CNN seizes islands; UK does something else

That was the link line on the CNN piece: "Britain seizes control of islands" ...sounds impressive, doesn't it?

1) Turks and Caicos Islands are a Dependency of the United Kingdom.

Turks and Caicos is a UK overseas territory and residents there have British citizenship.

...

Once a dependency of Jamaica, the islands become a crown colony when Jamaica gained its independence in 1962.

2) What really happened was an imposition of Direct Rule:

The UK government has been threatening action for several months after an inquiry commissioned by the Foreign Office returned a damning verdict.

It examined the actions of the Turks' Cabinet and Assembly and found "information in abundance pointing to a high probability of systematic corruption or serious dishonesty".

It also concluded there were "clear signs of political amorality and immaturity and of a general administrative incompetence".

3) We've been here before:

It is extremely rare for the UK to impose direct rule on an overseas territory.

The last similar move also involved Turks and Caicos, in July 1986, when an inquiry found ministers had "indulged in unconstitutional behaviour, political discrimination and administrative malpractices".

The only thing different this time is the names named and the directions of finger-pointing.

It is the responsibility of any sovereign to see to the administration of any dependencies held in their name. Her Majesty's Government did the right thing this time. Here's hoping 2 years of the oversight of direct rule can root out some of the corrupt practices and set things back on course. A few trials of those accused of stealing Crown Property for sale would be a good place to start.

Out goes the old management

And with little more than a statement to the media, Michael Misick, the Prime Minister of the Turks and Caicos Islands, has resigned. He claims to have done so at the request of the elected Representatives of the local Parliament, and to be making way for a unified government.

It was, as he spoke of intending to do, the honorable thing to do.

May tomorrow be a brighter day for the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Dependencies are not, by definition, Independent

...nor are they a license for the locals allowed to run the government on a day-to-day basis to loot the treasury.

The Turks and Caicos are a dependency of the United Kingdom. That means, when push comes to shove, the Governor-General is the final arbitrator over sovereign matters. In a reasonable situation, of course, the Governor-General keeps hands off matters of governance... but what happens when the local administration appears to be engaged in blatant malfeasance (like using the national treasury as a personal piggy bank) for which the sovereign obligation resides in the "mother" country?

This has been building for over a month now, with the investigation completed back on February 11th of this year. It is a pretty clear example of kleptocracy by the local administration.

So...

It falls upon Her Majesty's government to intervene.

The local Premier, one Michael Misick, and his cronies are already crying "Colonialism".

That is what being a dependency is. Wilfully remaining in a subject relationship.

At least the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a measured tone about the matter:

The Foreign Office denied any colonial ambitions. “This would not be direct rule, nor would it be indefinite. It would be a smart, targeted, intervention for an interim period by the governor whose responsibilities not only include representing the Crown in the islands, but also the interests of the people of the Turks and Caicos islands.”

Most correct. And if that fails, then Direct Rule would also be correct.

If the people of the Turks and Caicos don't agree, then end the dependency (and the accompanying special benefits).