Whew! Finally! I had begun to think that Anguilla was content to remain a colony all the days of my life. While I breathe a sigh of relief that we are finally going to be exploring all the options and exercising new options enveloped in the term “self-determination”, I still cannot explain why it took so long for us to recognize the inevitability of this moment. At last we are about to begin talking the talk of full internal self-government and independence and I hope we will emerge with an agenda in which we at least plan the walk.

When the first reports of the enforced attention came by way of the local news, I immediately called my advisor in such matters to query whether this was equivalent to the Statehood that we vehemently and effectively rejected forty-one years ago. He thought it was but when I thought about it some more I realize that Associated Statehood is but one of the options for self-determination with which Anguilla now must consider.

As early as 1953, UN Resolution 742 (VIII) identified a number of “Factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a Territory is or is not a Territory whose people have now yet attained a full measure of self-government” . In Items 5, 6 and 8 respectively;

‘Considers that the validity of any form of association between a Non-Self-Governing Territory and a metropolitan or any other country essentially depends on the freely expressed will of the people at the time of the taking of the decision;

Considers that the manner in which Territories…can become fully self-governing is primarily through the attainment of independence, although it is recognized that self-government can also be achieved by association with another state or group of states if this is done freely and on the basis of equality…

Further reaffirms that, for a Territory to be deemed self-governing in economic, social or educational affairs, it is essential that its people shall have attained a full measure of self-government;’

Among the list of factors indicative of the attainment of separate systems of self-government other than independence, is the matter of Internal Self-Government that speaks to the independence of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary; participation of the population in terms of “an adequate and appropriate electoral representative system” free from interference from a foreign government; and autonomy in economic, social and cultural affairs that prevents the development of a privileged foreign minority group. However, it must be borne in mind that this was before the advent of the New World Order characterized by the inequities of the trade dominated regime known as globalization.

The 1960 General Assembly which drafted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples clearly listed among the seven provisions of the Declaration, that ‘inadequacy of preparedness “should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence;” and that immediate steps shall be taken … to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations”;’ One year after that Declaration, a 17-member Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was formed and in 1962, seven members were added to comprise what is now commonly known as the Special Committee of 24. This Committee, which met for the first time in a Non-Self-Governing Territory viz, Anguilla in 2003, is the General Assembly’s chief executive body on colonial matters.

In 1986, the United Kingdom indicated to the Committee that it would no longer take part in its work because its remaining Territories had chosen to retain their political status. However the UK also indicated that it would “respect the wishes of the people” of its remaining territories – not quite the same thing as you must have an independence agenda if you want any further autonomy. Interestingly enough, the USA stopped working with the Committee in 1992 claiming that the Committee’s agenda and modus operandi could no longer address the needs of the people in its Non-Self-Governing Territories. Yet it was common knowledge that the administering powers would not be happy about government representation at meetings of the Committee of 24. In Anguilla’s case, it was the Anguilla National Council of Women that consistently participated in the work of the Committee.

The Rifkin Letter of 1996 which threatened extending the powers of the Governor was alarming and thanks to the agitation of the Hon. Hubert Hughes, Anguilla could not fail to pay attention. Rifkin may well have done us a favour because to my mind, it is since then that there has been a renewed vigilance, an ever watchful eye on the Governor’s Office. It is an eye that is also keenly focused at this time on the office of our very own Deputy Governor. I remember well that the UK representative in the Committee of 24 meeting in Anguilla expressed surprise at consideration of extending the Governor’s powers and agreed that this ran counter to the principle of self-determination.

When the Committee met in St. Lucia in 1999 for a Caribbean Regional Seminar to review the conditions of the territories and among its Conclusions and Recommendations was, ‘- access by the Non-Self-Governing Territories to relevant United Nations programmes in the economic and social sphere was in furtherance of capacity-building and consistent with necessary preparations for the assumption of full internal self-government. The Anguilla meeting went further to call for a UN presence in Anguilla to support our local experts in processes of public education and guidance with regard to full appreciation of the various options for self-determination before us. Heartically Yours thinks the time is just right for that presence and we know that the expertise of our friend and brother Dr. Carlyle Corbin in St. Thomas is readily available to us whenever we issue the call.

We have had 40 years of internal self-rule and now it is time to distinguish between this, full internal self-government and independence. We are not alone and there are serious lessons to be learned from the Falklands war, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Montserrat, the Chagos Islands and even Puerto Rico. We can no longer claim that the Constitution is a fait accompli or someone else’s business. I therefore urge us to turn out en mass on the evening of Monday 28th and subsequent meetings to determine our destiny. If we are not ready at age 40, then our backs should be pressed against the wall and we take what we get.

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News