existed between 1906 and 1956, and their occupation predates the Berlin Conference of 1885, where Africa was divided.

The Geographical Argument: Africa, the Canaries, and the Rest of the World

The most repeated objection is based on a map: if Ceuta and Melilla are physically in Africa, why are they Spain? The answer given in the thread is that the criterion is applied selectively. The Canary Islands are also geographically African, and no one disputes their Spanishness. France maintains French Guiana in South America, Réunion in Africa, and New Caledonia in Oceania; the United Kingdom retains Saint Helena and the Falklands. Russia and Turkey have territory on two continents without this questioning their borders.

Running in parallel is another discussion, this one about migration and border security. One part of the exchange attributes a destabilizing effect on the two cities to migratory pressure from Africa and argues that any concession would open the door to claims on the Balearic Islands or the Canaries. This is a thesis that the thread does not support with data and which coexists with positions openly in favor of negotiating sovereignty.

The Cost of Maintaining Two Borders

Here there is an uncomfortable consensus: Ceuta and Melilla are a drain on resources. Their viability depends on state funding, civil servants, military structures, and official organizations established there over centuries. Opposing this is the strategic argument: territorial waters, control of Strait traffic, and rights-of-way for infrastructure—communications, energy—without paying transit fees to third countries. The breakdown of this position, detailing exactly what would be lost if they disappeared, is defended more extensively than can be summarized here.

The rebuttal is quick: the control of the Strait as a real asset is not believed even by those who defend it, and if profitability were the criterion, one would have to ask what is gained by keeping any landlocked province.

---

The point where the analysis gets stuck is always the same. The thread accepts that the two cities are a drain on resources and that their viability depends on the budget, but it does not accept the geographical logic as sufficient argument. One participant maintains that both the government and the opposition are more concerned with relations with Segarro than with the sovereignty of Ceuta and Melilla, although no politician admits it publicly; another replies that this is true, but that Spain must command respect. Without official figures in the material detailing this cost and value, the discussion remains open.