Anguilla’s economic sustainability is a somewhat less engaging topic than independence from Britain. Perhaps that is why, in the past week, the national conversation predictably shifted from the banal concerns about the economy, unemployment and public finances, to the loud, fiery and DNA-infused rhetoric of rebellion.
The Chief Minister, in publishing Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon’s letter to him, of 13th March 2018, and his own reply of 20th March 2018 most skillfully introduced a Houdini action in the negotiation. This show of political astuteness is what earned the Chief Minister the long-term support of his former friend and supporter, the Mayor of Northside, Anguilla. In commenting on the letters, particularly the Chief Minister’s letter, Yanchie said, and I quote: “It means nothing. It is a trick. It is a trick to stir up the old anger of former Chief Minister Hubert Hughes’s base and some other disenfranchised supporters of the former AUM’s Aim for Independence branch”. He continued: “It is nothing. They are fighting each other and you will have elections next”.
So the questions that remain to be answered did not get the attention this week. While the Chief Minister’s eleven page letter addressed the points raised by Lord Ahmad ad nauseam, there is one fundamental problem. The concerns Lord Ahmad voiced remain. Certainly the tone of the Minister of State’s letter was disrespectful and rude (sadly it reminds me of the Chief Minister’s own style in the House of Assembly) and, however well-meaning, the Minister of State’s letter has only attracted the observation that Anguilla and the Chief Minister’s government are being treated as children “to be seen and not heard”. To me, the length and sarcasm implicit in the Chief Minister’s response suggested that, while he had much to say, he too recognised that the publication was a little too late in the context of our budget due 31st March, and in the context of demonstrating an assertive present leadership of Anguilla. The Honourable Victor Banks well knows that there is no real respect internationally for political leaders who fail to manage their economies.
Now to the way forward.
Theresa May promised 60 million pounds relief for Anguilla without mentioning any strings attached. While this would have been a very welcome help to Anguilla, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as overgenerous, having regard to the relief provided to other jurisdictions both by the British government and by the French and Dutch governments, and would not have stretched further than government buildings (so it did not represent relief for the individual people worst affected).
The Chief Minister, in his characteristically non-transparent style, did not disclose to the Anguilla people the British government December 2017 letter, nor did he consult with the people about the inferences to be drawn from it. He then visited the UK for discussions in February and, on 13th March 2018, the Minister of State for the Overseas Territories wrote him a letter purportedly attaching conditions to the British relief. This, a full six months after Hurricane Irma, with limited progress towards restoring Anguilla to viability for lack of funds.
The Chief Minister then deployed various arguments against the conditions sought to be imposed, in his letter to the Minister of State dated 20th March 2018. But he failed dismally to identify a solution that the British government could possibly be expected to accept.
Various commentators, especially including Don Mitchell, have reinforced the best of the Chief Minister’s arguments, while Tommy Astaphan has opportunistically jumped in with a demand for independence.
The British government’s insistence that government in Anguilla should become financially accountable and viable (both in respect of the 60 million and in the future) is entirely justified and welcome. However, its demands for fiscal measures should be delinked from the urgent relief required by Anguilla months ago, and it is shameful that disbursement of that relief has been so long delayed, especially when Britain denied Anguilla the right to accept relief from other sources.
Any suggestion that the 60 million relief will be withheld on a conditional basis unrelated to the relief can only be regarded as a hostile act on the part of Britain. Britain already has a financial officer here in Anguilla who can ensure that the aid is used exclusively and honestly for its intended purpose. Its other demands should be treated as a separate issue to be negotiated as part of the budgetary process, and nothing whatever to do with disbursement of the 60 million. To do otherwise is to provoke or connive in a constitutional crisis at this delicate juncture in Anguilla’s fortunes.
Put another way, there is no justification for Britain to blackmail Anguilla into submission by withholding the very aid which would, had it been disbursed sooner, have enabled Anguilla to repair important infrastructure by now and move forward. The requirements for accountability and fiscal stringency should be delinked from that relief aid and negotiated only where they belong – as part of the process for approval of the budget. If the Chief Minister had confined himself to saying that, rather than his lengthy protestations, we might now be in a much better place.
And our Chief Minister, in the meantime, should cease and desist from political meanderings and address the ill-veiled charges of corruption and fiscal mismanagement levelled at his administration.
Cooler heads need to prevail.
