My topic this week must continue with a review of the British relationship, as I believe nothing is more important for Anguilla in our decision making than to appreciate and understand this relationship at this critical juncture in our history.
It is clear to me that, as regards Anguilla, the British government has always valued a climate of cooperation and political stability above anything else – arguably above guarantees against contingent liability. It is also clear to me that they continually strive towards that overriding objective in the context of promoting their international image as a leading global power, a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and as a promoter of international human rights. Arguably, they manage their objectives ever more vigilantly depending on who our local leaders are.
History teaches us that there are at least three developments that epitomise the true nature of the relationship between Anguilla and Britain.
First, the 1969 “invasion”, which occurred because the British were intolerant of the potential for international embarrassment that Anguilla’s incalcitrance threatened. And what do they think of our leaders? On 22nd April 1969, after the “invasion”, the Brigadier General briefed his bosses in the British government that “Ronald Webster was unpredictable, changes lines consistently, is two-faced; he is pathetic and almost illiterate. Many, including Ronald Webster’s sister, Olive Hodge, whose testimony of his character they relied on, cautioned “For God’s sake do not take the soldiers away from Anguilla”, thereby advocating for continued British presence.
The second development has to do with Britain’s interference in our electoral and constitutional processes, contrary to local sentiment, albeit in the interests of stability. This was exemplified in 1977 when Ronald Webster lost a vote of No Confidence and the British Commissioner, having revoked Mr Webster’s appointment as Chief Minister, appointed Emile Gumbs (“a very nice ineffective man” according to Brigadier Martin) to be the new Chief Minister without calling a new election. What is most poignant and disturbing is that Sir Emile, who was knighted by the British in recognition of his distinguished public service, acquiesced in the British Government taking over our financial services industry. And why did the British take over the industry in Anguilla and not in Tortola? Was it the opportune weakness in our leadership in Anguilla? Or was it that our current leaders, not yet in positions of influence and then young in their political careers, had participated in that industry irresponsibly, with serious potential for the British being embarrassed internationally? Further deeper inquiry may well be merited.
The third development, in my perception, is perhaps the most insidious to some of us. It is the gradual takeover – some might call it usurpation – by Britain of various functions of Anguilla’s government. This is conspicuously exemplified at this time by the appointment of a British Financial Officer, resident in Anguilla, to oversee the Anguilla government’s financial management.
There have been loud protestations that this appointment is an insult to our home grown financial officers, who undoubtedly have considerable expertise. But that is to miss the point. Those home grown financial officers, however strong willed, are inevitably subject to the corrosive and wearing effect of local pressures, including pressures from government ministers and from the incestuous commercial framework of Anguilla. If favouritism and opportunism were not so rife in Anguilla, and our home grown financial team could do what is right for Anguilla (in every sense of the word “right”), there would be no contest, because Anguilla would now be prospering and moving forward. The sad truth is that an ingrained habit of obvious and less obvious corruption that pervades much (but thankfully not all) of Anguilla’s commercial scene has rendered our best civil servants powerless to steer the ship off the rocks. It has also discredited us and deprived future responsible leaders of the opportunity to secure more autonomy in line with constitutional advances, from a political regime in the United Kingdom that is currently favourable.
Right thinking Anguillians can only, therefore, be glad to know that the British financial specialist is in place and will do everything he can to prevent – or, where prevention is not possible, at least to detect – abuses of proper government financial management.
Why is this important? It is vitally important because, without such controls, Britain will not, and cannot be expected to, release support to the Anguilla government for fear that some of it will be diverted to purposes or people for whom it was not intended.
The historical perspective is helpful yet again. In 1969 British aid for Anguilla totaled EC$507,500.00 plus the provision of a bulldozer for the Public Works Department. The conditions for the disbursement of that aid had nothing to do, as far as I can discern, with worries about corruption; perhaps only to do with local administration’s effectiveness. How times have changed. The put-down that the Chief Minister has attracted from Lord Ahmad is certainly objectionable on any measure. But is that put-down and disrespectful tone aimed at the truancy of our current leader or is it the voicing of the exasperation and anger of the UK taxpayer to whom Lord Ahmad is himself accountable? Is it really the trigger for a full-fledged Anguilla independence movement?
History has shown us that the Conservative Party of Britain has always been sympathetic to our quest for increasing independence but with a closer relationship with Britain. Indeed it was Peter Wood and Neil Martin, of Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party, who openly supported the Anguillian representatives in the UK parliament after the Anguilla Revolution in 1967. It was the Conservative Party who supported those Anguilla leaders whom Chief Minister Bradshaw of St Kitts himself dubbed “two liars – you are allowing yourself to be misled by two liars”.
I can only hope that the Chief Minister and his colleagues will reflect humbly on the circumstances which have brought Anguilla to this impasse. Only by doing so can the people of Anguilla look forward to receiving the assistance which the British government has shown willing to provide us with. Only by so reflecting can we prepare ourselves for the increased autonomy for which our young leaders yearn.
