On 19th March 1969, the British invaded Anguilla. Operation Sheepskin, as the invasion was called, began with over one hundred and thirty five heavily armed paratroopers — of the second Battalion Parachute Regiment (Red Devils) — and marines coming ashore via Road Bay, Crocus Bay and helicopter. Anguilla was under siege. The British invasion was an overzealous and ill-advised response to the expulsion from Anguilla of Mr William Whitlock, a British Junior Minister and Diplomat — and Britain was widely ridiculed in news media all over the world (and in some cases labelled as racist) for its unnecessary show of force.
Mr Whitlock was sent to Anguilla on a mission, on 11th March 1969, to engage with its people regarding how the British Government proposed to administer the island — and to obtain support for the proposal. However, Mr Whitlock behaved anything but diplomatically. He “snubbed” Anguillian leadership and hospitality by not using any of the vehicles provided for him, not attending the state luncheon organised to mark his visit, and ignoring the presence of revolutionary leader James Ronald Webster who was among the welcome party at the airport.
The following observations were made in The Anguilla Observer newspaper about Mr Whitlock’s visit:
“We are forced to conclude that British diplomacy has gravitated to an all time low. President elect, Mr Ronald Webster, was treated like a nonentity by the British delegation upon his arrival at the airport. He was scarcely acknowledged as anything more than a bystander blocking the way of the self-styled British conquerors.”
Mr Webster confronted Mr Whitlock by visiting the house at which Whitlock was having lunch with other British officials and, after a tense exchange, advised Mr Whitlock to leave the island because his safety could no longer be guaranteed. A warning shot was fired nearby and Mr Whitlock knew his time had come. He left Anguilla, within hours of his arrival, aboard an aircraft organised by the revolutionaries for his departure. Eight days later, the British invaded Anguilla.
Like something out of an old movie, one component of the invasion was to drop leaflets from helicopters to explain their actions. The leaflets read in part:
“When Mr Whitlock came to Anguilla on 11th March he made proposals under which Her Majesty would appoint a Commissioner to deal directly with you.
These proposals are in the real interest of the people of Anguilla. They would permit peaceful progress under an orderly Administration, formed of people you can trust….
It is not our purpose to force you to return to an Administration you do not want….
Her Majesty’s Government have therefore taken the necessary measures to appoint Mr Lee as Her Majesty’s Commissioner so that there can be peace, stability and progress in the island. He comes as your friend.”
Fifty two years have passed and we must ask ourselves, whether our relationship with the British Government has changed significantly. From then, until now, the British Government has appointed Commissioners (now called Governors) to oversee the affairs of Anguilla — and to ensure “good governance” as they refer to it. From then, until now, we have been told by the British Government that they are acting in the “interest of the people of Anguilla”. From then, until now, they have claimed that their only interest is to ensure “peace, stability and [prosperity] in the island”. From then, until now, they have told us, implicitly and explicitly, that we can “trust” them to do what is best for us. From then, until now, they have held out the assurance that they are our “friend”, and have set out the terms of that friendship in the famous White Paper called the Partnership for Progress and Prosperity.
From then, until now, we have seen instances of them “snubbing” our own elected Government and seeking to impose their wishes on the people. From then, until now, we have witnessed their lack of confidence in our own technical experts — preferring instead to substitute or rely on their own. From then, until now, we have seen instances of them “flexing their muscles” by threatening to take actions — which could undermine Anguilla’s stability — as a means of forcing our Government to comply with their demands. On the other hand, from then, until now, we have also benefitted from their financial support, military presence in times of crisis, technical assistance, education opportunities, development assistance — and the list goes on.
Anguilla’s relationship with the United Kingdom Government is a complicated one. We are not equal partners in this historically rocky relationship. While welcoming support from the United Kingdom, Anguilla does not want to be told what to do. But the United Kingdom’s position seems to be that if you want my support, you have to do what I say or get out from under my roof. This is the dilemma facing Anguilla. How much will we sacrifice to maintain our relationship with the United Kingdom? Alternatively, are we in a position to leave that relationship without sinking further into crisis? For the United Kingdom, I would imagine they would ask themselves, how much autonomy are we willing to give Anguilla? How do we ensure that our financial support is being channelled in the right areas?
The Government of Anguilla and the United Kingdom Government are locking horns yet again. We have also been watching with interest, over the years, the closer oversight the United Kingdom has been exerting over the Overseas Territories. For example, the suspension of the TCI Constitution, the recent establishment of a Commission to investigate alleged corruption in the BVI, the criminal prosecution of some Government Ministers, the imposition of the Financial Adviser in the Constitution of some territories, and in the case of Anguilla the appointment of a Financial Adviser. We therefore cannot escape the question: will there be another British invasion? We do not expect them to send the Red Devils this time. Perhaps the invaders will “come as [our] friend”.
