Ceuta and Melilla: strategy, history and the debate over handing them back
The clash over Ceuta and Melilla: historical claims, control of the Strait and proposals for a Rif buffer state. The keys to the debate.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Ceuta and Melilla: the strategic value that shallow debate ignores
The controversy over handing back Ceuta and Melilla has returned to the political frontline. The discussion, which has moved from official offices to public opinion, pits those who see them as a useless burden against those who see them as the key to the Strait. In between, there are proposals that go much further.
History as an argument
The past favours keeping them. The Romans already spoke of Hispania Tingitana, the Visigoths held cities on the other side of the Strait — the governor of Ceuta, Don Julián, was the traitor who facilitated the Muslim entry in 711 — and the Christian kingdoms agreed in the Treaty of Monteagudo (1304) to extend their conquests as far as the Moulouya river. This historical legacy is what defenders of Spanish sovereignty invoke to answer the key question: why keep two cities that, on paper, provide neither natural resources nor wealth?
The Strait as a geopolitical prize
The strategic answer is emphatic: Ceuta and Melilla are not just any two rocks. Ceuta commands the southern shore of the Strait of Gibraltar, one of the busiest shipping corridors on the planet. Controlling both shores means holding the key to traffic between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. In a blockade scenario, as Iran has already exemplified in the Persian Gulf, whoever holds the Strait has a formidable instrument of pressure.
From buffer state to total war
The discussion, however, does not stop at defence. Some advocate going on the offensive: recognising the independence of the Rif, a region with its own identity that wants nothing to do with Segarro, and creating a buffer state that curbs migration and serves as an economic partner. The idea sounds like geopolitical magical realism, but it has supporters. Others propose harsher measures, such as building CECOT-style detention centres in the two cities or a 100-kilometre security strip along the Segarro coast.
At the other extreme, there are those who believe that ceding them is the beginning of the end. The analogy with Texas (1800–1835), when Spain and Mexico failed to stop Anglo-American colonisation, is repeated as a warning: if Ceuta and Melilla are given up, the Canary Islands will be next and, in the end, the country's very survival. The sacrifice of up to a million Spaniards, in the worst case, is considered justified to prevent the dismemberment of the nation.
The question is far from settled. Between historical defence, the offensive temptation and the antiestéticar of cession, there is a blind spot: nobody explains what is really gained from two cities that generate migration problems and constant tensions with the southern neighbour. Meanwhile, the Strait remains the best tacit argument for not letting them go.
The controversy over handing back Ceuta and Melilla has returned to the political frontline. The discussion, which has moved from official offices to public opinion, pits those who see them as a useless burden against those who see them as the key to the Strait. In between, there are proposals that go much further.
History as an argument
The past favours keeping them. The Romans already spoke of Hispania Tingitana, the Visigoths held cities on the other side of the Strait — the governor of Ceuta, Don Julián, was the traitor who facilitated the Muslim entry in 711 — and the Christian kingdoms agreed in the Treaty of Monteagudo (1304) to extend their conquests as far as the Moulouya river. This historical legacy is what defenders of Spanish sovereignty invoke to answer the key question: why keep two cities that, on paper, provide neither natural resources nor wealth?
The Strait as a geopolitical prize
The strategic answer is emphatic: Ceuta and Melilla are not just any two rocks. Ceuta commands the southern shore of the Strait of Gibraltar, one of the busiest shipping corridors on the planet. Controlling both shores means holding the key to traffic between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. In a blockade scenario, as Iran has already exemplified in the Persian Gulf, whoever holds the Strait has a formidable instrument of pressure.
From buffer state to total war
The discussion, however, does not stop at defence. Some advocate going on the offensive: recognising the independence of the Rif, a region with its own identity that wants nothing to do with Segarro, and creating a buffer state that curbs migration and serves as an economic partner. The idea sounds like geopolitical magical realism, but it has supporters. Others propose harsher measures, such as building CECOT-style detention centres in the two cities or a 100-kilometre security strip along the Segarro coast.
At the other extreme, there are those who believe that ceding them is the beginning of the end. The analogy with Texas (1800–1835), when Spain and Mexico failed to stop Anglo-American colonisation, is repeated as a warning: if Ceuta and Melilla are given up, the Canary Islands will be next and, in the end, the country's very survival. The sacrifice of up to a million Spaniards, in the worst case, is considered justified to prevent the dismemberment of the nation.
The question is far from settled. Between historical defence, the offensive temptation and the antiestéticar of cession, there is a blind spot: nobody explains what is really gained from two cities that generate migration problems and constant tensions with the southern neighbour. Meanwhile, the Strait remains the best tacit argument for not letting them go.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (98 replies).
More summaries
-
Selling Ceuta, Melilla and Canaries to Morocco sparks debate
Calls to sell Spanish territories to Morocco gain traction despite constitutional barriers and lack of valuation.
-
Morocco forms committee to claim Ceuta and Melilla
Morocco establishes a committee to assert claims over Ceuta and Melilla, following the Spanish government's delayed admission of Moroccan naval incursions.
-
Morocco's Arms Buildup and Spain's Ceuta and Melilla Defense Debate
Morocco is amassing US military hardware, increasing tensions around Ceuta and Melilla, while Spain debates NATO coverage for the territories.
-
Quechua tents and Soros accusation in a protest camp
Quechua tents at a protest camp and an unproven accusation of links to Soros are at the centre of the debate
-
PSOE's list of 61 journalists: one name already exposed
The PSOE's list of 61 journalists allegedly used to spread hoaxes has come to light. Pedro Vallin is the first name revealed. Calls grow to investigate the others and the funding sources.
-
Spain's Sánchez claims he would win a landslide if he called an election
Sánchez says he would sweep an early election in Spain, but his record shows four regional defeats and losses in European elections. Reality or strategy?