The View from Europe
By David Jessop

Clarity needed on Overseas Territories policy

A week ago a letter was sent from the British Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Its text appeared in the British newspapers having been leaked by sources unknown. It related to the United Kingdom’s increasingly tense defence review which has been subsumed into Britain’s wider approach to making huge reductions in public expenditure.

The Defence review is particularly contentious as it involves cutting military spending by about nineteen per cent over four years and in so doing changing the United Kingdom’s priorities and posture in the world.

Although the letter focuses on a wide range of military options, one section has particular relevance to the Caribbean, carrying with it a hint of things to come. 

Referring to significant reductions being contemplated in the United Kingdom’s naval surface fleet, it says: ‘The reduction in overall surface ship numbers means we will be unable to undertake all the standing commitments (providing a permanent Royal Navy presence in priority regions) we do today. Assuming a presence in UK waters, the Falklands and in support of the deterrent is essential, we would have to withdraw our presence in, for example, the Indian Ocean, Caribbean or Gulf’.

In a Caribbean context this can only mean that the UK is contemplating withdrawing its naval presence from the region. The implications are potentially significant. In particular it raises questions about Britain’s ability to maintain a credible role in the defence and security of the five British Overseas Territories in the region. Any such decision would also challenge the UK’s ability to provide rapid support in the event of a natural disaster; raise questions about the UK’s capacity to stand behind Belize should its unresolved border dispute ever be reignited; and begs questions about the future of the counter-narcotics and other security operations  the UK undertakes in the region.

Any such change would occur at a particularly complicated and difficult moment in the UK’s relationship with some of its Caribbean overseas territories and just as Britain’s governing Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition is reviewing its future policy towards them. 

Sometime later this year, possibly around the time of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council in November, the content of a White Paper will be revealed. The new approach is expected to place a much greater focus on the uniqueness of the challenges that each Overseas Territory faces in relation to the region that they are in, and propose the something akin to a long term business plan that will encourage economic development in a manner that takes into account and supports the long term constitutional aspirations of each island. 

Speaking recently about Overseas Territories to the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, told Andrew Rosindell MP, who is taking a detailed interest in their future, that Britain had a continuing responsibility to ensure security, good governance and the economic well-being of its remaining possessions. He acknowledged the substantial challenges, the need to manage risks carefully and to move quickly to tackle problems. 

Problems there certainly are, most notably in the Turks and Caicos Islands. 


There, where Britain suspended self-government in August 2009 and took direct control as a consequence of serious allegations of corruption against the former Premier and others, the internal situations is becoming increasingly tense. 
Although a return to constitutional rule and elections had previously been promised for July 2011, the Minister responsible for Britain’s Overseas Territories, Henry Bellingham, announced in the islands on September 21, that these will now be delayed and will take place as soon as practicable, after the UK has completed its programme of reforms.
This has angered both of the main political parties that feel as the elected representatives of islanders, they should be closely involved in discussing the return to self government; that Britain has not acted expeditiously, with the consequence that the internal economic and political situation is deteriorating; and that those yet to be formally accused of corruption are regaining political support.
There is also anger that too much importance seems to be placed on the entreaties of locally based, vocal and influential individuals who are not islanders and concern that successive British Governments have not paid enough attention to oversight or ensuring that there is a professional, a well trained and properly remunerated civil service and police force. 

Following public demonstrations, rallies and difficult exchanges with a British appointed constitutional consultant, the two main political parties have in the last week issued a joint statement demanding elections no later than December 2011 and not unreasonably, have asked the UK to detail the milestones that must be achieved before a return to democratic rule. They have also made clear that they reject any attempt by the UK to enlarge the franchise and are demanding that the interim administration not consider any application for ‘belongership’ unless based upon marriage.  Moreover, they have rejected the constitutional review process as undemocratic and unrepresentative of the views of the people arguing that what is required are direct negotiations with UK Ministers. 

Their position is backed at a regional level. Caricom, in a strongly worded statement has told Britain that the development of good governance ‘cannot be met by the continued disenfranchisement of the Turks and Caicos Islanders, by the denial of their inalienable right to shape their own future nor by the artificial widening of the voter base’. ‘Good political and fiscal governance cannot be handed down. Its nature and contours have to be moulded by the people of the territory.’ 

What is happening in Britain’s Overseas Territories hides a bigger and unresolved contradiction. That is reconciling the granting of advanced constitutions, ministerial responsibility and the rise of political parties with London’s desire to retain a degree of control to ensure probity, sound economic management and equitable development. 

Small nations with their own internal political dynamic do not respond well to the less than engaged and sometimes politically insensitive decisions of officials in London or to Governors that seem unable to manoeuvre within a political environment. 

It is time for the UK, Overseas Territories and the wider Caribbean to take a long term view of where a true partnership with consistent political engagement might eventually lead. 

David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be contacted at [log in to unmask]
Previous columns can be found at www.caribbean-council.org
October 1st, 2010