UK Responsible for Base Clean-up

Addressing Bermuda’s House of Assembly in 15 January 1942, on his way home from Washington, UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill spoke of the agreement for the leasing to the United States of bases in Bermuda. He told the Members of Colonial Parliament that “you in Bermuda happen to be called upon to play a part of especial importance and distinction. Everybody has to do his duty to the cause—first to the British Empire, but above that to the world cause.” Sir Winston went on state, “I wish to express to you my strong conviction that these bases are important pillars of the bridge connecting the two great English-speaking democracies. You have cause to be proud that it has fallen to your lot to make this important contribution to a better world.” He concluded his remarks by expressing his “profound gratitude.”

For more than 50 years the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States was manifested, as far as Bermuda is concerned, in the gift of this lease—not part of the bases for weapons swap that characterized other UK-US base deals.  With the Cold War over and the military need for the bases eroding, the United States made the decision in early 1990s to close the base and return the land to Bermuda well ahead of the 2040 lease expiration date.

One of the residual issues is the base cleanup, now estimated to cost over $70 million. This should not be a cost borne by the Bermuda Government. In recognition of the UK’s “profound gratitude” for the sacrifices made by Bermudians as well as the fact that Bermuda had no role in the decision to grant the US a base on the island, it cannot logically, morally, even legally, be a Bermuda responsibility. Minimally, the UK must bear responsibility for this and the Bermuda government needs to revisit the matter and attempt to persuade the UK to act responsibility. If moral suasion proves inadequate we must consider and pursue other options.

The second residual issue is the matter of a formal apology to the residents of St David’s Island. With the grant of the base lease, about half of St David’s Island was handed over to the Americans and in so doing deeply weakened and deleteriously altered the distinctive culture and life of the residents of this isolated community. Anyone seeking a detailed description of this culture before the base should have a look at E A McCallan’s Life on Old St David’s Bermuda. The residents of St David’s paid a higher price than most Bermudians since their entire way of life was affected. For this they are entitled to an apology from the United Kingdom who acted, no doubt, with a firm resolution and focus on defeating the destruction wrought by Fascism and who did not have the luxury of time to reflect on the damage done locally. 

The US bases issue is an excellent example of why history matters. We did make a sacrifice to assist the UK, US and other Allied powers to defeat the Axis powers in World War II; indeed, we helped the struggle to regain democracy in Europe even though Bermuda remained an oligarchy until 1968. For our contribution we should not be expected to pay for damage left by a guest invited to our home by our head of the household, so to speak; and our head should certainly acknowledge the impact of their decisions.

UK's Interests are not Bermuda's

 The United Kingdom government has launched a review of its relationship with its colonies, the Overseas Territories, and plans to publish a new position paper next July. In an ostensible gesture toward greater democracy the public have been invited to submit their views and concerns directly to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This invitation, though, has been framed by the UK vision for its colonies which includes strong communities, increased opportunities for the people and, importantly, territories “proudly retaining aspects of their British identity”.

It is telling that of the three elements comprising the UK vision for the OTs, retention of “British identity” is so important to Mr Cameron’s government. On the one hand, many aspects of British identity as manifested in colonies have been synonymous with either oppressive or paternalistic practices; on the other hand, British identity in the UK is evolving along with the greater diversity of its citizens. 

By limiting the review to that which is consistent with its vision, the UK has demonstrated it is not seriously interested in having an honest dialogue about the future relations with its territories. In bestowing British citizenship on the OTs in 2002 after having taken it away in 1981 with the British Nationality Act the UK has placed the Bermudian, Caymanian and all other OT citizens on the same footing as the UK citizen living in London. But this right to citizenship is an individual right and does not in any way alter the UK—Bermuda relationship. 

This current review does not countenance any change in the structural relationship—neither constitutionally closer nor farther apart. Given the rapid changes taking place globally, Britain’s own relationship with the European Union and the trend toward regional positioning, it borders on irresponsible to avoid the question as to what the best political structure and relationship is to meet the global challenges we can all clearly see today.  

Prime Minister Cameron’s government uses populist language to talk about partnerships, dialogue and consultation in the preparation of the new white paper, replacing the ironically named Partnership for Progress white paper published in 1999. But in a fundamentally unequal relationship—where the UK has all the political power and the OTs have none—there can be no reasonable expectation that the OTs will be treated fairly or respectfully. The 1999 white paper set the precedent by imposing a series of unilateral decisions on the OTs and devolving power back to the UK; back then the retrograde actions by the UK were indirectly validated by the OTs since the governments all sat by passively while this occurred. 

Today, the OTs have a moral and political obligation not to cede further power to the UK.  Democracy needs to be enhanced, not pushed back. The seemingly innocuous language “to strengthen good governance arrangements, public financial management and economic planning” opens up a wide door of British intrusiveness. There are some in the OTs who will welcome such involvement. But consider this: the UK is in no position to credibly advise or direct us on either public finance or economic planning; the UK competes with Bermuda in our all important insurance sector; and the above matters are all currently beyond the UK constitutional remit, at least as far as Bermuda is concerned.

Britain’s vision for its colonies will not necessarily run in tandem with the interest of the OTs and their governments. As this review evolves it is critically important for the public to be involved in this process but not solely in the way imagined by the politicians and civil servants at the FCO. We must ask if the right questions are being asked; we must challenge the parameters of discussion framed in London; and we must do so if we are to take greater responsibility for charting our own future.

Balancing Safety and Civil Rights

During our present period of heightened public sensitivity around violent crime there are urgent calls for  action. People want to see the Bermuda Police Service making tangible progress in this area and they want to see the perpetrators of such crime brought to justice. One tool adopted by the BPS in arresting criminal behavour is the stop and search policy. Use of this policy, though, has raised important human rights questions the merit examination. Tonight’s forum on this issue organized by the newly formed Centre for Justice will no doubt prove instructive.

Under current laws the police have the authority to stop and search persons as part of a preemptive crime reduction initiative. So far this year about 15,000 stop and searches have been carried out and, according to the BPS, they are focused on “prolific priority offenders.”  With reported crime showing declines over last year this no doubt reinforces the view that stop and searches are both a credible and effective part of reducing crime.

An opposing view urges caution and restraint. Amid claims that persons with no criminal record are routinely stop and searched, there are concerns that one’s human rights, particularly regarding the presumption of innocence, have been comprised under this power. Lawyers and other human rights advocates arguing this see it as part of the slippery slope of the erosion of civil liberties.  

From the public perspective there is likely to be greater emphasis given to public safety over public freedom given that criminal behaviour has permeated our community in ways never before witnessed. Moreover, residents, generally, want to see the police more assertive and more in control in contrast to what for many seemed like police passivity amidst growing lawlessness. 

To be fair, those advocating caution equally want to see a community free of crime and where pervasive public safety is a fact of life and not merely an aspiration. Their concern is that in our quest to significantly reduce crime, in “policing the crisis”, we do not sacrifice the liberties so many fought for for so long. 

Specifically, there is concern that any member of the public can be stopped while travelling on our roads and be subjected to search of their vehicle and person. There is concern that this has a level of arbitrariness to it that impinges on the larger principle of freedom. Further, the argument is made that if we allow our freedoms to be carved back because of this issue a precedent will have been set for dealing with other issues.

Crime, particularly violent crime, is a fact of modern Bermuda that requires a strong and effective response. The BPS has a number of tools at their disposal to tackle their responsibilities in dealing with this issue, with stop and search powers one such tool. What we are prepared or, indeed required to give up in terms of freedoms to grant the authorities the power to act should be a matter of public debate.

The Centre for Justice needs to be commended for taking the initiative and bringing forward and juxtaposing  views on this important national problem. I have no doubt the panelists will inform, enlighten and help us to see a clearer way forward.

The OBA and Racism

“The legacy of racism is the root cause of many of the social ills and the dysfunction we are grappling with today….white supremacy has imposed injustice…and still works to maintain the status quo.” Powerful words coming from a new voice. These are neither the exhortations of the venerable Dr Eva Hodgson nor of the irrepressible Mr Rolf Commissiong . This is the voice of the leader of the One Bermuda Alliance, Mr Craig Cannonier. That this is now the official position of the official opposition on the impact of racism is instructive.

To begin with, there is recognition that racism not only has contoured our island home in significant and deliberate ways, but more importantly, its impact continues.  The OBA, then, has embraced the position long held by the much maligned Dr Hodgson and, effectively, endorsed the work of the Big Conversation, led by Mr Commissiong, to raise awareness of the legacy of racism. If the OBA Members of Parliament who were elected under the UBP label and who previously excoriated the work of the Big Conversation have embraced the perspective of their leader then Bermuda is moving in a better direction.

One of the challenges for the OBA will be to persuade many of their supporters—the thousands who previously supported the UBP—that racism has had a real and meaningful impact on the lives of people today. Too often we hear comments such as “I am not responsible for what my grandparents did” or “I worked hard to get where I am today” as if our racial past never matters. Mr Cannonier is correct to remind us that it does. That he chose to give it prominence in his Reply to the Throne Speech suggests the OBA will make racial injustice a theme in their future campaign.

While it is important to recognize the legacy and ongoing impact of racism and white supremacy as the OBA does, that is merely the first critical step. The more difficult challenge is what to do about it. On this front the OBA has not provided any direction. If one recognizes the playing field is unequal and unjust because of racism it is illogical to fall onto the false notion of equality of opportunity. Mr Cannonier: “We should all have a chance to make the most of our God given gifts no matter what colour we are.” Asserting equal opportunity without equal capacity is a false construct. In simple terms, a new business owner with $1 million of family money in backing has a greater capacity to succeed than a new business owner with $10,000 in savings. 

  

If the OBA is to be taken seriously on an issue their leader argues is responsible for many of our social ills they have an obligation to inform us what they plan to do about it. The PLP government initiated the Big Conversation, introduced the Economic Empowerment Zones to provide greater opportunities for marginalized groups and began discussions on work equity legislation. I look forward to the OBA proposals to address the injustice created as a result of racism.

My view has long been that race is the prism through which many issues are refracted. Understanding racism is a critical part of understanding the making of modern Bermuda. But it should never be a crutch on which everything rests. Rather, we should recognize it, understand it and then devise suitable initiatives, policies and programmes to remedy the damage it has caused. If the OBA can contribute toward this end we should welcome their input.

De-Occupying Wall Street

The movement to challenge corporate greed and excess that began on Wall Street and rapidly became a global protest movement is nearing its end. Many countries have seen working people, and the formerly working, come out in the tens of thousands to lend their voice and bodies to the clarion call for a fairer, a more equitable society. As governments exercise the ‘rule of law’ to close down the tents and end the demonstrations—“illegal tenting”, “sanitation”, “obstruction”—while still claiming to embrace free speech and expression, there are important lessons to be learned from the Occupy movement.

Firstly, as much as people are legitimately aggrieved by the destructive policies pursued in the realm of high finance, it is critical for any protest movement to have a clear goal in mind. The Occupy movement is a genuine eruption of the collective will of everyday people but its objective has been limited to consciousness raising and calling out corporate crooks. Many participants, though, longed for changes in policies or laws that would limit the seeming free rein financiers appear to enjoy. If the goal is to raise consciousness the organizers have achieved this; and at some point further protest loses its relevance. 

Those commentators who liken this movement to the Arab Spring misunderstand: those movements in the Middle East had the explicit political objective of toppling authoritarian rule and developed mass consciousness as part of that effort. If there is any parallel to be drawn it is that 2011 saw a rupture of people power in raw, unadulterated form.  Indeed, this year can be seen as a tamer version of that pivotal year, 1968, which saw students, peace activists, black power activists and Prague Spring all challenge hegemonic power.

Secondly, the Occupy protesters set out to challenge a group who has no requirement or obligation to answer to the public. This is an altogether different undertaking than going after those who hold political office. And given their objective of merely raising consciousness, the men in suits could simply ignore them publicly while working vigorously behind the scenes to bring an end to the protesters’ campaign. If there is a weakness in their strategy there was a failure to link politicians with Wall Street: bailouts using tax payers’ money, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act separating retail and investment banking, and tax loopholes for major corporations, were all designed and passed by legislators with cozy relationships with the corporate world buttressed by campaign donations.

Thirdly, while the Occupy protests may well be at an end entirely by week’s end, there is an important message they leave behind: people have a voice outside of the formal political process, they have power irrespective of their wealth and they have the capacity to make change, even if in this instance, it remains at the level of consciousness raising. 

Alice Walker once said, “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” The Occupiers have given away none of their power.  And through their example they have inspired everyday people everywhere with the notion that elites do not have a monopoly on power  and they power they do have will not go unchallenged.