UK imposes Turks and Caicos rule

The UK has imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos Islands after an inquiry found evidence of government corruption and incompetence.

The administration of the UK territory in the Caribbean has been suspended for up to two years and power transferred to the UK-appointed governor.

Politicians are accused of selling crown land for personal gain.

Click to expand...

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | UK imposes Turks and Caicos rule

We can do this?
Wow, learn new things everyday.

UK suspends Turks and Caicos govt

Britain has ordered the suspension of local government in its Caribbean territory of Turks and Caicos following a long-running wrangle over alleged corruption, the Foreign Office says.

Click to expand...

Modern day colonialism or the correct response to a region under our protection and its citizens seen as British?

Laila said:

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | UK imposes Turks and Caicos rule

We can do this?
Wow, learn new things everyday.

Click to expand...

Of course you can. Most countries have "colonies" of some sort. Denmark has Greenland, the US has Puerto Rico, Britain has a number of Islands across the world, as does France. Some are self administrating others are not. In the end though it is the colonial country that calls the shots if it wants too.. always been like that.

PeteEU said:

Of course you can. Most countries have "colonies" of some sort. Denmark has Greenland, the US has Puerto Rico, Britain has a number of Islands across the world, as does France. Some are self administrating others are not. In the end though it is the colonial country that calls the shots if it wants too.. always been like that.

Click to expand...

Puerto Rico isn't a colony or even close. It's an unincorporated territory. We didn't enslave Puerto Ricans or force them in any way to become part of our country. They did that out of their own free will and can leave if they so wish. We didn't show up in Puerto Rico, plant a flag and told them we were calling shots and we DON'T call shots in Puerto Rico. At all.

Hatuey said:

Puerto Rico isn't a colony or even close. It's an unincorporated territory. We didn't enslave Puerto Ricans or force them in any way to become part of our country. They did that out of their own free will and can leave if they so wish. We didn't show up in Puerto Rico, plant a flag and told them we were calling shots and we DON'T call shots in Puerto Rico. At all.

Click to expand...

Sure.... it is an non-self governing territory and commonwealth of the USA.... it is a freaking colony in everything but name lol. Yes they are US citizens.. but so are people from American Samoa I believe and the US Virgin Islands and they are also colonies.

Are they independent .. no. Do they have full control of their own territory? no. Do they have representation in the US Congress.. no. Heck even your own SC states it is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."

And how was this "territory" gotten.. through war. And did the US promise the people of Puerto Rico independence when the territory went from colonial Spanish rule over to US occupation and rule? yes.. that was over 100 years ago. And it took 60 years or so before the first referendum on independence was allowed.. how nice of you..

In every way you look at it, Puerto Rico is a colony, just as the Philippines was and Cuba (for a brief time). They might have wide ranging self rule but the fact is they are not part of the US (aka a State) nor are they independent.. hence they must be a colony.

Also according to your own constitution, ultimate governance of the island is retained by both the U.S. Congress and President. That means that the people of Puerto Rico can vote as much as they want but if the US Congress and President do not agree and sign off on it.. then it dont count.. That is the classic rule of any colony. The "owner" nation has ultimate authority of everything that goes on in the territory regardless of what the locals think or do.

So yes Puerto Rico is a colony along with the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam. They just happen to have more self rule than most.

PeteEU said:

Sure.... it is an non-self governing territory and commonwealth of the USA.... it is a freaking colony in everything but name lol. Yes they are US citizens.. but so are people from American Samoa I believe and the US Virgin Islands and they are also colonies.

Click to expand...

What you have stated above is blatantly false :

BBC NEWS | Americas | Country profiles | Regions and territories: Puerto Rico

* Territory: Puerto Rico
* Status: Self-governing part of USA
* Full name: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
* Population: 3.9 million (via UN, 2006)
* Capital: San Juan
* Area: 8,959 sq km (3,459 sq miles)
* Major languages: Spanish, English (both official)
* Major religion: Christianity
* Life expectancy: 71 years (men) 80 years (women)
* Monetary unit: US dollar
* Main exports: Chemicals, foodstuffs, machinery
* GNI per capita: $10,950 (World Bank, 2001)
* Internet domain: .pr
* International dialling code: +1787

Click to expand...

Are they independent .. no. Do they have full control of their own territory? no. Do they have representation in the US Congress.. no. Heck even your own SC states it is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."

Click to expand...

And once again in the context of what a Colony is they fall short. Why? History. Compare the history of Puerto Rico to that of ANY British/Spanish/French and Portuguese colony and you'll find it obvious that they our A and your B are not the same. Stop it. This is silly now.

And again the difference between a COLONY and a PUERTO RICO is that a COLONY never had a choice in the matter. Thus their status as a COLONY. Puerto Ricans can at any point decide whether or not they wish to remain a Commonwealth or become a state. So far they've chosen to remain a Commonwealth. So you calling it a colony is a bit disingenuous. When did we show up in Puerto Rico and claim it as our own? What war did we have with Puerto Ricans over sovereignty? Any? At all? The 13 Colonies had a war of independence. Cuba had a war of independence. Mexico had a war of independence. Why? Because we were all colonies. Show me what makes Puerto Rico a colony?

And how was this "territory" gotten.. through war. And did the US promise the people of Puerto Rico independence when the territory went from colonial Spanish rule over to US occupation and rule? yes.. that was over 100 years ago. And it took 60 years or so before the first referendum on independence was allowed.. how nice of you..

Click to expand...

War with whom? The Puerto Ricans? Or Spain? Again you're being disingenuous. At what point in history did we force Puerto Rico to be a commonwealth or a colony of any sort? The military occupation lasted a total of 2 years. Almost right after both of the democratic parties created in P.R. by Puerto Ricans supported annexation by the United States. Now how this amounts to what a colony is. You know what the British/Spanish/French/Portuguese did is beyond me.

In every way you look at it, Puerto Rico is a colony, just as the Philippines was and Cuba (for a brief time). They might have wide ranging self rule but the fact is they are not part of the US (aka a State) nor are they independent.. hence they must be a colony.

Also according to your own constitution, ultimate governance of the island is retained by both the U.S. Congress and President. That means that the people of Puerto Rico can vote as much as they want but if the US Congress and President do not agree and sign off on it.. then it dont count.. That is the classic rule of any colony. The "owner" nation has ultimate authority of everything that goes on in the territory regardless of what the locals think or do.

So yes Puerto Rico is a colony along with the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam. They just happen to have more self rule than most.

Click to expand...

You keep saying it but it doesn't make it so. Obviously if you want to compare us to what Europeans did with their colonies then look for what you think is a colony then you'll find one.

I lived in PR for a couple years. Beautiful island and wonderful friendly people. Well except for the socialists (actually Cubans) who were shooting up the Navy and blowing up the customs house while I was there. It was said to be the Vieques fisherman trying to get the Navy to stop practice shelling the fishing grounds. Sounds more like Cuban insurgents doesn't it...did to me. Fisherman with automatics and grenades. A little odd. BTW, the Navy Base at Roosevelt Roads was closed after continued peaceful demonstration by the Puerto Ricans. Not a colony.

They don't consider themselves a colony. They continue to choose commonwealth status because they like the protection of the US and the (non-voting) representation and basically free movement into the US. In most ways the ties are closer than those of a simple ally such as Grenada or Costa Rica.

The difference between a colony and a commonwealth is that the commonwealth can vote itself to full independent statehood and we would simply negotiate new treaties or leave as they wished/voted. The Philipinos had no problem with us being there when the Japs were torturing their people. They liked our protection. After a time they reconsidered and figured we were "influencing" them too much and asked us to leave. We left. Not a colony.

LowRevs said:

I lived in PR for a couple years. Beautiful island and wonderful friendly people. Well except for the socialists (actually Cubans) who were shooting up the Navy and blowing up the customs house while I was there. It was said to be the Vieques fisherman trying to get the Navy to stop practice shelling the fishing grounds. Sounds more like Cuban insurgents doesn't it...did to me. Fisherman with automatics and grenades. A little odd. BTW, the Navy Base at Roosevelt Roads was closed after continued peaceful demonstration by the Puerto Ricans. Not a colony.

They don't consider themselves a colony. They continue to choose commonwealth status because they like the protection of the US and the (non-voting) representation and basically free movement into the US. In most ways the ties are closer than those of a simple ally such as Grenada or Costa Rica.

The difference between a colony and a commonwealth is that the commonwealth can vote itself to full independent statehood and we would simply negotiate new treaties or leave as they wished/voted. The Philipinos had no problem with us being there when the Japs were torturing their people. They liked our protection. After a time they reconsidered and figured we were "influencing" them too much and asked us to leave. We left. Not a colony.

Click to expand...

And you sound like a true colonial power.... /clap.

And what exactly is wrong with colonialism again? It seems like all of the places where law and order have gone to Hell in a handbasket in the last century or so have been former colonies... and the misery and destruction have only started upon the withdrawal of the former colonial power.

Perhaps if they had remained colonies, under the rule of the people who conquered them, there would still be order and some small measure of prosperity there.

Hatuey said:

What you have stated above is blatantly false :

BBC NEWS | Americas | Country profiles | Regions and territories: Puerto Rico

Click to expand...

No it aint.

And once again in the context of what a Colony is they fall short. Why? History. Compare the history of Puerto Rico to that of ANY British/Spanish/French and Portuguese colony and you'll find it obvious that they our A and your B are not the same. Stop it. This is silly now.

Click to expand...

Yes lets look at history. The UK, France and just about eveybody else went to the America's and Africa and Asia, some places they bought land and established colonies, in other places the "defeated" the natives and seized territory. Over time the colonial powers traded territory across the globe in various wars and deals, but the areas remained colonies under the full control ultimately by the holding country.

Now lets look at Puerto Rico. How did the US get that area? In a war against the Spanish. Hence the area was transferred from colonial Spain to the US.. was it set free? no.

Now fast forward to today, 100 years after the conquest of the colonial Spanish colony of Puerto Rico. Is the colony independent? no. Does it have full control over its own territory? no. Is it a state of the US? no. Is it a full member of the US? no.

And again the difference between a COLONY and a PUERTO RICO is that a COLONY never had a choice in the matter. Thus their status as a COLONY. Puerto Ricans can at any point decide whether or not they wish to remain a Commonwealth or become a state. So far they've chosen to remain a Commonwealth. So you calling it a colony is a bit disingenuous. When did we show up in Puerto Rico and claim it as our own? What war did we have with Puerto Ricans over sovereignty? Any? At all? The 13 Colonies had a war of independence. Cuba had a war of independence. Mexico had a war of independence. Why? Because we were all colonies. Show me what makes Puerto Rico a colony?

Click to expand...

Give me a break. Peurto Rico was seized in war! The people were never given a choice before the 1950s, 60 years after being taken! even though you promised even before the war I believe to "free the peoples of Spanish colonial rule".. yea right.

War with whom? The Puerto Ricans? Or Spain? Again you're being disingenuous. At what point in history did we force Puerto Rico to be a commonwealth or a colony of any sort? The military occupation lasted a total of 2 years. Almost right after both of the democratic parties created in P.R. by Puerto Ricans supported annexation by the United States. Now how this amounts to what a colony is. You know what the British/Spanish/French/Portuguese did is beyond me.

Click to expand...

LOL where did you read that? The fact that the colonial power gave the people limited popular governance does not change the fact that it is a colony. The Brits gave the locals in India "popular" governance of the day, but I doubt you will claim that India was not a colony.

Seriously it is a classic colonial attitude of " the people asked us to be here" crap. Sure they might say so now, but that dont change the fact that the first many decades of US rule they did not have any choice. The only area that did have a choice was Cuba and they left. Both the Philippines and Puerto Rico was run like a colony for decades before war forced the US to change attitude.

It also does not change the rulings of SC of the USA about areas like Puerto Rico that gives ultimate power to the US Congress and President. Also it categorises it as "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States ".. that is a freaking colony lol.

And lets look at the political structure of the island. For one they can elect the governor. Congrats! Can he chose his own government? Yes but only with the consent of the US. Okay can that government legislate on things like citizenship, currency, postal service, foreign affairs, military defense, communications, labor relations, the environment, commerce, finance, health and welfare, and many others? No.. that is the prerogative of the US congress.

And you are saying they are not a colony?

You keep saying it but it doesn't make it so. Obviously if you want to compare us to what Europeans did with their colonies then look for what you think is a colony then you'll find one.

Click to expand...

Listen I never said there was not differences.. one of them is that you started your colonies in the late 1800s where Europeans started them 400 years earlier. Times were different.

Korimyr the Rat said:

And what exactly is wrong with colonialism again? It seems like all of the places where law and order have gone to Hell in a handbasket in the last century or so have been former colonies... and the misery and destruction have only started upon the withdrawal of the former colonial power.

Perhaps if they had remained colonies, under the rule of the people who conquered them, there would still be order and some small measure of prosperity there.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps if they were never colonies in the first place, they would have remained consistently prosperous?

You forget that a lot of formal imperial powers torched or divided their territories upon exit, causing domestic strife. They seeded them with problems to prevent them from coming after them for revenge.

Orius said:

Or perhaps if they were never colonies in the first place, they would have remained consistently prosperous?

You forget that a lot of formal imperial powers torched or divided their territories upon exit, causing domestic strife. They seeded them with problems to prevent them from coming after them for revenge.

Click to expand...

Pointless to go back in history and say what should have never been done, easy when we have hindsight.
We cannot change what Europeans and many other nations did. Empires were a 'must' for any major power

Laila said:

What is done is done. Pointless to go back in history and say what should have never been done, easy when we have hindsight.
We cannot change what Europeans and many other nations did. Empires were a 'must' for any major power

Click to expand...

Yes I know... I'm just saying, it's easy to look at post-colonial nations and criticize their chaos as nothing more than a byproduct of lacking colonial institution... but it's important to look at how they were before the imperialists even arrived in order to paint the full picture. Chaos and corruption wasn't necessarily in the foundation of all these nations before empires swept them up.

The TCI have had their own government since 1976, and have been largely independent of Britain since the 1960s, making Westminster's decision to assert power over the islands all the more controversial.

The island's premier, Galmo Williams, said his country was "being invaded and re-colonised by the United Kingdom". He accused the Foreign Office of "dismantling a duly elected government and legislature and replacing it with a one-man dictatorship".

But many outside the political elite have rejoiced at the news, saying the move was long overdue. They claim corruption had created a climate of fear in which people were scared to speak out for fear of being targeted.

Writing in the TCI Journal, a website that has been critical of the islands' politicians, Shaun Malcolm, a long-time civic leader, declared his country's "long nightmare" had ended. Malcolm said: "As is being said often in the US by some civic participants, 'Never let a crisis go to waste'. My hope is that the Turks and Caicos will emerge now from this period of repression as a stronger society, and that we as a people will use this opportunity to rebuild our institutions wisely."

Another resident declared on the website that a "new dawn breaks in the history of the Turks and Caicos Islands... after six years of dictatorial rule, founded on ignorance and arrogance".

The comments followed a decision last week by a Foreign Office minister, Chris Bryant, to instruct the governor of the Turks & Caicos, Gordon Wetherell, to bring into force an order suspending the islands' government and its House of Assembly for up to two years.

The suspension went ahead after a legal challenge by former premier Michael Misick failed. It was recommended by Sir Robin Auld, a former British judge, whose commission of inquiry looked into allegations of corruption by elected members of the islands' legislature.

The inquiry raised questions about the nature of the relationship between the islands' politicians, including Misick, and several foreign property developers. Misick and his deputy, Floyd Hall, have denied impropriety.

Wetherell denied the decision to suspend the islands' parliament amounted to a "British takeover" and said "most people in the Turks and Caicos will join with me in welcoming these changes".

"Public services will continue to be run by people of the Turks and Caicos Islands," Wetherell said. "But I hope we can now begin to run them better. Our goal is to make a clean break from the mistakes of the past by establishing a durable path towards good governance, sound financial management and sustainable development."

Click to expand...

Islanders split as Whitehall takes over Turks and Caicos | Politics | The Observer

Imagine that ... the corrupt political elite call it colonialism but as long as we have the support of the people. Good for UK
This is a constitutional monarchy working how it was designed to work .... stepping in to defend the people from an incompetent and highly corrupt and tyranical government. Well done Her Majesty and the Governor.

Orius said:

Chaos and corruption wasn't necessarily in the foundation of all these nations before empires swept them up.

Click to expand...

But it is now after the powers gave them independence.
Some countries just cannot rule themselves without falling to corruption, look at Africa.

And perhaps colonials establishing control again may lead to some form of peace they will never have under their own.