The failed project of the West Indies Federation

The end of World War 2 marked a watershed in world politics and international relations. Not only did it signal the end of the global conflict, but it also ushered in the cold war and revised perceptions on geopolitics. On the latter, Britain, significantly weakened by her war efforts and forced to divert attention to the rebuilding of the country, was compelled to reconsider its status vis-a-vis its considerable empire. The war had eroded much of the hubris that accompanied Britain’s status as a colonial power and it quickly became apparent that maintaining the British Empire was no longer tenable in the post war era.

Vast countries such as India (which then comprised modern day India, Bangladesh and Pakistan) could no longer be effectively controlled from the Colonial Office in Whitehall, even via regional and national proxies such as the Viceroy. Financially, especially in the wake of the war that had crippled the country, it wasn't viable either. Internal tensions within some colonies, and burgeoning independence movements or calls for further autonomy, could also no longer be contained by a weakened colonial power that no longer had the resources or the inclination to maintain said position. Consequently, as much as post war independence movements would lead to an inevitable demise of the British Empire, it was undoubtedly expedited by Britain's lack of resistance and encouragement due to her diminished status as a colonial power.

The notion of a country such as India being granted independence was deemed acceptable within post war attitudes. It had a huge population that would lend itself to its sustainability as an independent state. But what of smaller territories? Could they survive? How would they establish viable economies, free of support from the mother country? This was the line of thinking at the time when considering the British West Indies and the consensus was that the islands were too small with economies that were too dependent on Britain to survive as independent states.

Some of the islands in the West Indies had populations of fewer than 10,000. Independence for territories of this size was therefore unthinkable. Furthermore, the islands were in receipt of colonial grant aid which acknowledged their ailing economies. Nonetheless, the colonies had increasing desires for further independence. As a result, Britain, keen to reduce its economic responsibility in the region, sought to provide further autonomy for the British West Indies.

In 1945, the Colonial Secretary, Colonel Oliver Stanley, proposed the idea of a federation in the West Indies, asking West Indian governments what structure they felt it should take. It was the beginning of a brief journey in West Indian federalism that was arguably destined to fail from the outset.

The West Indies Federation was established in 1958 as an federal state (albeit still under British control) comprising Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago and Turks and Caicos and had a population of just shy of 3.5 million. With the exception of Anguilla, Montserrat, the Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos, which are currently British overseas territories, the Federation formed part of the respective islands’ subsequent journeys to sovereignty as independent states. The British had intended the Federation to eventually achieve independence as a sovereign state itself but this never came to fruition and the Federation was disestablished by Britain in 1962 with its major players achieving independence shortly after.

The insularity of the West Indies meant a West Indies Federation was always likely to impede the required cohesiveness for the political union. Camaraderie clearly exists in the region, as seen in the shared culture, regional pride and even generations of sporting prowess and support for the West Indies cricket teams (the creation of the West Indies cricket team actually predates the Federation), most recently demonstrated in the U19, women's and men's teams becoming champions at the the 2016 T20 world cup. Although when it comes to politics, such camaraderie is often trumped by self interest and hubris. Compounded by acute insularity in the region and a perception that the Federation was being built upon a basis of disparity between the islands, the Federation faced its first and most enduring obstacle from attitudes within the West Indies. This was applicable to Jamaica more than any other island. Indeed, many would opine that Jamaica was the island that sounded the death knell for the Federation in events that would unfold throughout its brief existence.

Historically, Jamaican attitudes have fostered a sense of superiority over the other so-called “small islands”. Thus for Jamaica to exist in a Federation whose capital site was in Trinidad and with a Barbadian Prime Minister, Grantley Adams, would not sit well with Jamaicans. The perception, as promoted by those against Federation within Jamaica, was that the other “small islands” in the Federation would drain Jamaica’s relative wealth (an ironic notion given Jamaica’s currently ailing economy) compared to the other islands.

Jamaica was also expected to have 17 of the 45 seats in the Federal parliament, 38% compared to its population comprising more than 50% of the new state’s population. These were contentious concerns for many Jamaican observers that merely stoked the opposition to the Federation that was growing within the island and building upon the existing antipathy towards their federal peers.

The Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) Alexander Bustamante, the eventual first Prime Minister of independent Jamaica and opponent of the Federation, often referred to the politicians of the other islands disparagingly as small island politicians. At the Montego Bay Conference of 1947, Bustamante addressed this alleged disparity with characteristic rhetoric in referring to their respective development -

‘Jamaica can walk. Trinidad is creeping, Barbados and Demerara are right behind Trinidad or almost the same. St Kitts and St Vincent are attempting to creep and only attempting. Antigua is creeping, and of all the other small islands, some can barely creep on the palm of their hands, and others on hands and feet, and others not at all, yet you say to us, “we want you to federate”… It cannot be done.’

Such attitudes were undoubtedly disparaging but more a product of opposition to what Bustamante et al viewed as a raw deal for Jamaica in joining the Federation. But these beliefs and perceptions had existed long prior to the conception of the Federation and for many islands, the disdain was mutual towards Jamaica. In fact, these were attitudes that were furthered by the British Empire in the West Indies where a sense of unity was never really promoted in their administration. Instead, many of the West Indian islands held largely unwarranted inter-island rivalry and antagonism. This was despite their shared culture and shared history as part of the African diaspora, not to mention their shared dark experiences of slavery and colonialism. It therefore begs the question why the aforementioned was unable to supersede the insularity and political squabbling that characterised the Federation’s short existence and demise.

The flag of the West Indies Federation

Jamaica’s mistrust of the other islands was valid on occasions and it would continue to impose itself as a hindrance to the progress of obtaining a sense of unity in the region. For example, with the exception of Barbados and Trinidad, the remaining islands of the Federation had promised to support Jamaica as the Federal capital site yet failed to do so leaving Jamaica feeling further isolated. Prior to and during its establishment, Jamaica would remain a thorn in the side of West Indian federalism and perhaps understandably so when considered from their perspective. Bustamante was well aware of this and he opportunistically exploited such sentiments as a vehicle to scupper the Federation for Jamaica’s departure from the union.

Bustamante’s political astuteness for opportunism is ultimately what led to the demise of the Federation. In 1960, Robert Lightbourne resigned from his seat in the federal parliament which resulted in the need for a by-election. However, Bustamante announced that the seat would not be contested by the JLP and that they would seek Jamaican secession from the Federation upon coming to power. This shook the British Colonial Office and the Federation as without Jamaica, the Federation would lose half its population along with the lion’s share of federal tax. With such a bold statement, Jamaica’s Premier and esteemed People’s National Party (PNP) leader Norman Manley was presented with the option of either calling a general election or a holding a referendum on Jamaica’s future within the Federation. He opted for the latter and on 1 June 1960 made an official statement in response to Bustamante’s announcement -

‘The official decision of the Jamaica Labour Party to oppose Federation has created a new situation in Jamaica. When both parties [of the JLP and PNP] were acting together, it was right to assume that they represented the voice of the people. Now that one party, the Jamaica Labour Party, has officially resolved to oppose Federation it is right that the issue of Federation should… come before the people for decision.’

In reality, the JLP and the PNP had never acted together within the Federation. Nevertheless, Bustamante’s strategy had made this acutely apparent. Bustamante and the JLP campaigned on the lines of secession being best for Jamaica while the PNP promoted the benefits of remaining within the Federation. Manley was hugely popular and respected in Jamaica but he was fighting the populist, patriotic rhetoric of Bustamante who portrayed himself as the defender of Jamaican interests. Though given the referendum was fought on party lines, the arguments were largely immaterial to the electorate who voted according to their party affiliation. Floating voters were more likely to be swung by Bustamante’s utterances that often played to ignorance rather than Manley’s deliberated rationale for a stronger voice for Jamaica within a stronger union of the Federation.

On 19 September 1961, Jamaicans voted on the question of ‘Should Jamaica remain in the Federation of the West Indies?’ with a result of 45.9% for and 54.1% against. Jamaica would leave the Federation and become an independent state a year later on 6 August 1962. Thereafter, in what was a domino effect, the Federation soon unraveled. Dr Eric Williams, Premier of Trinidad and Tobago, realised the huge burden that would be placed upon Trinidad and Tobago within the Federation following Jamaica’s departure. Williams famously announced “one from ten leaves nought” in reference to Jamaica’s secession from the Federation leaving it untenable and Trinidad left the Federation and became independent in the same year. Subsequently, the Federation was dissolved and the majority of its composite islands eventually gained independence from Britain.

The West Indies Federation may have provided an opportunity for the region to have greater influence and prosperity as a regional bloc than it currently does. Conversely, it may have held the region under the shadow of colonialism as a design and legacy of the British Empire; something that being of the Caribbean diaspora I would greet with opposition. CARICOM (the Caribbean Community) has provided a supranational body for the region and includes states of the wider region that were not members of the West Indies Federation and shares more than just a common history of being subject to British colonialism. The wider Caribbean needs to bolster its position as a regional bloc that isn’t merely subject to the whims of America or Europe. Relinquishing irrational insularity that has held the region back politically, socially and economically would be a fitting legacy for the West Indies Federation and a representation of the regional pride and unity that should exist in the region.

What's next for Anthony Joshua?

Anthony Joshua is the new IBF heavyweight champion of the world. In what was a promotional masterstroke by Joshua’s promoter, Eddie Hearn, Joshua was navigated to being a world title challenger at 15 - 0 and became world champion with an impressive record of 16 wins and 0 losses, each win by way of deft KO.

Joshua defeated American Charles Martin with a second round stoppage. Martin became IBF champion when he fought Vyacheslav Glazkov for the vacant belt (which the IBF stripped Tyson Fury of as he had agreed a rematch with Wladimir Klitschko rather than facing his mandatory) and Glazkov was unable to continue due to a knee injury in the third round. Not a KO, not a points decision where Martin dominated Glazkov for 12 rounds, but an injury. With no disrespect to Martin, he was effectively gifted the belt in underwhelming circumstances. And while we knew very little about him, what we did know suggested he would be no different in level to Joshua’s previous opponents rather than someone who was a bona fide champion on world level.

As soon as Joshua claimed the W and the title from Martin, the casuals (whose presence I welcome within the sport), and even some hardcore boxing fans, were out in force on social media. Joshua was giddily proclaimed as the second coming of Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson in his prime. Meanwhile, little regard was given to Joshua’s opponents to date in supporting their assertions.

The hype around Joshua is nothing new and as a boxing fan I think he’s a beast of a fighter with phenomenal power. He’s also seemingly on course to establish himself as one of the best heavyweight boxers in the world. Nonetheless, I would still maintain that even as champion Joshua is yet to experience an actual test.

This isn’t Joshua’s fault. He can only fight who is put in front of him and he cannot be blamed for the division still suffering from a paucity of fighters at world class level. Furthermore, he’s despatched his opponents in impressive fashion. So with a record of 16 - 0 and as IBF champion, where does Joshua go from here?

As a PPV fighter, there’s no turning back for Joshua in term of levels. He’s world champion and his subsequent fights will need to be with fighters that the public deem worthy of being PPV. The public won’t be accepting of paying £17 to see Joshua KO fighters who never stood a chance or were even capable of putting up a decent fight. And as is the nature of the British public, especially the casuals, it could be the undoing of Joshua’s popularity if his level of opponent isn’t deemed to rise and promptly.

That poses the question of who Joshua’s future opponents could be. Who could satisfy the public’s thirst in fights that Joshua and his team would be willing to take? Indeed, they will have little choice but to consider these options if they want him to be perceived as a credible champion henceforth.

Looking back at Joshua vs Dillian Whyte, Whyte came to fight and honestly believed he could beat Joshua. Had his conditioning and accuracy been improved, he may have done just that in the second round when he rocked Joshua with a left hook but was unable to capitalise on his brief yet effective onslaught. Whyte was in no way intimidated by Joshua and while he met defeat via Joshua’s power, he at no point feared it. Joshua therefore needs opponents that not only maintain that attitude but are also worthy of being considered world level. Herein lies a problem as there aren’t many fighters in the heavyweight division who meet both those stipulations.

With the exception of Whyte (but inclusive of Martin), Joshua’s opponents have been taken in by the hype around Joshua himself. There’s an aura around Joshua and his trademark power, which leaves his opponents overawed, sapped of confidence and mentally having lost before the first bell. For a meaningful test, Joshua needs opponents that turn up to fight with a belief that not only can they win but also a measured respect rather than fear of his power.

Of the current crop of heavyweights at world level, Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder and David Haye would possess that attitude and make for an even fight. Added to that, they all have the ability to make a match with Joshua a 50-50 fight unlike those on his record to date. Though while Joshua himself may want those fights, his team may want to develop him further and keep him away from anyone that poses a threat to taking the ‘0’ on his record. Indeed, even Joshua with his affable candour, has admitted that he is still learning and will probably appreciate the risk they pose too.

The aforementioned fighters all have at least one fight already scheduled before they’d be free to take on Joshua but they all represent live opponents and cracking fights. Fury would show no respect for Joshua’s power and be uber confident having beaten Wladimir Klitschko. He’s also already called out Joshua and established some needle between the 2 fighters. Wilder too brings his own ferocious power and confidence. And Haye, subject to how good he still is, possesses experience, explosiveness and speed that none of Joshua’s opponents to date have shown. The question is, is Joshua ready for those fights and how long will an impatient and fickle public be willing to allow him until he is?

For now, Joshua is the new IBF champion. He’s achieved the title within 16 fights, via 16 KOs, and he should be lauded for his achievement. Let’s not detract from that as he’s responded to the tests that have been placed before him en route to the title and he cannot be asked to do anything more than that. Although in return for his fasttracked journey to the title, his next steps will need to be bigger and more impressive strides than he has taken thus far. And in contrast to his previous opponents, he’s likely to find that it’s much tougher at the top.