This week I was seriously disappointed when I heard the Chief Minister’s Christmas Message over the various broadcast media. I would have thought that after spending several days in the House of Assembly under the shelter of “parliamentary privilege” he would have said all that he wanted to say about his opponents and imaginary enemies. But that was not to be. The Chief Minister squandered an opportunity to be a national leader with a positive message of hope amidst all the challenges that surround us at this time. Instead, he delivered what was tantamount to a defamatory presentation accusing the British Government; the Governor and the past Government of deliberately standing in the way of Anguilla’s development.
In no part of his address did the Chief Minister take responsibility for anything going on in Anguilla — neither did he suggest any viable plan to achieve success. He simply finished his address with a number of platitudes: – “there is a silver lining behind every dark cloud; one day the sunlight breaks through in all its glory; I still have the hope and the faith that God will bring us a great relief in the New Year”; and so on. I would suggest another proverb: – “The Lord helps those who help themselves”. The message in the Chief Minister’s message is that he is totally helpless to achieve anything because of the several conspiracies that he describes in his presentation. This boils down to the same old “hogwash” that he has been repeating for the last three years — and which he is now perfecting with the most blatant attempts to rewrite history.
By contrast, the Governor and the Leader of the Opposition (the Honourable Evans McNiel Rogers) in particular, presented messages of reflection. A reflection on our present situation and a “look-back” over the past year with particular focus on gun violence and the need for an atmosphere of peace in our little island. Mr. Rogers said: – “This spate of violence that has been plaguing us for many years must cease. And that can only happen if we pledge ourselves to seek peace through our positive deeds and actions rather than through confrontation and violence. The latter approach only ends up with losers rather than winners. It will destroy both social and economic stability. But, most of all, it will not lead to peace — the peace promised to all mankind.” He then went on to challenge us “to the pledge to make Anguilla a place where peace prevails and all our people live in an environment characterized by respect for authority and for each other.” His presentation did not cast blame on anyone in particular but rather placed the responsibility on all of us to make a difference. In short, his approach was to promote conditions for a healing process rather than the traumatic approach of “pouring salt into an open wound”.
It is not my intention to go into any details of that litany of accusations and conspiracies that the Chief Minister spouted in his presentation. That would only serve to give some credibility to his remarks. I would, however, like to look forward to 2013 and ask the question whether the Chief Minister will spend yet another year blaming everyone else for his own incompetence. It seems to me that if the Chief Minister is usingthis last address of 2012 to resort to what I consider to be the same failed tactics of the past — then he must be of the view that it is an effective strategy. In which case we should expect more of the same through the remainder of his term and, in all probability, it may yet again be the strategy for the next election campaign. For many of us who are anxious to see positive things happening in the economy, this is indeed the “death warrant” of which he spoke so passionately when he described the British agenda. And, to be quite honest, it is a great puzzlement to many people that the Chief Minister (and obviously his colleagues and advisors) could expect any enthusiastic assistance from the British Government for the purchase of Cap Juluca even while he is accusing them of starving us into subjection. The logic of this approach could be challenging for even the smallest child to understand.
And speaking of logic! What is the Chief Minister’s obsession with being arrested and locked up by the British Government? Over the last three years he has been praising convicted criminals in H.M. Prison; expressing a desire to be imprisoned like Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta and other African freedom fighters; speaking of the Caymanian Premier’s arrest with empathy; and comparing himself to the father of the nation, the Honourable James Ronald Webster’s near arrest. One is led to assume that the Chief Minister, for some strange reason, believes that being arrested is a precondition for becoming the first Prime Minister of Anguilla – and that there must be a violent social uprising to legitimize his bid for political independence for Anguilla. By his very comments and actions it seems that the Chief Minister even in his Christmas message is more interested in building a case for Independence than doing what it is required to improve the lives and conditions of the people of Anguilla. And, as illogical as it may seem, the path that he has selected appears to be revolution; imprisonment; independence; Eureka! I am Prime Minister! You can be assured that there are “Governor Generals-in-waiting” standing in the shadows callously cheering him on.
But it is not fair that the people of Anguilla should be held hostage simply for the Chief Minister to realize his personal agenda. It is not fair that any and every time he rises to speak we should be forced to listen to a tirade about his enemies and archenemies, as he puts it, and not about the important issues affecting our lives. And it is not fair that he should endanger the lives of others by unfairly accusing them of complicity in a deliberate conspiracy against Anguilla in an environment charged with frustration and despair. Rather than making things better the Chief Minister is worsening the situation by fueling the accelerants for instability and insurrection. And he is doing so even during a season when we should be reflecting on the gift of peace and salvation to mankind generally, as well as on the growing levels of violence and death that have been affecting our island over the past year.
Just recently, on behalf of the Anguilla United Front, I extended an “olive branch” in a genuine effort to ensure that even if the British Government had views to the contrary, they would know that both the Chief Minister and the Opposition have genuine concerns about some aspects of the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility (FFR) document that is being presented to all the Overseas Territories. It is our view that if we present a unified approach we can create an environment for genuine discussion and negotiation on critical areas of concern in the FFR. We believe that very little is achieved by intransigence. And it appears that the CM is adopting the approach that he is not budging on his position. A position which, to date, seems unclear — because he has not articulated any specific amendments that he is seeking. All the other Overseas Territories have signed up because it is in fact an agreement that has the clear objective of establishing and institutionalizing a system of transparency and accountability. It is intended to be best practice for any modern democracy that wants to strengthen good governance and develop objective decision-making procedures.
The Chief Minister contends that the signing of this agreement is being tied to the Secretary of State’s assent to our national budget. I have not been presented with any evidence that this is the case. However, even if it was the case, I am confident that with a clear demonstration of solidarity by Government and Opposition we can get the attention of the FCO that there are real concerns. I would be very surprised if the British Government, that has hundreds of years experience in diplomacy, would expose itself to such confrontation on a matter which, from the views expressed openly by the CM’s technical staff, is clearly negotiable. From my personal experience these are not issues that the British Government would want to go to battle on. Actually, persons have questioned whether it is in fact the Chief Minister who is quietly hoping for a fight so as to further advance his case for Independence.
But as I said in my opening remarks I am disappointed with what the Chief Minister had to say. In fact the past Government has the opportunity to seek legal advice on the slanderous nature of some of the comments he made in that address. It may well be the case that he lost his orientation and thought that he was in the shelter of the House of Assembly when he made these very defamatory statements. And who is this“clique of civil servants in the FCO” who the CM claims run Anguilla? What is their agenda? Are we to believe that they have something to gain from the destruction of a small 35-square-mile island, thousands of miles across the Atlantic, which they have never visited? When are we going to hear from our Chief Minister and his colleagues something that makes sense to the improvement of our lot — rather than a lesson in hate in a season of peace? Will this really be our lot for another two years under the AUM administration?
I want to suggest that during this season of peace we really take a good look at our situation in Anguilla and ask ourselves a number of questions: – Are we better off than we were three years ago? Is this preoccupation with confrontation helpful at a time when we should be building alliances and goodwill? How long can we endure a campaign that is based on false premises; lies; and distractions? Can the present Government actually do anything without invoking the name of the British and the past Government? Why do we keep “pouring salt in open wounds?”
