Books about Anguilla

Loading...

Saturday, 26 February 2011

BUDGETARY NONSENSE!!!

If one followed the process and formulation of the budget for 2011, the exercise seemed quite normal, the government made a good attempt to conform to FCO’S requirements in reducing expenditure and raising revenue to bring the budget in balance as demanded. The budget was successfully debated in the House and passed unanimously. But that appeared to have been process part one pending approval, which I guess no one in the administration thought that the Governor would just sign the budget. It would seem that with the Minister ordering the government to take hands off and allow two highly professional experts to come in and do the work, was a very humbling experience for any government.

Much of the difficulty the island has experienced in one year only appears to have come from the absence of due process. It is clear though, that this government does not enjoy the confidence of the Governor or that of FCO much to their very own making. One could determine that from the outset very little regard was given to the authority held by the Governor. Indications suggested that upon entering office the Hughes Government clearly meant to minimize that authority and endeavored to show up the elected responsibility of the Ministers, it appeared that this team set out to govern on its own. The Governor in his capacity appears to be very meticulous in the execution of his responsibility and expected the elected government to perform likewise but instead, there were serious problems with the rules of order and apparent disregard for due process and procedure. The Governor wanted to bring this Government to order. The question right now is did the Government get the message? Due process was given without interference in the budget regard and it passed unimpeded which I believe brought goose bumps to the honorable Chief Minister, that we have completed our work, thanks to our honorable professional staff and the House of Assembly, therefore now we are off to a retreat and “have a wonderful Christmas.” Not so fast, it appeared that FCO had already decided that no signature would be attached to that budget. This appeared to have been known very early on.

I call it “Budgetary Nonsense” because there are no real indications that this budget as composed on December with very little error should not have been approved, as claimed by said very highly powered independent financial experts. “This Budget Stands” reaffirming the confidence expressed in our very own experts therefore, there are clear indications that this exercise was a strategic and a deliberate attempt by the British to make the badly needed attitude adjustment to this government. To impose such a juvenile behavioral punishment would indicate that the Governor felt restless and unable to carry on Her Majesty’s duties in the environment created on the island just under twelve months and had to bring back the lawful practiced of government. Our system of government provides for one central rule and governing order. “There shall be a Governor of Anguilla who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure for the purpose of administering the Government of Anguilla. The Executive authority of Anguilla shall be vested in Her Majesty. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive authority of Anguilla may be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor.

When this government took office it appears that no one took time to look up procedure, whether the Chief Minister knew what the process was, he certainly did not take time to instruct his Ministers what it meant to be off the streets of Anguilla and to function in Government. Everyone seemed to have thought that each Minister was an island unto him-self and the Chief Minister was the Head of State. The Minister of Communication ordering Anglec Directors fired, the Minister of Labor issuing his own permits by his own orders, the Chief Minister, by his signature only, approved a two hundred million dollar loan against the assets of SSB. They in fact totally overlooked Old Tar or deliberately ignored its existence. The Governor was insulted, ignored and abused, but on that mystified day when he (the Governor) tried to fire the Chief Minister, it caused shock waves on the interior, and the message got through. The move he made cause serious alarm but brought common sense to bear. Judging from the Governors current statement on the budget he feels that he has accomplished his objective and is looking ahead. Quote; “Now that the experts have completed their work in assisting with Anguilla’s Budget, the next step is to have a good discussion in the Executive Council. Clearly the Governor’s concern is the way forward with anticipation that this government will behave differently.

By: ejharrisxm

Thursday, 24 February 2011

“WHEN WILL THIS CIRCUS LEAVE TOWN?”

In my July 16th, Article, “A picture paints a thousand words” I first used the label “three ring circus” to describe the behaviour and style of the AUM Government as they continued on their charade of manipulating the truth hoping thereby “to paint a glorious picture of an open and transparent Government that is for all the people”. The Parliamentary Secretary who I had dubbed “the circus master” had just finished an interview with one of the AUM talk show hosts where he had declared that they were a “good and happy government” and that, contrary to rumour, he and the Minister of Social Development, the Hon. Edison Baird, had a great working relationship. He also used the occasion to bash the former Government and especially me as the former Minister of Finance. It was while listening to that interview that I was told that just a few days earlier, he further demonstrated his disdain for my contribution as a longstanding elected representative of the people and Minister of Government, by removing my picture from its historic space on the front wall of the Conference Room of the Tourist Board with much fanfare --- and in the presence of our international tourism agents/representatives and other non-Anguillian participants. It was at that point that I realized that he has no respect for elected officials who served our country and in the words of Minister Baird “is clearly pregnant with arrogance.”

But the curtain came down on that “circus act” of a “good and happy government” when the text and broadcast of “Eddie Confessions” began to circulate --- and after a period of “stunned silence” on the usual talk shows, last Thursday a further release by Minister Baird broke the silence. It was heartrending to hear a frequent caller to all the AUM talk shows, who is noted for his verbal bravado and scathing rhetoric, shamelessly confess that he had cried bitterly when he heard Mr. Baird’s address. His confessions of grief and tears were further accentuated by a number of the other usual callers threateningly demanding the immediate removal of Mr. Baird as a Minister in the AUM Government. Again one was forced to wonder who is really running the Government --- because these callers spoke with an air of Chief Ministerial Authority. According to one of the usual loud mouths: “He’s got to go NOOOW!!!” Many persons listening to those exchanges on Class FM expressed great disappointment with regards the level of “pettiness” to which politics and governance on Anguilla had descended.

It is almost a year to the day since the AUM Government was sworn in --- and now it has become blatantly obvious that there is a serious dissension within its ranks. While I have been accused through this medium of preventing the Government from carrying out its function --- I protest strongly any suggestion that I can be held responsible for this most recent drama. Indeed, I have not had a structured conversation with Mr. Baird for more than a year. But both this drama and this milestone have afforded me the opportunity to explain why I could not sit idly by over the past twelve months and allow the Government to continue unchecked. Let me now catalogue the issues that I brought to your attention over that period --- as well as for your reflection today.

I will refresh your memories on the issues and provoke your reflections with “sound-bites” from my comments as follows:

After coming to Office the AUM immediately installed new Boards, the foremost among which was Anguilla Social Security Board headed up by a number of its politicos. I got wind of a decision by the new Board to move Social Security deposits from the local/indigenous banks and pointed out the dangers. I wrote: “As a nation facing the impacts of a global recession we cannot afford to endanger homegrown organizations that are central to our survival at this time!”

• I was forced to respond strongly to a statement by the Chairman of the new Social Security Board regarding my right to question his actions through the news media. I wrote: “I would like to suggest to Mr. Astaphan that as a representative of the people of Anguilla for almost thirty years --- and I might add through the electoral process, not by appointment --- and by virtue of being a born and bred Anguillian over sixty years of age with considerable experience --- I do not need anyone’s permission approval or solicitation to comment on whatever I believe affects the people of Anguilla!”

• I was forced to reply to “a wide range of incongruous and conflicting statements” by the Chief Minister in his Budget address “Operation Recovery” in which he accused the past government of “alleged corruption; economic mismanagement and poor governance”. I wrote: “Stop the blame game! You are the Government! You are the man with the plan!”

• I had to comment on the excellent presentations made by the two elected members of the opposition in the budgetary debates as opposed to the vacuous presentation by some of the newly elected members especially the use of the analogy of a “rotten egg” by the Member for West End. I wrote: “The use of that analogy can conceivably turn out to be a label for him. Such labels are known to stick in Anguilla!”

• I had to comment on the CM and the Parliamentary Secretary’s reintroduction of the ridiculous idea of building a new Airport in Brimigen. I wrote: “I remain supremely confident that the Brimigen Airport Project will neither take-off nor land. No pun intended!”

• I was forced to expose the planned “hostile takeover” of ANGLEC by the Minister of Utilities and the Chairman of Social Security. I wrote: “Let us not treat the minority shareholders in ANGLEC like simply powerless spectators!”

• I had to comment on the “Bradshaw style” approach of the Chairman of the Social Security Board and the aura of national political authority with which he spoke. I wrote: “The Chairman and his Board are whittling away at the good will and trust that the system has built up over the years all across this land!”

• I had to express my displeasure at the Chief Minister’s apology for Bradshaw in the presence of the Father of the Nation and other heroes and heroines of the Revolution on Anguilla Day! I wrote: “Hubert mussa tink we Bubba Johnnies for true!”

• I had to comment on the Chief Minister’s continued inability to get an approved budget one hundred and ten days after the election and his ongoing argument with the British Government that they colluded with the past government to cause our financial situation --- rather than settling down and seriously negotiating. I wrote: “The Chief Minister continues to look through the “rear view mirror” rather than focus his attention on the “approaching traffic and the bumpy road ahead”!

• I had to comment on the Chief Minister’s attendance to the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) Annual Conference where he made some unfortunate statements that the Parliamentary Secretary tried to correct. I wrote: “Our statements must be responsible, sensitive and relevant to the objectives we are seeking to achieve and we must remain focused on strategies and solutions --- not loose talk!”

• I was forced to comment on the cowardly attacks by the Chief Minister on civil servants using the shelter of “parliamentary privilege” as well as his statement that it was the FCO Minister that made him borrow 50 million for recurrent expenditure. I wrote: “Times are getting tougher! Stop whining and take charge!”

• I had to speak about the losses incurred through this Government’s inexperienced negotiations with the owners of Cap Juluca simply to give the impression that there is a difference between an MOA and an MOU. I wrote: “The Government will claim that it has been able to extract certain improved benefits --- but in assessing them they exist in words rather than in substance!”

• I had to speak about the poor management of the House by the newly installed Speaker. She allowed the Chief Minister to abuse the rules of procedure by presenting a thirty page document rife with libelous, abusive, misleading, inaccurate, malicious, cowardly, unkind, uncaring and downright nasty statements in response to a question posed by one of his own Ministers designed to evoke that breach. I wrote: “I cannot accept that the Chief Minister or anyone with the slightest strain of Anguillian blood flowing in their veins could have written such a document!”

• I spoke about the inordinate power of non-elected advisers and political appointees in this administration. The fact that they have no qualms about openly threatening the victimization of public servants and even publicly reprimanding elected Members of the Government. I wrote: “This seems like democracy and governance KGB style!”

• I spoke about the specific attempt by the Parliamentary Secretary to mislead the public in the presence of the Chief Minister that Viceroy Resort was sold; a MOU was signed and that the Government would be receiving US$40 million in taxes. I wrote: “This Government came to Office on the basis of lies; it continues to consolidate its support on the basis of lies; it justifies its campaign of victimization on the basis of lies; and it seems content on governing on the basis of lies!”

• I had to speak about the “circus act” when it was alleged by some AUM “serial liars” that the Governor had asked the Chief Minister to resign immediately and call for fresh elections. I wrote: “There were young men in prison standing on the roof waving branches who perhaps felt that this may also be a referendum on their freedom!”

• I had to speak about the Chief Minister’s willful disregard for procedures, legislation, due diligence, transparency, best practices and common sense in granting approval to the Chairman of Social Security to borrow US$200 million from a questionable source. I wrote: “By what moral or imperious authority then can the CM now continue his “holier than thou” tirades about the past government or the former Minister of Finance?”

• I had to speak to the rumour spread around the island by some of the AUM “serial liars” through their journalist sympathizers that Anguilla is a “failed state” and the FCO intends to suspend the constitution and take over. They also went on to extrapolate that we need to go into independence. I wrote: “But they must face the cold hard facts --- the British are not coming they are in fact already here! They have always been here!”

• I had to speak about the mounting cries for independence among the AUM supporters as the CM continues to give the impression that the Governor and the British Government are obstacles to Anguilla’s economic recovery. I wrote: “Why is it that some callers even the hosts of the AUM talk shows lose their voices and wax emotional with tears against an “oppressor” who has long ago unshackled the “chains of captivity” just for the asking!”

• I had to defend myself against attempts by the CM and “all too anxious” AUM talk show hosts and their usual callers to revive the transshipment issue with the view to denigrate me. I wrote: “May I admonish the CM that it is unwise to believe that his continued attempts to denigrate my character will cause me to wilt and go away!”

• Over the last two months beginning with his interview on New Years Eve the Chief Minister made a number of irresponsible comments one of which clearly incited violent behaviour. He said: “the rest of the Anguillians need to follow where the prisoners left off!” I wrote: “How will inciting the population to violence help Anguilla’s case --- or make the case for the British Government to authorize the budget!”

• I spoke ad nauseam about Hubert’s leading by bad example; his loose and irresponsible statements in the public media; his lies and misinformation; his belief that the rules apply to everyone else but him; and his chronic denial of blame for anything. I wrote: “The clear message that needs to be sent to the Chief Minister is that he is in charge and it is time to settle down and do what he was elected to do. Govern!”

I tried to be as exhaustive as my column would allow. I simply hoped to make the point that based on the nature of this sampling of issues I had every reason to comment on the AUM’s performance over the last twelve months. In fact, everything that has worked for the AUM has come as a result of the experience and vision of the Anguilla United Front. They criticized Viceroy --- it is their salvation. They criticized Cap Juluca --- it is their stability. They criticized the airport --- it is now their boast. They opposed Catastrophic Insurance --- it bailed them out. They criticized the handling of Temenos --- they now must return to the same strategy. To summarize, they have not shown the potential to deliver what Anguillians voted for, expect and deserve.

“Eddies Confessions” and the “petty politics” that have ensued seem to reinforce the characterization that this is truly a “circus”. While Queen Bee’s lament in song suggests that we have had enough --- evoking the baneful question: “When will this circus leave town?” When indeed!

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
February 22, 2011



Saturday, 19 February 2011

“EXPLOSIVE”

One year after the people went to the polls and changed the government we find ourselves in an extraordinary “explosive” situation on the island. Considering the economic and financial crisis the country is facing today, government has lost focus of its elected responsibility. This appears to be the premise for a total breakdown of normality with the AUM and government's framework which seems to be dismantling and fragmenting on a daily basis.

There is a segment of our population and a very vocal group which is bent on perpetual insanity, with a deliberate political agenda to destroy the civility we have come to accept in recent years. This was observed through the campaign where the level of respect and tolerance for opposing opinions were totally off limit. This small group is without doubt elements of the estranged unelected that the honorable Edison Baird spoke about in recent times that is moving to a radical dimension to destabilize the country. These are the ones questioning the constitutional authority of the Governor, disrespecting the civil and electoral process where decisions of government are handled with in the executive council and executed according to the process. These are the ones opting to campaign against themselves in a governing period, while they hold the reins of government and said group choosing to march from the east towards the Governor’s office while in representation of their Minister from the extreme west of the country.

The process of governing is confined to the perimeters of the elected members in the House. Those appointed to serve in various capacities do enjoy the extension of electoral powers through their constitutional appointment and is required to perform within the rules of order governing the civil process. The rest of us being part of the broader electoral constituent are expected to become subject to the daily process of governing; but some people have adapted the attitude that they are part of the governing process as well, because they hired the government. When a government is elected it depends on its collective ability and individual capability to govern, and discretion in their capacity to compromise to ensure stability. We have a bully team of representatives, each one holding on to their turf. Then we have the bully political operatives and die hard supporters to maintain the life span of the government this is a primary source of destabilization. The average supporter has no knowledge of the in-depth functioning of government and therefore should remain subject to an organized form of information provided, either through a government’s public service entity, the media or a program such as government’s information service but these operatives seems to want to be the ones delivering the bad news further damaging the credibility of the government. The island is progressively trending towards utter chaos and is now becoming a very serious liability to this very government which seems unable to set any leadership direction for governing or the governed; therefore, this lack of direction has instigated a level of descent not seen since the last Hughes administration 1999/2000. This is unacceptable to the very large disciplined majority of us who simply want the country to be governed well.

The most recent uptick in the internal wrangling of this government is between The Health Minister and his rival, seeking the job, honorable Jerome Roberts over the apparent eminent closure of the East End Clinic. The difference of opinion is not riveting because it appears that neither one is sure as to what the actual directive is and it has resorted to a power struggle where the Minister, taking into account that Mr. Roberts is the elected representative from East End, and while he holds the requisite authority, apparently wants to hear from Mr. Roberts in some subjective form; Mr. Roberts is not willing to be subjected in any form at all. I went to East End School when this clinic provided a vital service to both Island Harbor and East End. It is not clear what would be the ultimate end result of this debate but I stand with the community to preserve this iconic symbol of the past in some form. Because of the on-going fiscal situation of the country there might indeed be imminent closure. I support efforts for this facility to remain functional, or become a part of the current developing preserve of this community and its environment which is already being composed of several elements of historic value. These assets must not remain derelict but must be part of the historic value of the community. To close the facility where it becomes another abandoned building dilapidated, as the Old East End School room, would be unfortunate.

It would do our representatives well to think beyond the political impediments they encounter and envision the composure of all of these attributes already to some degree in formation of collective assets contributing to the comprehensive historic value of the community. We have the incomplete, but necessary bird watch to be further enhanced and developed, we also have the little spring on the lower end of the pond which we all as school children utilized for drinking water and of course the school room itself still intact. As I see it, collectively they all should become a central point for the community and be monumental in shaping a comprehensive, social historic multifaceted environment for recreation and amusement complementing the already established historic Museum which would serve both Island Harbor and the East End communities well. Therefore the dialogue between Mr. Baird and Mr. Roberts must be put into some perspective in the community’s interest. This government has lost its focus on the country and is simply wrangling and bickering, either with the Governor or themselves. This must stop in the interest of the country.

By: ejharrisxm





Thursday, 17 February 2011

“We ain’t mad at ya!”

I was unable to listen to or attend the opening of the Chamber of Commerce Fair on Saturday, February 5, 2011 because of other events, not the least among which, was the celebration of the lives of some cherished Anguillian women. We are blessed as a people to have such a heritage of strong women who have maintained our communities over the years in countless and differing ways. In fact, Anguillian women have shone at every critical juncture of our history and they continue to be central to the furtherance of our national development in all its aspects and at all levels. May we ever be the beneficiaries of the stability and cohesion that they have brought to the building of our nation! May their souls rest in peace!

But it appears that aforementioned stability is at threat from the “thoughtless” and “inaccurate” rants of the Chief Minister at most the inopportune times and at events intended to promote Anguilla as an ideal environment for both visitors and investors. There were two statements in particular that I must comment on one was “thoughtless” and the other totally “inaccurate”. Though both of these statements were reported in The Anguillian and replayed over various broadcast media, I hesitated as to whether or not I should comment on them in my column. On the one hand I did not wish to contribute to the further circulation of these statements regionally or internationally, on the other hand I felt strongly that since they were already circulated I should ensure that what he said would not be construed by anyone as reflecting the views of all Anguillians.

My decision to comment was further reinforced by the fact that I met a “first time visitor” to Anguilla that evening. He is a major investor in one of the neighbouring islands. And he was invited by a significant local investor to explore Anguilla. The idea was to encourage him to invest in a major joint venture project being conceived for the island. That visitor was attracted by the banners and other displays of the Chamber of Commerce Fair and positioned himself upfront and in the midst of the opening ceremony. Those of you who attended the event, heard the broadcast or read the article would have been aware that the Chief Minister was making the point that he defended the interests of a young woman who had reportedly taken ill because of pressures in the work place. The Chief Minister must be commended for his concern for workers interests. Indeed, all of the people’s representatives must take on that responsibility in an equitable manner. However, his comments were inappropriately general in an industry that is the locomotive of Anguilla’s economy. He said: “The tourism industry makes us poor --- creates slavery. I had to go down to Viceroy two days ago to defend a young woman who was working there, who was destroyed because she immediately collapsed, and had a stroke, because there is a slave colony. Yes they bring in guests but why can’t black people be seen everywhere in high positions? Why bring in straight hair and fair skins from Mexico from East Asia, from around the world, all because their hair is straight and their colour is fairer than yours?”

The visitor and potential investor was standing right within the line of sight of the Chief Minister and had the uncanny and disturbing feeling that the CM was talking directly to him --- because of his straight hair and his fair complexion. He asked me whether the Chief Minister was opposed to Tourism and to foreign investment. And he further inquired, given the recent elections, whether this was the mandate upon which he was elected. His most telling statement, however, was when he said that: “he had heard a lot of positive things about Anguilla but this was the first time he had heard such overt expressions of “racism” from a head of state in the region.” I tried to explain but he told me it was not necessary because he had met a number of persons subsequently and realized that this was not a widespread view among Anguillians. Whether he was being be polite or diplomatic --- our local investor will discover the true situation in the months ahead.

I must proffer my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the young woman who the Chief Minister purports to have defended. Obviously, she must have been under considerable stress. But whatever the circumstances, is it a fair conclusion coming out of that incident for the Chief Minister of Anguilla to declare over public media that Viceroy is a slave colony and the tourism our main industry makes us poor and creates slavery? In the first instance, his Parliamentary Secretary who he made responsible for Tourism has boasted that he has straightened out the labour situation at Viceroy. And the CM, himself, along with the same Parliamentary Secretary have been boasting about that their newly negotiated MOU has brought positive changes to Viceroy. In fact, Hon. Jerome Roberts in his Anniversary Address states: “I also had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the Viceroy MOU which today has brought the Treasury EC$9 million and we are expecting in the near future to receive another EC$39 million. Viceroy as we are all aware is doing well and has proven itself to be the popular hotel for many visiting celebrities during the course of the Christmas season.”

Is the Chief Minister out of touch with the views of his own Government? Indeed, at some times he seems to be out of touch with his own views --- having just recently boasted to British Officials that Viceroy is an important part of “his recovery plan.” And in fact, he further makes an even more negative prediction in the same speech about his own tenure when he said: “Anguilla is sad, sad. It is really a sad country because in five years from now there will be no Albert Lakes, no Ashleys, No Proctors and that culture of owning business would have disappeared. We are sad.”

Did the Chief Minister in making this “thoughtless” statement not stop to recognize that he is expected to be the one at the helm of the Anguilla Government for at least four of those five years? Is he saying that his land policies, his business licence policies and the labour and immigration policies of his now harried Minister of Home Affairs will contribute to the sad situation he so vividly and passionately describes? Does he not travel overseas regularly on the guise of attracting foreign investment from countries and climes where investors with straight hair and fair skins abound? Are there not born and bred Anguillians who fit these physical descriptions that he seems to detest? Is the Hon. Edison Baird correct in his assertion that the Chief Minister is not in charge? You be the judge!

But that was the “thoughtless” statement let us now talk about the “inaccurate” one. The Chief Minister said: “If you go to Dominica there is not one foreign owned hotel. Everything in Dominica is owned by Dominicans! That is development! Dominica is a rich country whether we say it or not, because they own it!” It seems that the Chief Minister takes great pleasure in belittling Anguilians in the public media. And it is unclear what his motive can be. The whole Caribbean is aware of the pride of ownership which history has afforded Anguillians as well as the enterprising spirit that has sustained us over the years. With all due respects to the people of Dominica, Anguillians own more than eighty five percent of our island’s land resources and we are well represented in every sphere of business activity. That statistic is a matter of the public record locally, regionally and internationally.

My purpose of highlighting this “inaccuracy” is because it is typical of the kind of generalizations and “broad brush statements” that the Chief Minister and his colleagues used successfully in the recent election campaign. And while I generously label this statement an “inaccuracy” it may well be considered a deliberate and outright lie to advance some political deception. Last week I mentioned the scourge of “serial lying”. This statement may be further evidence of such lying and it is my intention to expose such lies whenever and wherever they raise “their ugly heads”. Let me present the facts!

As Dominica now moved more deliberately into the Tourist industry, like Anguilla many years ago, there are a number of traditionally locally owned properties. But as Dominica seeks to diversify its economy the Government is actively encouraging and receiving foreign participation in the tourism sector. The agricultural sector and the manufacturing sector already have a strong foreign investment presence such that the major names you hear in those areas are well known multi-national corporations. Dominica may indeed be considered a rich country for a number of reasons --- but no Dominican can tell you truthfully that: “everything in Dominica is owned by Dominicans!”

Speaking about an agreement with the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco to build a thirteen million US dollar hotel in Dominica, the Prime Minister of Dominica, the Honorable Roosevelt Skerrit, had this to say in the Government’s February 15, 2011 GIS. “ When people talk about the Government of Dominica is not doing things to create jobs --- these are the things we are seeking to do to create jobs. We believe that by the construction of a fifty-room hotel in Dominica, because the challenge we have sometimes in Dominica is that we cannot host international and regional events because of the inadequacy of standard rooms. Even for cricket there are many people who want to come for International Cricket and the World Creole Music Festival but there are so few rooms in Dominica. When you have the largest hotel being seventy-five rooms, it tells you that we have to do much better than that. ….. We need to address this and that is why the Government has taken this bold initiative that in situations where the private sector may not be prepared to venture in a faster manner then the Government itself would play an active role in fetching those kinds of investments. It is not our interest to manage these hotels at all. Our interest is to create economic activity in the country, create construction jobs and also sustainable jobs in the long run. One can appreciate the kind of impact it will have on agriculture and the other services: taxi operators, tour guiding and the likes”.

I thought that it would be important to include this statement in its entirety to show where the Chief Minister has given a flawed representation of the Dominica situation. It is obvious that the Prime Minister of Dominica recognizes the importance of investment both foreign and local as well as his responsibility to create economic activity in cooperation with the private sector as a whole. It also shows that it is scandalous for our Chief Minister to give the false impression that there can be any feasible comparison between Dominica’s tourism sector and that of our island.

But let me go a step further with his “inaccuracy” about “Dominicans owning everything.” If you go on the Government of Dominica website you will see a section entitled: “How do I apply for economic citizenship of the Commonwealth of Dominica?” The preamble to that section reads, in part, as follows: “Government [of Dominica] views the economic citizenship programme as one component of its national capital mobilization portfolio towards its ultimate goal of national development and as such intends to channel capital from the economic citizenship programme towards public and private sector projects where a need is identified.”

This grant of economic citizenship is contingent upon the payment of US$100,000 for an investor, his spouse and two children under eighteen years old. An additional US$15,000 is required for children over eighteen but less than twenty-one years old. A single investor without children or spouse must pay US$75,000. To facilitate this grant of economic citizenship as far back as 1993 the residency requirement under the naturalization and citizenship act was waived. In fact, you can actually and legally apply for economic citizenship without ever setting foot on Dominica.

It is neither my intention nor my right to question the wisdom of the Government of Dominica in using citizenship as a means of attracting investment in this column. That is for the people of Dominica to decide. I am merely pointing out that while the Chief Minister spins a yarn about Dominicans owning everything in their country --- any qualified investor with US$75,000 can become a Dominican citizen. And if you add US$25,000 more to that amount you can include your spouse and two children under eighteen. To put it in more intelligible terms, for less that the cost of a one- bedroom house on a quarter-acre lot in Anguilla, you can become a Dominican citizen. Is the Chief Minister trying to tell us something about his future immigration policies over the next four years? Or is he thinking about inviting experts from Dominica to help us with our immigration and land policies as he did with the ECCB, the OECS and Caricom on the Budget? Please do not rule anything out!

Last weekend, I was amused with the reaction of the AUM radio “talking heads” to the first public meeting of the Anguilla United Front since February 23, 2010. Again I heard the usual ludicrous refrain that the Opposition is not allowing the Government to do its work. The fact is, that in most democratic countries those Governments would be happy to have an Opposition as passive as the Anguilla United Front has been over the last twelve months. I have even heard some AUM pundits declare that the AUF did not even give them three years to get the country going. It is clear to me that this Government and its “loud mouths” believe that the fundamental right of “freedom of expression” in democratic society should not be extended to the Anguilla United Front. While in truth and in fact, the only party that has been campaigning since the election is the AUM.

Should the Anguilla United Front sit idly by and allow the Government to stumble from blunder to blunder and destroy Anguilla while the civil and proper exercise of democracy enjoys a honeymoon? I think not! Should I put down my pen while the serial liars of the AUM continue to mislead, confuse and exploit the trusting people of Anguilla? I think not? There are many members of this community who now assert they made an error at the polls --- there is no need to be embarrassed to admit this! It is a part of the learning process in a democratic system that from time to time the electorate will make mistakes! It is human to err! “We ain’t mad at ya!” We love ya! It’s Valentine’s!

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
February 14, 2011

Friday, 11 February 2011

ONE YEAR LATER: IRREVERSIBLE DILEMMA????

The country is in a somber mood. No one can actually believe the difficulty we’ve found ourselves in. Who can we trust to give us clear and decisive direction to our quest for the truth? This Island has not responded well to the thunderous campaign of 2010 which brought to power a man who many of his supporters thought is the only one they trusted to lead us out of the peril of this time. One year later there are no signs of any dimension of success for AUM and The Honorable Hubert Hughes in making matters any better for the people of Anguilla. This is a great disappointment to a very large number of Anguillians who had their hopes set very high and a confidence level that gave rise to serious optimism that things would be better under the present government instead, One Year Later we find ourselves in what appears to be an “Irreversible Dilemma”

In a very brief talk with the honorable Chief Minister Mr. Hughes just days ago, clearly not a happy man at this time. He has expressed regret that his good intentions to lead this country out of the present dilemma has been met with such brutal resistance from his number one rival The Governor which appears to be opposing his every move to advance his agenda which he feels would make the difference. I passed up a great opportunity granted to me by the Chief to accompany him to his office so I could be informed in more detail of some of the actual facts he is faced with, time was my main culprit. But no doubt The Chief minister feels that he is forced into a period of gridlock over a massive difference of opinion going forward. Mr. Hughes was very quick to point out to me that there is actually no pun intended here, but he sees the British Government and The Governor simply madly in love with Anguilla and views it as a primary piece of real estate in the North Eastern Caribbean having residence of extraordinary ambition. Mr. Hughes declares that The Governor and his British Colleagues marvel how simple people like us could own and develop our very own property into such interesting and beautiful dwellings, which actually have given this island its great advantage in the mind of the British. Mr. Hughes feels that the British is simply not willing to allow us the right to manage our very own high valued destiny and clearly sees this as his primary obstacle to implementing a progressive plan of action that would put the island back on track.

I was actually impressed with the passion and real deep concern show by the Chief Minister in my very brief conversation, which is in sharp contrast to the account given by another passionate representative just days ago, the Honorable Eddie Baird who gave a stinging rebuke of the current situation in government. One would notice that in Baird speech he was extremely careful not to criticize the Chief Minister direct, when he identified and expressed his reason for descent in this administration, but called on Mr. Hughes to restore order in his government. Baird describes the situation as a major conflict of interest between the radicals and the moderates in the AUM camp, he did not associate Mr. Hughes with those radicals but clearly insinuated that much of the radical agenda with in AUM is being instigated by the parliament secretary (unelected) and other appointed elements within the party whom Mr. Baird categorized as the unelected and unelectable. Mr. Baird has placed the critical situation the country finds itself in squarely on an ocean of disagreement between him and these unelectable operatives influencing the government and failing to agree on anything in the interest of the country. Mr. Baird asked a poignant question, “where is the Chief Minister in all of this.” Eddie seems to be putting the onus squarely on the Chief to choose between having a functional government or a radical group not interested in the well being of the country.

One year later after electing this government to office there is a very serious state of disbelief that none of the indicators of advancement are showing positive trends, now twelve months in the governing process and AUM in control of the government. Instead we find ourselves in what appears to be a very serious dilemma, with very high anticipation that unless Mr. Hughes responds very quickly to the circumstances of this country he will face a revolt from the people who will seek to take back the country and entrust our future to a government with perspective and one willing to meet the requirements that would ensure progress and stability. In my talk with Chief Minister I felt passion and detected a strong and distinct determination, what I did not fell is that this man has any intentions to back down or surrender. Mr. Hughes, in his wisdom has not responded to Mr. Baird’s speech in any form so far. He should not be ill advised either, to respond in any way that would further destabilize the current situation. It would be a very wise move on the part of Chief Minister to engage in a very private and deliberate conversation t with Eddie Baird and begin to set new perimeters to stabilize his government. There is actually nothing going very well for this government at this point in time and it would show some responsibility of the Chief Minister’s part, taking in account his terrible relationship with the Governor, as we speak the British has just about embarrassed the country by subjecting our best and brightest to some degree of incapability in dealing with the current crisis. Mr. Hughes must show some understanding of the situation by a careful reshuffle of his government’s portfolios, change his talking points and bring some degree of order to his administration; he must turn this page. Having four more years ahead there is nothing to lose by making the necessary corrective measures right now. In the absence of quick and decisive action we might indeed be faced with an “IRREVERSIBLE DILEMMA” one year later?

By:  Elliot J. Harri

Thursday, 10 February 2011

“HEART ACHES AND BROKEN PIECES!”

Last week Monday was exactly one year since the passing of my dear friend and ardent supporter David Leroy “Feddie” Bryan. As I said when I eulogized him at the celebration of his life on February 13, 2010: “Stoney Ground would never be the same without him!” His passing came just before the elections --- so as a strong supporter of the Anguilla United Front his untimely surrender to his suffering spared him the disappointment of his party’s defeat at the polls. Those of us who knew and loved “Feddie” would appreciate his passion for Anguilla and his belief that the Anguilla United Front was the party best suited to deliver the goods. “Feddie”, we were humbled by your loyalty; emboldened by your confidence, and; will continue to be inspired by your memory! May your soul rest in peace!”

It is ironic that just two days after the anniversary of “Feddie’s” passing, the Deputy Leader of the Anguilla United Movement Government, the Hon. Edison Baird, also a friend of “Feddie”, should release a “confession” on several media, regarding not only their strategy for winning the election but also the serious dilemma we now face as a country run (as he asserts) by “a handful of unelected persons” with a “radical and disruptive agenda”. Like most of our supporters “Feddie” would have felt vindicated by Mr. Baird’s remarks. Despite our many presentations during the campaign and my columns after the election dealing with the very issues --- I must admit that Eddie’s “confessions” will serve as excellent closing arguments for the case against the AUM Government and its willful abuse of the democratic process via the use of lies, misinformation and half-truths. In this regard, if there were such a court, the first evidence to be subpoenaed would be the Parliamentary Secretary’s “notorious black book”! I am referring to his mysterious folder containing many fabricated documents designed to denigrate, slander and malign the past AUF Government and its candidates in the recent election campaign.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this latest saga in “the life and times of the AUM Government” is the fact that, in a most uncharacteristic manner, there is complete silence on the airways about Eddie’s speech. A number of AUM loud mouths who have often been accused of having “diarrhea of the mouth” have suddenly contracted a condition leading to “verbal constipation”. Up to the time of writing this column there has not been any significant comment from the Chief Minister or any of his associates about what can only be described as the most damaging speech that I have ever heard by a sitting Minister of Government. We can only speculate as to the reason for this media “black out”. But for the time being someone needs to remind the Chief Minister that there is an “eight hundred pound gorilla” in the room which, despite his efforts to pretend to ignore it, he will be forced to acknowledge its presence at some point.

Over the last year I have only exchanged pleasantries with Mr. Baird. I never discussed any aspect of politics or governance with him during that period. Having noticed the deteriorating relationship between him and his colleagues in the AUM Government --- I made sure that he remained honest about our relationship so that he could and still can truthfully say that there is no political compact between us. However, I will not neglect this opportunity to use his “confessions” to absolve the Anguilla United Front of the many false accusations, half-truths and whole lies promulgated by the “serial liars” of the AUM. As one of my colleagues in the AUF Executive put it: “Serial lying is a very dangerous thing in politics, it is one of the worst aspects of propaganda, because people eventually believe the lies and reject the truth. Anguilla is now suffering the consequences!” It is a well-known adage that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” as a result even now after the campaign this pattern of “serial lying” continues to be the modus operandi of the “serial liars” of the Government. In this regard I strongly encourage that “Eddie’s Confessions” become “required reading” for the remaining supporters of the Anguilla United Movement.

Over the last forty weeks or so I have made a number of comments on the performance and conduct of the AUM and its supporters that have been validated in “Eddie’s Confessions” I will “flag up” some of them for your attention:-

• In my May 25th Article, “Social Security Again” I wrote: “There seems to be a tendency by the Chairman (Social Security) to speak with an aura of national political authority”. Mr. Baird said: “It is clear that these unelected persons are exercising considerable influence over Governmental affairs. The Chief Minister has little or no say in running the affairs of the island”.

• In my July 2nd Article, “It wasn’t me” I wrote: “The question must now arise whether this action by Jerome Roberts is to keep Eddie in line; frustrate him to the point of leaving; or simply push him aside once Jerome is installed”. Mr. Baird wrote: “Little did I know that it was his intention to replace me as Minister of Government. I now realize that as a part of the inducement package that persuaded him to join the wider Government was the promise of being an actual minister”.

• In my September 17th Article, “While Big Brother is watching!” I wrote: “Indeed there is a certain sentiment among the AUM disciples that the rules are only for the others. That is why the “Patriot” feels that he can justify being on several boards while he strongly criticized the past Government for such situations.” Mr. Baird wrote: “I believe that the Government must practice what it preaches”.

• In my September 24th Article, “So shall it be in the End” I wrote: “After Haydn boasted in his press conference that a MOU was signed with the new buyers for Viceroy Resort --- the Leader of the Opposition during the debate on the Cap Juluca MOU pressured him to explain how could he have signed an MOU before bringing it to the House of Assembly and Executive Council.” Mr. Baird wrote: “He started out pretending to be the Chief Minister; he is now pretending to be the Government!” And further he wrote: “The zenith of Haydn Hughes’ control over Governmental affairs was reached… when he vetoed a decision of the Chief Minister to take a proposal from a leading investor to the Executive Council.”

• In my June 11th, Article, “To budget or not to budget” I wrote: “In such an environment of uncertainty and unpredictability they (developers) then become frustrated and overly cautious. Developers --- and I must repeat local and expatriate --- are critical to the success of any recovery plan this Government intends to pursue. --- We must therefore build trust and confidence in our investors to achieve this --- not scare them away by political posturing.” Mr. Baird wrote: “What is alarming too, is their failure to appreciate the fact that there can be no economic recovery if political instability continues to manifest itself throughout the island. No rational investor will put new money into our economy, irrespective of incentives offered, if Government is in a state of perpetual confusion.”

• In my October 29th Article,” “Be careful what you wish for!” I wrote: “Fortunately for us, Independence for Anguilla does not require a violent national revolution against our Administering Power. The path to independence is clearly set out in our relationship agreements with the British Government. Civil disobedience is not required only civil negotiations.” Mr. Baird wrote: “Finally, the path to Independence is well known to everyone. It is free of any obstacle. The British Government has repeatedly stated that it is up to the Anguillian people, if and when they desire, to make a determination to sever their constitutional link with the UK Government”.

I have made these selected comparisons from “Eddie’s Confessions” to illustrate that there is considerable confirmation of my several criticisms of this Government’s performance and conduct from a person who was intimately involved in its day to day operations. And that while I received considerably abuse for my dogged pursuit of a change of “style, approach and attitude” (as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Evans Mc.Niel Rogers) by the Chief Minister and his colleagues in the governance process there were indeed senior members of his Cabinet who felt the same way.

But one of my main areas of disagreement with “Eddie’s Confessions” is that he seems to conclude that the Chief Minister is in some way the victim of his own Government. I find this a difficult pill to swallow because as the former Minister of Finance, and never the Chief Minister, Hubert has held me responsible for any thing that has gone awry both in his Government of 1994-99 and in the past Government of 2000-10. Hubert must likewise be held accountable for his own Government. He cannot continue to cry out: “It wasn’t me!” And avoid culpability of all kinds. Is Mr. Baird suggesting that Hubert is above reproach --- or is this his way of giving Hubert a last ditch opportunity to come to his senses and again as Niel suggested change his “style, approach and attitude”?

All of us would like to believe, as I suggested in my article of October 22nd, “Can a leopard change its spots?” that “the CM and his colleagues would settle down and do what they were elected to do --- indeed what they promised they would do during their campaign”. If that is Mr. Baird’s strategy --- I wish him well. Indeed, that is what I have been trying to do for the last forty months or so. But the fact is that it is obvious that the Chief Minister’s behaviour has filtered down to the junior members of his Government as well as the unelected advisors who he “cherishes” and have chosen to assist him. And as Mr. Baird suggested in his “confessions”: “they view the Executive Council as an impediment to the realization of their agenda and the law as an unnecessary obstacle thrown in their path by their enemies.” In this sense, there is absolutely no difference between the action that the Parliamentary Secretary took to have an MOU signed without the approval of Executive Council and the Chief Minister authorizing the borrowing of 200 million US dollars without the approval of EXCO and the House of Assembly. Hubert is leading by bad example! He is not a victim! He is the culprit!

The “serial lying” of which I spoke earlier can be especially traced in “Mr. Baird’s confessions” particularly in the case of the Parliamentary Secretary. But again the Chief Minister cannot avoid complicity. According to the “confessions” he was in the Press Conference when his son misrepresented the facts about the sale of Viceroy; according to the “confessions” the Chief Minister was in the House of Assembly when Mr. Baird corrected Mr. Roberts of his misrepresentation of the facts regarding the settlement of a law suit; the according to the “confessions” the Chief Minister was present when the Parliamentary Secretary said that an estimated US$43 million would soon be pouring into the Treasury; according to the “confessions” the Chief Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have not been transparent about the Salamander Group after making big promises during the election campaign; according to the “confessions” the Chief Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have not been transparent about the issue of the impact of accommodation tax and service charge in the sale of villas controversy at Cap Juluca; and so on. As I said in my article of September 24th, “So shall it be in the end”: This Government came into Office on the basis of lies; it continues to consolidate its support on the basis of lies; it justifies its campaign of victimization on the basis of lies, and; it seems intent on governing on the basis of lies. Nothing has changed!”

“Eddie’s Confessions” have made at least five significant points which whether accurate or baseless should cause all of us concern: a) that he devised the strategy that “by targeting and politically destroying the leader of the AUF, Victor Banks, [they] effectively neutralized the other members of the party”--- in that statement he made no qualification as to legality of “the weapons” used; b) that there is political confusion in the AUM “which clearly poses a threat to our political and economic viability”; c) that there may be a handful of unelected persons who “want to impose their radical and disruptive agenda on the Anguillian people”; d) that “the Chief Minister has little or no say in the actual running of the island. [The] only need for him, it appears, is to give formality and legitimacy to their conduct”, and; e) that there appears to be a conspiracy within the Government to depose the Chief Minister allegedly led by his own son.

Where does all of this leave us? After the “serial liars” of the AUM have had their way with us for the past twelve months we hardly know what else to expect. Or even what next to believe! Many of the former supporters of the AUM have nothing to show for their loyalty during the recent election campaign of lies, scandals and innuendos but “heartaches and broken pieces”. Hopefully, “Eddie’s Confessions” will bring some small measure of enlightenment to persons still foundering in this sea of political and economic uncertainty.

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
February 8, 2011

Friday, 4 February 2011

THE MAKING OF A CRISIS

The value of Freedom often comes with a very high price of human casualty and suffering. To misinterpret circumstances relative to our budgetary matters and the economic situation of the island, and to use such an occasion for a call to arms, disrespect for the order of government, disregard for the Island’s Fiscal and Economic Crisis and the blatant anxiety for confrontation with the British Government is nothing less than catastrophic for the people of this island. There is no doubt that at this juncture questions are being asked as to whether our government understands the level of responsibility before the country when they have decided to ignore the rule of law and containment of civil order rather, has set in motion principle factors that would work to destabilize the country. It is a fair analogy to equate the conduct of our government with “The Making of a Crisis.”

As we watch the unfolding of another phase in the historic evolution of a people who have known their fair share of ills and fought with a strong will to succeed, this unpleasant memory is nothing more than a crisis of our own making. Let’s look at the beginning. A victory at the polls, no less than glorious from the perspective that AUF lost the reigns of government and a new era was now ushered in, little did we know twelve months later we would be mired in this turmoil, though not unanticipated we are certainly very disappointed that apparently this government has not sat down in a governing mood and brought to order the business of the country they were elected to do. Whereas, it appears that the British Government intended to execute a well thought out strategy, not necessarily against this government because certainly the previous government had said outlines of disapproval, but it appear that Hubert inflamed the situation when the excitement of his victory got to his head immediately and actually started throwing lose words around carelessly, attacking all facets of British rule on the island and its legitimacy when the power to govern is in his hands.

We have no popular uprising, no chanting on the streets or momentous dilemma confronting the country, just an island in economic peril. There are wild cards here which AUM seems happy to be associated with, as seen when there was a sudden alarm of injustice that the Governor intended to fire the Chief Minister. The generals made a call to her Majesty’s Prison which mobilized the troops from with in the jail walls, some taking up positions on the roof top while others got busy burning open door fires on the grounds making a clear statement. It is not clear to this moment why such a breech occurred and who was responsible for inciting such violence on those protected grounds of Her Majesty’s custody. Another incident worth recalling is the earlier visit of the UK Minister for the Overseas Territories Mr. Henry Bellingham who visited the island in the very early months of The Hughes administration and was greeted with insults and a performance suited for our primary civil enemy and number one culprit of our anger and disdain Robert L. Bradshaw (deceased). The continuous bickering with the Governor and refusal to entertain suggestions and proposals from the Office of Overseas Territories and the Minister direct, acting like rude children rejecting sound advice and instructions that would form the nucleolus of what should be putting the country back on track.

So why did we passed up a great opportunity to govern at this critical time in our history. Nothing is really easy, but nothing too hard for government to do for its people who fought to ensure that their man sits on the seat of power. Talk is indeed cheap and worth nothing when you have lost control of the very vibration of sound speech, but lose talk is like jingles out of rhythm. Why make our lives so miserable with suggestive rhetoric that burns in the flames of anger and bring open dispute to the corridors of our House, our honorable House of Representation. Isn't it better to honor your people with a character of humility and bring change rather than bring us to our knees in shame. This is a crisis, indeed a crisis of our own making, can we bring back to order the civility of this country or we are going to see more fragmentation and dispute, fighting from with in, a struggle now revealed. It became very clear during the political campaign that there were extreme radicals elements in AUM. Eddie Baird is a man of conscience, as youngsters we were regular church goers together, he is a man of faith who knows his profession in Jesus Christ. I believe his report and the country should listen to Eddie’s call on this government to disarm itself from such elements of destruction. We must now question the judgment of Jerome Roberts elected member from East End, how did he missed this observation and was so willing to adapt such principles. Jerome should now rearm himself with civility and work with Eddie to bring the required change the island needs right now.

By: ejharrisxm

Thursday, 3 February 2011

“LET’S HASTEN SLOWLY!”

It was my pleasure to be back on the rock last Thursday after a refreshing vacation --- but I was extremely disappointed with the obvious lack of rainfall over the three weeks of my absence. Especially in the context of the high levels of precipitation (albeit in the form of snow) in many parts of the United States from whence I journeyed. Yet in the midst of my disappointment I remained confident in our island’s historic resilience even after longer periods of drought. I took notice, however, that there was no drought affecting the seeds of discussion on the issue of Independence around the island.

I was also saddened by the passing of a regional colleague and friend, the late Dr. The Honourable John Alfred Osborne, former Chief Minister of Montserrat who was foremost among the many Montserratian leaders who supported a timetable for an Independent Montserrat --- just a few years before the eruption of the deadly Soufriere Volcano. Those leaders had the majority support of their citizens in pursuing that timetable. And that timetable for Independence would have already been achieved were it not for that natural disaster. Today perhaps the one missing element for achieving such constitutional advance, besides the lurking threat of another eruption, is the absence of a viable economy including of course the importance of a critical population mass.

The historic and societal links of Montserrat with the other independent states of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the strength of its economy in the late seventies and the eighties was obviously central to that island’s strong desire to become fully integrated as an independent nation into the sub-regional and wider Caricom communities. Their history was not one of struggle with another state within an administrative union --- in fact their relationship with Antigua and Barbuda with whom they were once associated, remains one of mutual respect and fraternal affection. Furthermore, in terms of regional trade, being an economy with some agricultural production capacity, their commonality of interests with the other OECS independent member states was also at the time a motivating factor for seeking Independence.

I have made the foregoing illustration of Montserrat to establish five points of departure for my contribution to the discussion on an Independent Anguilla. First of all, every state that seeks to pursue the status of independence does so for different reasons. Secondly, the viability and the sustainability of the economy in preparation for independence is an important consideration. Thirdly, for small states it may be of critical importance for survival to become involved in formal regional or sub-regional relationships. Fourthly, disasters, whether natural, human or financial, can impact a timetable for Independence. And finally, it is important to have the nationwide support of the people in an atmosphere of social, political and economic stability.

Having said all of that let me say that the issue of an Independent Anguilla is nothing new. In fact, Anguilla had two plebiscites or referenda on the issue of secession and independence in the late sixties. Both were won unanimously. The first on July 11th, 1967 recorded a count of 1813 in favour, 5 against. The second on February 6th, 1969 recorded a similar overwhelming count of 1739 in favour, 4 against and on this occasion Anguilla was declared an Independent Republic. Two weeks later the Honourable James Ronald Webster was elected President of the Republic. I will not comment on any procedural aspects of the referenda except to say that it is quite obvious that these were called because of serious frustrations on the part of Anguillians as to the manner in which they had been treated. In that sense these actions were almost impulsive without any significant forward planning. In fact, the Constitutions that were presented to ensure proper governance did not receive the benefit of any process of wide public consultation.

So while the issue of Independence for Anguilla was more advanced than a casual discussion long before the Parliament Secretary was born. And while it actually received popular approval via a democratic process it did not survive the test of the political circumstances on the ground. What it did do was bring attention to the determination of Anguillians to readily sink or swim alone --- rather than to be forced return to an “unholy union” with the Bradshaw regime. Whether this was a deliberate strategy or a bullish response --- our worst fears as a nation were not realized. The interesting difference between that period and the present is that Anguilla would have been the first state in the OECS to enter into independence. Those were woefully uncharted waters for a small island of just over five thousand inhabitants and an economy lacking any ready sources of sustainability.

A further difference during that period and the present is that unlike that earlier Revolutionary period no military revolt or civil disobedience is necessary to achieve independence from Britain. There is a clear path to that status outlined in our partnership agreement and subsequent policy papers from the Ministry for the Overseas Territories. In fact, not even a war of words and insolent exchanges is necessary or even helpful. As the former Speaker of the House of Assembly Mr. David Carty put it: “You can almost get independence by email!” Of course, once it is the expressed will of the people of Anguilla!

So what then is the “big fuss” on the island? There seems to be an obvious attempt by some “gung-ho” supporters of the Anguilla United Movement to quiet any opposing views or even cautious and studied approaches coming from other persons in the community on the issue of Independence. I was happy to hear that yet another conveniently “put together” “Concerned Citizens Group” was embarking on an education process which so many of us have been recommending. In my article of January 14, 2011 I said: “People need to know what going into Independence will mean for the average Anguillian. What are the advantages? What are the disadvantages? Therefore in essence what the Chief Minister and his team should be doing is educating Anguillians rather than leading them into a fight literally blindfolded. Not knowing who they are fighting or what they are fighting for.”

I was however most disappointed that this “concerned citizens group” brought in a speaker not to discuss or educate us about Independence but obviously only to relate and defend his own personal experiences with the British and to speak about the situation surrounding the suspension of the Constitution in the Turks and Caicos Islands. In effect to reinforce the Chief Minister and the AUM’s reasoning that rather than dialoguing with the British and making a reasoned case for dealing with our financial and economic plight --- we should move headlong into political independence without adequate education and preparation for what may lie ahead.

Despite the fact that it is my view that the facilitator, Mr. Robert Hall, was not the ideal choice for a discussion on the topic of independence --- I believe that he did an excellent job in pointing out the differences in the situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) as opposed to Anguilla. To my mind it showed clearly that it is an insult to Anguillians to compare the historic record of governance between our two territories especially if what he reported and the Commission of Inquiry alleged bears any semblance of truth. Anyone who reads the TCI Commission of Inquiry 2009 as well as the earlier Inquiry of 1986, that in fact mentions Mr. Hall, would not be happy to draw any comparisons with Anguilla’s record of governance. Let me therefore conclude that the presence of the former Deputy Chief Minister of TCI among us was not to educate the citizenry but rather to maneuver them along a particular line of reasoning that fits with the AUM agenda. Which seems to be political independence now!

Let us then look at what I consider a fairly accurate definition of political independence: “A politically independent country is one where laws and policies are formulated by the people of that country without undue external influence by a dominant other country or power external to that country.” Independent countries are seen more in the context of England, the United States of America, Russia and Canada. Regionally we think of Jamaica, Guyana, St Kitts and Antigua. One of the world’s smallest independent states is Vatican City comprising 0.2 sq miles and a population of 770 persons. Nauru with 8.5 sq miles and 12,000 people is the smallest independent country in the world. Yet they all carry the label of political independence --- which would suggest that the general application of the label can only be relative.

The question that may come to mind after examining the various definitions is whether any country is truly independent. Organizations and agencies like the European Union, Caricom, OECD, OECS, WTO, CFATF and the United Nations among others, impact as well as regulate the decision making of many established and mature sovereign or independent states. If Anguilla became independent it would be the smallest independent country in the Caribbean. But let us look at the situation of Anguilla’s sister British Overseas Territories in the Atlantic and the Caribbean. Bermuda has the highest GDP per capita in the world while that of the Cayman Islands and BVI is significantly higher than many European Union countries. Most of this is based on a strong financial services sector. Even though it is not clear why the relationship with the UK has such an impact on this industry, there appears to be a strong causal relationship. To the extent that it has even been suggested that Anguilla would do much better in the Financial Services Sector if it were referred to as British Anguilla.

But despite all the positives associated with maintaining the status quo, that have been catalogued and presented elsewhere, Anguillians must not fall into an attitude of complacency with our relationship with the British Government. None of the benefits that the Overseas Territories have received over the last ten years since the Partnership for Progress and Prosperity arrangement have come without a struggle. Every British Government --- like the Anguilla Government has its own agenda as well as its own constituency. Any progress on the realization of our goals and objectives will not be achieved without due regard for theirs. It must therefore always be a dialogue on all issues so as to acquire a better understanding of the considerations involved.

The Anguilla United Front Government during its tenure faced the same frustrations of dealing with officials of the FCO as the present Government complains about today. And in the course of the debate we used frank and direct language to put forward our arguments --- but we never expected that a solution could ever be found in a protracted war of insults and threats of radical conduct. We never dismissed the inevitability of independence as a future status and we always recognized that it required education, planning and preparation. In fact, on page 41 of our 2010 Manifesto we stated clearly that our long-term vision is “that Anguilla will be a constitutionally independent nation enjoying democracy and the rule of law”. And we outlined as our principle strategic objectives: full internal self-government; constitutional, electoral and democratic reform, and; increased public consultations and participation by the public in the democratic process. Indeed every single public consultative process since 1998 came out in support of that principle of full internal self-government. In other words, there was no consensus for leaving the umbrella of the British Government --- but there certainly is a strong desire to achieve more local autonomy.

There is real concern that the Chief Minister and the present AUM party have not imbued any confidence in their ability to understand the process of good governance and observe proper procedures set out in established policies and the legislation. This has been evident in their approach to Social Security, ANGLEC, the indigenous banking sector, due diligence on international borrowing, dealing with developers, blatant disregard for the separation of powers, dealing with the public service and so on. Can they likewise be expected to adopt similar styles should they succeed in manipulating Anguillians into rushing headlong in to independence?

A number of duplicitous attitudes concern me as the Chief Minister continues to suggest that he is being forced to take the independence route because of the British behaviour as follows.

• On the one hand the CM accuses the Governor of not intervening in the decision making of the previous AUF Government. --- now he accuses the same Governor and the British for being too “interfering” in his Government.

• On the one hand he invites the FCO to send technical officers to assist in the budgetary process --- now he complains that they are sending technical officers to tell him how to deal with his budget.

• On the one hand he accuses the British Government of standing idly by and allowing the past government to increase our debt burden --- now he is complaining that he is going independent because the British Government is restricting his borrowing.

It is this lack of consistency in leadership that is exacerbating the concerns of ordinary Anguillians as we listen to the “trumpeters” of the call for independence. It is the lack of civility in the attitude to views and opinions that do not reflect the AUM party line that threaten freedom of expression in the consultative process. And it is the apparent reactionary approach without regard for sustainable planning that creates uncertainty about the motives of the AUF Government.

Sir John Swan a former Premier of Bermuda from 1982 to 1995 wagered his political fortunes on taking his country into independence in a national referendum. Sir John was a successful businessman in addition to being an astute politician, and by the way, just to be precise, like most Anguillians was of African descent. We have already commented that Bermuda as an Overseas Territory has the highest per capita income in the world. Yet the people of Bermuda opted to remain an Overseas Territory, albeit with a more advanced constitution than most other Overseas Territories.

As I said earlier every country must make its own constitutional choices; for its own reasons; with due regard to its own circumstances; within its own time; and with the support of its own people. The AUM would be well advised to reflect on these truths. As Mr. Bradley suggested in his article “Independence is not an Ego Trip”: “Let’s Hasten Slowly!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
February 1, 2011

IMPACT OF INDEPENDENCE ON OUR NATION

“Independence that’s middle class blasphemy, we all are dependent on one another, every soul on earth.”(Bernard Shaw)

I have recently been approached on numerous occasions, to give my opinion on political independence for Anguilla. I have tried to keep out of the fray and allow the government to govern. However, I cannot neglect giving a response to those who need to hear an independent voice. It is ironic that the last chapter of my book, “POWER AND PRIVILEGE OF A DEMOCRACY,” soon to be published, closes with the chapter, “Impact of independence on Our Nation.” My response is a non-partisan perspective on this important issue. In this text, Anguilla is likened as a nation under political siege. The matter of independence cannot be regarded lightly. It must be weighed with sufficient cognition and characterized by the complete desires of our people. History must write this political page as the will of the people-not a political party or select few. Fellow Anguillans, my commitment will always be to the people of Anguilla and no special interest group.

I once asked Atlin Harrigan about the prospect of independence for Anguilla. He responded that although we may one day welcome this, no man, woman or country is independent. We are all inescapably interdependent, and the course to independence must be carefully crafted. It must ensure the safety and productivity of each other. He concluded that it must not be designed, to give greater power to those in authority, or else we may face dictatorship. I concluded independence must give the masses economic and educational power and privilege. So, I remain convinced that sufficient preparations have not been made to secure independence. First, empower our people to receive the best quality health care and education opportunities. Let our citizens enjoy security and comfort in employment. Second, build their confidence and trust in the ability of government to perform, and educate them about independence. Third, establish those policies that can guide us as a nation, with checks and balances that protect every citizen. It is not necessary to obtain Independence through militant behavior.

America is a world power that depends upon China and Japan in many ways. Baby Doc, the former President of Haiti, spent twenty five years in exile for his treatment of his people. Independence does not give us escape from international scrutiny. Independence is a very abstract idea and must be measured by its timeliness, preparation and implementation of institutions to protect all its citizens. It is not enough to gain political independence to chart our course fiscally, only to become obligated to thugs and rogue nations. One must agree, it can only occur through the collective will of our people.

This question is asked where ever I turn, are we ready for independence? I still believe that full self-internal rule is the best approach. There is growing frustration on the part of the government over the Governor’s refusal to sign the budget. It is unreasonable to balance the budget on the backs of the poor people. The government, rather than terminating those who are struggling, should reduce the salaries of those at the top. This frustration does not give rise to clamouring for independence as a solution to our economic problems.

Our government and opposition must lead with purpose and direction, in order to prepare our people to move forward to independence, democracy and equality. It is hard to believe that with divisiveness in government and among our people- we are there yet. Independence does not occur over night. It is important for all Anguillans to work together to improve our economy. Our leaders must be responsible and not create discord among our people. We must tone down the rhetoric and work with the British to resolve our issues. This approach is inevitable to the productivity of our nation.

Independence is not a synonym for shortsighted-nationalism or egoism. It does not mean that government can decide whatever it wants; but there must be conformity to the law and facts outlined within our constitution. We must be reminded that independence is irreversible and many would be stripped of the opportunity to seek medical help abroad, as we remain unprepared to deal with cataclysmic situations. Entrepreneurs would experience extreme hardships in travel. Our leaders as diplomats would have this privilege, but others would be denied. As our people echo the call for independence, some tend to destroy it minute by minute. Our independence is not as important or immediate as taking control of our fiscal responsibilities. This government must micro-manage its affairs well, in order to restore Anguilla to a formidable economic position.

Independence is improbable without economic security. If we do not experience economic security we will never be liberated. When our people are hungry, starved, begging, and out of work, this is the climate for creating a dictatorship. Our government must be committed to removing political barriers and instability. The present fiery tone pits us against the British, and one must conclude this is a conflict based upon fantasy. It seems to be a quixotic political approach at best. There is no rationale for bitterness, when we can simply educate our people, prepare our course, hold a referendum on this issue, and approach the British Government for this constitutional change. The truth is, just as we hold the AUM responsible for today; the AUF was responsible for the state of Anguilla at the end of 2010.

However, the government must move forward on its promises. This calls for reasonable dialogue with the British. The United States Virgin Islands cannot work without America. The French and Dutch Islands are effectively working with France and Holland. It seems more and more that it is essential to establish global integration. It is tragic that a new government having been elected is unable to do this, in light of the fact that it was not responsible for our economic demise. The Anguilla United Front could never have made such an honest case. In this light, the Anguilla United Movement may have lost a brilliant opportunity for leadership. They have spent too much time on the Anguilla United Front and the possible ouster of Mr. Eddie Baird as well as denigrating the Governor. One can only assume the reasons for the ostracism of the Honourable Edison Baird. It must create a nervous reaction when we study the present course – divisiveness within the government.

We must establish moral and intellectual independence, in order to create a foundation for national independence. The 1967 revolution, was sanctioned by massive support throughout Anguilla. I believe it was made possible by the lack of bloodshed. We must use Britain as well as other countries for the advancement of our people. Many, worry that independence would serve a death blow to travel abroad. It would further isolate us at a time when our economy is depleted. Violence can create the greatest divide Anguillans have witnessed within the last century. We must be mindful that independence is first an internal achievement, and not only an external arrangement. I know that as I explain my views pertaining to this serious chapter in our history, there will be many striving to obliterate these commentaries.

In this country of ours, opposing views throw one on the vanguard of political ideology. It is time to become immersed in the outcome of leadership rather than the leaders themselves. We learnt a great lesson when the electorate told the Anguilla United Front their government was fired. The last election was about a group of people who could lead us to a better position. I am sure the masses through desperation and despondence came to a surprising conclusion.

The question remains, how have our expectations been affected by the leadership of the present government? I leave this for each of us to seriously ponder going forward in our personal struggles. The lack of cooperation on all sides continues to strangle, stifle and strain possibilities for progress. We are a resilient people whose past has been honed by experiences of pain, suffering and neglect. The strength of our democracy must be felt in our education system. It cannot be realized through the politics of fear or failure. It is my hope that the Honourable Hubert Hughes contemplates these issues seriously. As an elected official and leader, he must establish the people’s trust. Then and only then, we can assume the difficult task of independence.

By: Terry Harrigan (Independent Politician)