DJHammer played a calypso on Klass FM 92.9 this morning that jolted me into the realisation that nearly 50 years had passed since the so called British “invasion” on 19th March 1969. That significant milestone had passed without so much as a gasp from our AUF Government or a mention from the Governor. The calypsonian’s plaintive question ‘Why did Mother England do that?’ will likely remain unanswered perhaps for many years more while we fight to survive.
I was nearly 7 years old on 19 March 1969 and recall little about the warship that landed in Island Harbour. What I remember is that our people were nice and that our women were strong and that all the children were treated with respect because they knew where Ronald Webster was hiding and had been sworn to secrecy. They were honourable and intent on keeping their word. The vacant looks on their faces when the paratroopers asked questions were precious and, dulled by the passage of time, are vaguely replicated in the looks our youth present when the Police ask questions relative to breaches of law and order in our community. How history repeats itself.
I also remember the helicopters and the flyers that rained over us. I remember the amazing generosity of the paratroopers as they shared their rations of delicious English bacon with the children. Even now I see the children’s faces mirrored in those of the recipients of distinguished English honours.
Surely these kindly souls were no invaders! What was the ‘invasion’ about anyway? A commentator, in answering that question yesterday, suggested that we are still under British occupation and perhaps the tactics of sharing English bacon effectively annulled the offence and advance of the Enemy. Clearly our willingness to be treated, and to expect favour, conflicts with our desire for independence.
The hypocrisy that camouflages our prevailing sense of unworthiness is understandable. There is no love or trust lost between the British and the Anguillian, although it may seem that way. Perhaps that is why our former Chief Minister Hughes could continue with his accusations of British Imperialism without any backlash for many decades. The decision of the British Governor who had responsibility for our offshore banks and their depositors sounded the death knell on our indigenous banks without so much as a raised eyebrow. Needless to note that the banks represented 80 percent of the local economy; that was regrettable but hey, that was a matter for the local Government and they mismanaged their responsibilities. So said the British.
The ambivalence in the relationships is even more troubling when we consider the argument that we did not really have a Revolution. Some claim that this 50 year Celebration is a hoax and to be downplayed anyway. Indeed the Honourable Chief Minister dubbed it a ‘rebellion’ only, conveniently forgetting the several Anguillians who went to prison and faced treason charges. To his mind it was not a forcible overthrow of any Government or any system. He chose to focus on the fact that we remained British by choice, a “British democracy” he will have us believe. So the invasion was not an invasion, better to forget that the incident happened at all. The British argue that at most it may have been an unwelcome intrusion in our lives. It certainly was not an invasion in any accepted sense of the word. We were always British and no foreign powers were involved. Case closed.
On 12th September 2017, only seven days after Hurricane Irma struck Anguilla on 5th September, Rupert Jones, erstwhile Attorney General of Anguilla, wrote in The Guardian: “The £32m pledged by the UK government is a drop in the ocean. If Britain wants to distance itself from perceived tax havens, now is hardly the time”. We know now that Britain’s contribution has been increased from that figure, but at only £60m it does not stretch beyond the restoration of a small number of government buildings.
It is instructive to compare Britain’s financial response with that of the Netherlands’ response towards Dutch St Maarten (or the French response towards French St Martin for that matter).
Towards the end of November 2017, the Dutch St Maarten premier resigned after refusing to agree to conditions proposed by the Dutch government to release some 550 million Euros (US$656 million or about £480m) in aid; yes £480m, compared with the £60m granted to Anguilla by the British government. The conditions aimed to safeguard the funds, including a requirement that the government set up a monitoring system and implement anti-corruption measures. Does that sound familiar, and are those requirements reasonable? Should local government in St Maarten (or by the same token Anguilla) have to be accountable for assistance and relief?
Ronald Webster did not trust the British and his lifelong ambition was to ween Anguilla fully from any form of dependence on them. He maintained that history would validate his view that the British were the true adversaries of the Anguilla Revolution and the real felons of opportunity for our People. He readily associated with the histories of Ireland and Scotland and felt we shared much with vulnerable British citizens everywhere. He questioned the relationship as an Overseas Territory and considered that the Department of International Development should be responsible for our administration rather than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He insisted on Transparency and Accountability and was quick to see similar patterns in the Dutch relations.
The relationship between Anguilla and the British Government has been highly unsatisfactory over the years. Without looking back very far we can remember the former (AUM) government, bashing the British at every opportunity. And while the present (AUF) government likes to present a facade of skilful diplomacy and good relations with the British, it cannot help Anguilla’s cause that it says one thing to the electorate and another thing to the British, while stubbornly failing to put its house in order in terms of economic priorities and transparency against corruption. Why, in those circumstances, should Britain spend money on Anguilla that it can more effectively spend at home?
Yet as Rupert Jones points out, Britain’s treatment of other UK territories – the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, for instance – has been rather different. To put it in perspective, the government recently spent £285m on St Helena, its territory in the South Atlantic, for an airport that, sadly, is effectively unusable. The UK’s foreign aid budget is around £12bn. There has not yet been any suggestion of other forms of support, such as UK exchange programmes for affected students. Following the volcanic eruptions in the neighbouring territory of Montserrat in the 1990s, two thirds of the population relocated to the UK. Time will tell what is required.
We now know a great deal more about what is happening in Sint Maarten and in the Dutch Overseas Territories than in Anguilla. Even the town hall meetings occurring in Sint Eustatius put us to shame in terms of transparency. The move in Sint Eustatius on 6th February 2018, to dissolve the local authority, re-ignited interest in the present day struggle for decolonization. The move in Statia came after a Report by the Dutch State Secretary that suggested that the local administration was lawless and responsible for financial mismanagement inter alia. With no prior consultation with the local population, a Government Commission was deployed to replace the local administration. It was an eerie reminder of the British takeover in Turks and Caicos Islands.
And what does that development in Sint Eustatius portend for Anguilla? As one Minister said to the Chief Minister recently, ‘Silence does not mean that focused hard work is not happening behind closed doors’.
I think we need to better define who we are and decide whether we want to remain third class citizens for the next 50 years. What do you think?
Ben Berridge’s 23rd December 2017 letter from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Hon. Chief Minister, and the European Union’s threat to blacklist Anguilla on the heel of Irma, are perhaps harbingers of the future, indicators of what it is we risk. In Anguilla’s case, considering the British courtesies extended to our Chief Minister, would the prerequisites listed in the letter be considered unreasonable? If we fail to meet the requirements and grants are withdrawn, or if our economy fails, would the resulting takeover be viewed by the international community as a COLONIAL POWERGRAB? Would any of the moves advocated be viewed as a move to protect the local people from themselves? Would these actions be viewed as undermining Sovereignty?
The questions are many. Based on my interpretation of the letter the possibility of a British invasion in Anguilla is not farfetched. There is clearly an effort on Governor Foy’s part, and also on the Chief Minister’s part, to show that our relationship with the British is congenial at least. They repeatedly claim that they are working hard for the benefit of Anguilla.
But what are we to make of the 23rd December letter. After all, it is a letter that would not have seen the light of day except for DJHammer’s diligence last week. The very severe tone of the letter, however muted with respect, is another opportunity to minimize the Constitution and our progress. Perhaps it is for that reason that we have not had either local or British interest in strengthening our governance and parliamentary institutions until recently. An international outcry may be repeated but the British relationship and positioning will be in excellent company with the Dutch and other OECD friends. We will be invaded again and our people still none the wiser! Time will tell.26
