Livingstone, Thompson
Guest Columnist
At midnight on August 5, 1962, the British flag was lowered and the Jamaican flag was hoisted for the first time, symbolising the birth of an independent Jamaica.
The granting of Independence to Jamaica, if one can use that awkward expression, was another in a series of events to mark the break-up of the British Empire.
At the height of its glory, the British Empire consisted of some 100 colonial territories. It is well established that local revolts and the declining viability of the sugar economy were the real issues behind the readiness to grant independence to places like Jamaica.
BEGINNING OF THE END
Although British historians do not like to see it that way, the Declaration of Independence by Ireland in 1916 was the first to symbolise the process of territorial disintegration.
According to the seven Irish who signed on behalf of the Provisional Irish Government, "We hereby proclaim the Irish republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations."
There is, however, a difference between the Irish Declaration and the rest that were to follow, including that of Jamaica. Unlike others, the Irish did not wait to be granted independence, as if it were something to be granted, but declared their right to have it and took the initiative themselves to secure it by cutting the umbilical cord and to live with the consequences. There are still about 15 territories, including the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands, which see little to be gained from cutting the cord that ties them to Britain in a special way.
Like Wilmot Perkins and others here in Jamaica, these tied territories say that, as a colony, life is better and the future is more secure and that they are not prepared for the consequences of separation.
Mind you, the persistent economic captivity of former colonies like Jamaica makes the wish for restoration of those old ties understandable. Unfortunately for those voices, though, the processes of liberation and independence are irreversible.
The yearning for independence among nations and peoples of the world is ongoing, as are the efforts to subjugate and control. The integrity of our own struggles for emancipation and subsequent independence requires that we in Jamaica support peoples' right for independence and that we are bullied by the threat of economic sanctions.
Jamaicans are inclined to zero-in on the economy when we talk about independence because we are not sufficiently clear on the national and international uses and misuses of political power that determine our economic fortune. In the Caribbean, the right to self-determination, and the efforts to restrain it, is probably best expressed in the Cuban experiment and the attitude of the U.S. to it.
In the Middle East, the yearning for complete independence has recently escalated into a senseless, one-sided war, in which the U.S. seems to be siding with Israel in fighting a war against Iran by proxy.
However, whether we consider economic blockade, as in Cuba, or political subjugation, as the current reinvasion of Lebanon, or poverty and violence, as in Jamaica, the consequences of the stifling of independence struggles and the failure to meet the aspirations for development and economic security lead to violence and instability.
The connections between peace and the human struggle for development and self-determination were clearly expressed in the U.N. resolution on independence, which was adopted two years before Jamaica's independence, despite the abstention of Britain.
INDEPENDENCE,
SECURITY, PEACE
The U.N. Resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, noted that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic cooperation and the ideal of universal peace.
The resolution was forthright in its assertion that, "the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation."
The hawks in Israel and the American White House, the present British Prime Minister and my friend Ian Boyne are alike in their failure to see this link between independence, human rights, security and peace.
They persist in the mistaken belief that the force of arms will be able to turn back the drive for full liberation that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are seeking.
If these groups were free, felt that their human rights were being respected and believed that their hope and economic fortunes were not under threat, they would have no basis for aggression.
Respecting rights
The 1960 U.N. Resolution on independence further stated that "all armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected."
People insisting that their rights be respected and that their complete independence not be stymied are given different descriptions today. Mr. Blair refers to them as the "arc of extremism," Mr. Bush calls them the "axis of evil" and Ian Boyne refers to them as religious fanatics.
However, when compared to the slave revolts in Jamaica and the war for independence in America, these legitimate efforts for independence and respect differ only in the kinds of weapons, the means of warfare and the rhetoric.
Dr. Livingstone Thompson is a Jamaican theologian living in Ireland. He may be reached at livingstone.thompson
@oceanfree.net
