Over the past weeks I would venture that the absence of widespread discussion on the White Paper, published during the last week of June, was perhaps as a result of our preoccupation with more urgent issues affecting our island. However, quite ironically, the very first chapter of the White Paper, namely, Defence, Security and Safety, includes issues relating to gun violence and other criminal activities in our communities which we have been dealing with over these past weeks. On the other hand, there is very little in the White Paper that is new, based on what discerning persons may have gleaned from the various speeches, policy statements, and documents coming out of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Yet I would submit that it is quite a comprehensive document that deals with most aspects of the relationship between theUnited Kingdomand its 14OverseasTerritories, in one place. And while it is a lengthy document, of some 123 pages, it puts into perspective the different kinds of territories involved and perhaps highlights the complexity of the task of administering such a diverse group. For this latter reason alone, I would recommend that we take the time to read the entire document so that we can put our own situation in context.
But before I assume that everyone understands what is a “White Paper”, let me take the time to explain its purpose. I must do so because very often you will hear some politicians and other commentators talk about “the White Paper” as if it is the “devil’s handiwork”. In fact, they often use it as a means of spreading fear among persons who would not have been exposed to exactly what a White Paper is intended to achieve. A “White Paper” is a document that a Government publishes to present its policies while at the same time providing an opportunity to hear public opinions upon them. Quoting from Wikipedia: “The provision of policy information through the use of white and green papers can help to create an awareness of policy issues among parliamentarians and the public and to encourage exchange of information and analysis. They can also serve as educational techniques.” In short, a White Paper is not a “done deal”. It is in fact a useful tool for participatory democracy by facilitating the consultative process.
Even without the foregoing definition one may recall that there was a White Paper published in 1999, namely, “The Partnership for Progress and Prosperity”. And the present White Paper just published, called “Security, Success and Sustainability”, is a document which is consequential to the discussions which would have taken place between the U.K. Government and the Overseas Territories Governments in the intervening years.
I have read the present document from cover to cover and, within the constraints of my ability to retain the material and decipher it, I have very few critical comments to put forward. However, I would strongly urge everyone to go on line; get or borrow a copy for your own edification. I believe that it would put our situation inAnguillain a much clearer perspective. It would lead us to understand why many things that impact our relationship cannot be handled in isolation, as well as why situations in some territories can impact the FCO’s policy approach to others. In short, as an individual territory it can be a challenge to negotiate in isolation. My experience of some thirty years reflects that we have been more successful in achieving our objectives asOverseasTerritorieswhen we share our experiences and coalesce on our strategies. We need to learn a lot more about each other. The White Paper can be a catalyst for advancing that process of enlightenment.
Obviously, I have no intention of going through the entire document in this article but, rather, I want to pique your interest in its contents. It begins with forewords by the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which includes theOverseasTerritories. They both reaffirm their commitment to “work with the Territories to address the challenges we face together” and they point out that,“the White Paper is broad ranging, but does not pretend to be comprehensive. It focuses on the security of the territories, their economic development and their natural environment. It looks at how we can foster high standards of governance and build strong communities. It promotes the development of wider partnerships for the territories.”
There is no question that all these are positive statements regarding our relationship and what we would wish asOverseasTerritoriesto achieve. The details of these broad objectives are outlined in the various chapters under the descriptive subtitles: Defence and Security of the Territories and their People; Successful and Resilient Economies; Cherishing the Environment; Making Government Work Better; Vibrant and Flourishing Communities; and Productive Links with the Wider World.
The White Paper also points out the importance of external organizations that may be best placed to provide assistance and support to the Territories. In this regard it highlights the EU, the Commonwealth, the UN and regional organizations. However, itmakes the point that “the EU has a substantial assistance programme that is little understood and appreciated in the Territories.” And the British indicate that they want to put a deliberate plan in place to improve access to that support.
In the Trade and Investment context, the White Paper points out that there are opportunities for investment by British businesses in theOverseasTerritoriesthat need to be explored. This is an area where we inAnguilla, in particular, have paid little attention as we focus our development more on North American Investment opportunities. And as regards all forms of development, the White Paper seeks to assist us in placing environmental considerations at the heart of the decision-making process in all of the territories.
Given all these and other positive goals and objectives outlined in the White Paper, and bearing in mind the very strained relationship that the present Government has been having with the British Government and its Officials, I decided to determine where its(the AUM’s) criticism would come from in the document. Of course, the White Paper reaffirms the British Government’s oft-stated position regarding self-determination stating that: “WhereIndependenceis an option and it is the clear and constitutionally expressed wish of the people to pursue independence, theUKwill meet its obligations to help the territory to achieve it.” Not only does the paper say that the British Government will not stand in the way of a Territory that wishes to aspire to independence, but that it will actually help it achieve it. This makes nonsense of the ongoing diatribe by the Chief Minister about the British wanting to block our move to independence because of an “oil vein” running fromVenezuelatoAnguilla. What’s more, the White Paper speaks explicitly about the offshore oil and gas activities in theFalklandsthat it is assisting them to exploit safely. There is no conspiracy theory there, and theFalkland Islandshave clearly indicated that they want to continue their relationship with the British Government.
As I have repeated time and time again, in my columns, there is absolutely no need for a revolution for Anguillians to achieveIndependence. As a matter of fact, no other formerBritishCaribbeanIslandhad to fight a revolution to gainIndependenceover the last two centuries.
It was in the very last Chapter of the White Paper, under the section UN Decolonization Committee, that I saw a statement that I was sure would make some of the key proponents of “independence now” in the AUM Government jump up. The statement on page 84 reads in part as follows: “TheUKbelieves that the UN’s Decolonization Committee no longer has a relevant role to play in respect to our territories. TheBritishOverseasTerritorieson the Committee’s list have a large measure of internal self-government and have all chosen to retain their link to theUK. In theUK’s view all our territories should have been delisted a long time ago. Nevertheless, given the view that some Members of the UN wish to retain the Committee, some democratically elected Territory representatives wish to represent their positions directly to the Committee, and to the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, at annual meetings of these Committees. The UK Government will continue to support this and these Territories right to determine their own future.”
While we in the Overseas Territories (OT’s) continue to cry out for a reduction in the powers of the Governor and the reserved legislative powers of the Secretary of State, the British Government remains firm in its position that the relationship cannot function properly if they have certain responsibilities for the OT’s and no adequate means of discharging them. Rightly or wrongly, the new White Paper has reinforced this position, so if we want to advance to more autonomy we have radical choices to make.
Speaking about the Committee on Decolonization, or the Special Committee of 24 as it is often called, let me belatedly express my opposition, as the Leader of the Anguilla United Front, to statements made by the Independent Legal Counsel for the Chief Minister, Mrs. Josephine Gumbs-Connor at the meeting in Ecuador. While I do not support Mrs. Gumbs-Connor’s position that “there is an appearance that our people are leaning increasingly towardsIndependence”— like her, neither do I have the benefit of an official poll. However, as regards her statement that “even the Opposition in the Country is now calling for thatIndependencestatus as well”, I can state categorically that the Anguilla United Front, as a Party, is not calling forIndependence.
In fact, Mrs. Gumbs-Connor herself depicted us (the AUF) as “house-slaves”, as a consequence of our position on the very subject of “Independencenow”. In my opinion that statement as well as others in her presentation point to a serious misrepresentation of the facts. And there are others within our Party who have characterized her report, even more unflatteringly. Indeed, Mrs. Gumbs-Connor’s presentation seemed more of a campaign against the Governor, the British and the past Government than a nationally inspired case for self-determination. Her case lacked the trimmings of true statesmanship. It did not lend itself to unity but rather divisiveness.
But, perhaps, an opportunity is available whereby the OT’s can enhance their level of antonomy, in this latest White Paper, through the “Joint Ministerial Council”. The operations and functions of this Council are not fully defined, but it has the remit to create greater engagement between theUKand the Territories and will have regular reporting arrangements to the UK Parliament. It is obvious that the UK will always be reluctant to relinquish many of its reserved powers. Even more obvious is the fact that the Special Committee of 24 does not have the influence to urge them to even consider doing so.
In these circumstances, the leaders of theOverseasTerritorieswho are strongly committed to achieving higher levels of self-determination have an opportunity to pursue them through this new vehicle of engagement (the Joint Ministerial Council). Indeed, rather than sitting back and expecting Independence to be the panacea for all our ills, the Chief Minister and his cohorts should be actively pursuing the many opportunities for building strong sustainable economies, support for which is mentioned in the White Paper. This is no time for “sleeping on the job!”
