02 March 2010

British After Oil in its Caribbean Overseas Territories?

By TCIwatch

The UK has been using much force recently upon its overseas territories. In the UK's South Atlantic strong hold, the Falkland Islands, the UK's insistence on oil drilling off the coast of the islands has Argentina standing its ground. The waters where the UK is drilling is quite under dispute and such dispute has not been worked out. Nonetheless, the UK continues its plans and has installed oil drilling rigs in the waters.

In other territories, the UK is also making plans to restore its rights over autonomous countries with existing constitutions and local governments. The UK has accused five (5) of its Caribbean territories of poor governance and/or local government corruption with foreign investors.

Turks and Caicos is the first island territory to have its constitution fall to the UK, in August 2009. The people of Turks and Caicos watch helplessly as their islands are converted back to UK rule without any input from them. The UK is also changing the voting and constitution to allow resident UK citizens a general vote as well as a vote as to local government affairs. General elections in 2011 will only be honored by the UK if the UK approves the leader, as announced by FCO director, Colin Roberts. This gives many the impression that the approved leader would be merely a UK proxy with UK citizens voting to bolster UK's agenda. Both political parties in Turks and Caicos are outraged by UK's removal of local leadership and UK's plans to move forward without a democratic vote from the people.

The UN condemns UK's actions in Turks and Caicos, calling it clear colonialism. It further explains that the act of a foreign government entity forcing its values on a weaker population cannot be justified in any way.

As The UK Activist Stuart Yates pointed out in his writings, the UK's presence in Turks and Caicos is shrouded in secrecy and cannot be described as anything less than a coup. The UK took over governance of these Caribbean islands without any election or consensus from the people living in the islands.

Is it plausible that all five UK territories are corrupt with foreign investors? Many have theorized that the UK is trying to take back so-called Crown land, land for which the UK claims as its own from conquering the islands in the first place from local indigenous people. The foreign investors all had purchased and developed Crown land, this is plausible.

Recently, there has been cause to ask some more pointed questions. If the UK is not after Crown land as it states, could it be something else?

The UK claims that it is helping Turks and Caicos sort through debt and former local government corruption. This has many suspicious, as the former UK-installed governors never reported any local government abuse and warnings were never provided.

The UK demands that it does not wish to be there as it is a burden on their own government to support Turks and Caicos. This assertion by the UK is false. The UK not only destroyed the reputations and caused the closing of several high-end resorts that were generating revenue, it also destroyed family home developments built on so-called Crown land. The UK sky-rocketed taxes and failed to bring any aid or resources with them. The UK also facilitated a loan to be paid by the people of Turks and Caicos, in large part to repay the UK for its services.

Due to the unfortunate tragedy in Haiti earlier this year, the world discovered that Haiti has untapped oil reserves worth billions of dollars. Geologist Daniel Mathurin made a comparison, “Haiti’s oil reserves are larger than those of Venezuela. An Olympic pool compared to a glass of water is the comparison.” We're just learning about it now, but the UK has known about it for some time now.

Indeed, Haiti is 90 miles South of Turks and Caicos. This begs the question, UK's real purpose for collapsing local governments in its autonomous countries in the Caribbean. What does the UK really want with Turks and Caicos? Could the answer be right under our noses; err... ahem ... feet?

No comments: