Last week I mentioned that my absence fromAnguillaon Anguilla Day somehow made me feel unpatriotic. Of course being patriotic has absolutely nothing to do with being present in the flesh. Patriotism is in the heart. Wherever we find ourselves on Anguilla Day we can celebrate our island; reflect on where we are; where we have come from; and what is needed to see us through to the fulfillment of the vision of our leaders some forty-five years ago. Despite the fact that I was several thousand miles away, I was still very privileged to get an advanced copy of the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool’s address. And, today, I am also eternally grateful to one of my sources that provided me with both an audio and an electronic version of the presentations by the Father of the Nation, the Hon. James Ronald Webster. I must say that Mr. Webster’s presentation and his letter to the Chief Minister, delivered by his daughter, were both most statesmanlike and befitting the station of one who is acclaimed Father of the Nation.
Mr. Webster was most humble, gracious and wise in the manner in which he offered advice to the Chief Minister, and his administration, on the subject ofIndependenceforAnguilla. I was very happy to note that what he had to say was appropriately placed in its historical context and supported by empirical evidence and sound analysis. The Father of the Nationtook the time to explain the importance ofIndependenceas a national aspiration — and not simply as a solution to our economic woes or to any disagreement with the British Government or the Governor. In his concluding remarks he stated:
“I have said all this to emphasize one single fact. We need to begin the process towards independence by means of a referendum. We cannot throw the Governor and the British Government off the island as we did with the St. Kitts police 45 years ago. We have at our disposal their words and Orders in Council of commitment about our future, and we have the facility of a referendum to choose between our present status as anOverseasTerritoryand a fully Independent State whether under your Government or a successive Government of Anguilla.
“Let us begin this process now: set in motion the process for a referendum. You have the benefit of getting approval both in the Executive Council, as well as the House of Assembly, where the Government has the majority of Elected Members. Once the referendum has been decided upon then comes the need to sensitize our people across the length and breadth ofAnguillaabout independence and the importance of unity on the issue. Give Anguillians a chance, whatever their views are, to vote for their future one way or another and take the chance we took in our early referendums of 1967 and 1969. At least your Government would have taken a practical step towards the question ofIndependenceforAnguilla.”
Mr. Webster arrived at this conclusion after explaining that the issue ofIndependenceforAnguillais a matter for Anguillians to decide. He used a number of past and recent pronouncements, legislation and policy positions to illustrate this point. He even quoted Her Majesty the Queen in an address she delivered in Anguilla in February 1984 when she said:“The choices aboutAnguilla’s future are for Anguillians to make. TheUnited Kingdomwill guarantee your freedom to choose whatever constitutional status you consider best for yourselves.”
I sincerely hope that the Chief Minister and his colleagues, many of whom seem bent on misleading Anguillians into believing that they need to “take to the streets” to achieve Independence, will now put that charade to rest. Quite to the contrary, the Anguilla United Front (AUF), through various presentations in print and broadcast media, over the last two years, has been pointing out that no one will stand between us and the road toIndependence, if it is the declared wish of the people expressed through a referendum. Mr. David Carty also put it very succinctly by intimatingthat we can practically achieveIndependenceby email. Indeed,Mr. Webster agrees in his letter with the AUF position that it is time for the Chief Minister and his Government to “cut the loose talk” and get on with the process — ifthat is what they really want. Mr. Webster very sternly posed the question: “Why are we dragging our feet and saying that we want independence, but are not in fact building on the foundation already laid for it by the British themselves?” In fact, it is Mr. Webster’s view that successive administrations have wasted valuable time, energy and money on Constitutional and Electoral Reform exercises.
For the leadership of the Anguilla United Front, who have suffered a great deal of ridicule by top advisors of the AUM Government for our position on the latest Constitutional and Electoral Reform process, Mr. Webster’s letter to the Chief Minister provides considerable vindication. We were labeled everything from “subservient house slaves” to “cowardly lackeys of the oppressors” just because we did not accept the Government’s approach to taking the process forward. The AUF made its reasons very clear on this matter and its letter to the Chairman of the Committee, Rev Dr. H. Clifton Niles, concluded with a carefully thought-out position:
“1. The AUF believes that, based on the utterances of the Members of Government and more so of the Chief Minister, a rejection of the draft constitution based on full internal self-government by the UK Government, will lead to the usual and unnecessary confrontation between the Chief Minister and his colleagues and the UK Government. In addressing the issue of independence, Mr Fraser has stated, “As we have often said, the British Government fully supports the principle of self-determination. Where independence is an option, as it is forAnguilla, and is the clearly and constitutionally expressed wish of the majority of the people of the Territory, the British Government will give every help to that Territory to achieve it”. Therefore, there need not be any tension with the UK Government in relation to independence.
“2. It is therefore clear to us that, inasmuch as full internal self-government is no longer an option at this point in time, there are two (2) other real options available to Anguilla and Anguillians, either (i) enhancing/improving our existing relationship with the UK as a British Overseas Territory; or (ii) deciding on the issue of independence. If Anguillians choose to enhance/improve the existing relationship with theUK, then a revision of the Anguilla Constitution in the manner being currently drafted by the Committee becomes irrelevant. If, however, Anguillians choose to go independent (as evidenced by way of a referendum), then a new “independent” constitution will have to be prepared and taken to the people ofAnguilla.
“3. The current financial and fiscal condition of the country, and the forecast for the near future, must also be taken into account. In these times, the focus should be on restoring economic stability to Anguilla and doing so void of any controversy with theUKgovernment over a draft constitution and independence forAnguilla. Such controversy could only serve to further destabilise our economy and damage our tourism product and investment opportunities, all of which have direct negative implications for our people.
“The AUF is therefore of the view that the course of action which the Government of Anguilla has embarked upon in relation to full internal self-government is ineffective and time consuming. We would suggest that the constitutional reform instead focus on the viability of options (i) and (ii) as aforementioned.
“If, after appropriate consultation and education on the pros and cons of independence, our people decide to vote yes for independence, then the AUF will join with the Government of Anguilla in agreeing a timetable for independence and lend its full support to the educational process. For the record, however, it should be known that while we call for a referendum in order to ascertain the views of the people, the AUF does not support independence forAnguillaat this time, but we are in full support of a well thought through educational process on the pros and cons of independence.”
I thought that it was necessary for ease of reference to quote both these positions in my column. It shows very clearly that the AUF’s position on the way forward on the question ofIndependenceis consistent with that of the Father of the Nation. In fact, Mr. Websterdeclares: “We are a lot luckier now than in 1967, and the years following, when we were groping in the darkness on the road to self-determination. We bravely challenged the odds before us and in a great leap forward and by our determination, referendums and other ways and means of keeping our revolution alive, we forcedBritainand the world to understand what we wanted. In several cases the British Government facilitated our efforts as a united people and I don’t see any reason whyBritainshould not do so now if we are really serious.”
I believe that in terms of the approach to these issues by Mr. Hughes and his cohorts it is fair to ask the question: “ Are they really serious?” If, as Mr. Webster points out, the difficult aspects of the path to self-determination are already completed — why then do we continue as a people to be lured into this imaginary war with the British to fight for ground that has already been conquered and settled? Why is there such a big rush to embark on exercises in futility,as Mr. Webster has dubbed the present process? In fact, Mr. Webster hints that this is a process which may not necessarily be achieved by the present Government if his recommendations are followed and as such he said: “I hope that what I have to say will be of some assistance to you in moving the process forward, so that either under your leadership, or that of a successor, Anguilla may one day soon accede to that lofty constitutional status.” Obviously, Mr. Webster is suggesting that this is not a hurried process. It must be done by “sensitizing our people across the length and breadth of Anguilla aboutIndependence”. Hopefully, this message will be regarded less critically coming from the Father of the Nation than when it came from various AUF personalities!
In these circumstances, the AUF must express a great debt of gratitude to the Hon. James Ronald Webster for bringing his wisdom and experience to the task of clarifying the process for taking our island into the new phase of self-determination and freedom. And also for demonstrating the progression from “warrior to statesman”,which is so critical to takingAnguillato the next phase in its development as a nation.
