Earlin Williams Korean Fishing Boats Saga

Attorneys for Earlin Williams, president of Netsiwill Holdings Limited, want the Supreme Court to overturn a determination made by Agriculture and Fisheries Minister V. Alfred Gray that the Korean fishing vessels were not fully Bahamian owned

Minister Sued Over Korean Boats

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

19/03/2004

The saga of the Korean fishing boats takes on a new dimension as the owners take the government to court seeking to quash a decision withdrawing their permission to fish in Bahamian waters.

Attorneys for Earlin Williams, president of Netsiwill Holdings Limited, want the Supreme Court to overturn a determination made by Agriculture and Fisheries Minister V. Alfred Gray that the vessels were not fully Bahamian owned.

His attorneys plan to argue that Minister Gray had no power under law to cancel the permit, as the boats were fully owned by a Bahamian entity.

Mr. Williams insisted Thursday that, "The boats were mine at the outset of the mortgage."

His company reportedly secured the $2.5 million mortgage from Koreans for the vessels.  Mr. Williams has since said that the Koreans turned ownership of the boats over to him for $1.

After determining that the boats were not fully Bahamian owned, Minister Gray revoked Netsiwill's permit to conduct commercial fishing in Bahamian waters.  The Department of Fisheries also revoked the registration certificate for the vessels.

"I'm still curious as to how the Customs authorities were in a position to revoke my duty-free status," Mr. Williams told the Journal.

He added that the Minister "misdirected himself" in the actions he took.

"I'm going to court to compel the Minister to follow his statutory duty," Mr. Williams said.

After the revocation of the permit and certificate, the Bahamas Customs Department ordered Mr. Williams to pay $650,000 in customs duty as the boats were no longer duty free.

The action by Mr. Williams would come only days after the government took the matter to court, asking for an order of condemnation which would give the government the freedom to dispose of the vessels in the manner it sees fit.

Minister Gray told the Journal Thursday night that the government is seeking to "confiscate" the vessels so that they can be sold to the public.

Mr. Williams has said that in the worst-case scenario, he would find the $650,000 needed to clear the boats, 15 of which are impounded at Morgan's Bluff, Andros.  The larger vessel, known as the mother ship, remains docked off Grand Bahama.

But he indicated Thursday that push has not yet come to shove.

Mr. Williams said that his fishing operation would be "a super golden opportunity for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries under the new regime of the Progressive Liberal Party government to show its ability to think outside the box and to live up to the fundamentals of economic empowerment for a forgotten people."

He also said that, "The special interests and other peculiar proclivities have kidnapped the Minister's attention and paralysed the Cabinet and personalities are being given centre stage when the role of the government is to lift up the people."

But Minister Gray said he acted within the law when he revoked the permit and certificate.

"I stand by the position we took," he told the Journal.  "Fishing in The Bahamas is reserved for Bahamians and [Mr. Williams and his group] could not prove that [they fully owned the vessels.]"

Minister Gray said that there were several infractions of the law as it relates to the proposed fishing venture.

He said Central Bank approval was never granted for the purchase of the vessels.

The Minister said that Mr. Williams was "going in the wrong direction" in taking the matter to court.

But he added that, "They have a right to file. The courts are available for everybody."

The Haitian Situation in The Bahamas - Part 2

The Bahamas Haitian Situation ‐ Part 2

By Apostle Cedric Moss
March 18, 2004

Was Aristide forced out?  Many are discussing this question locally and abroad and choosing which account they believe, Aristide's or The United States of America's.  In my view, beyond the need to give it some consideration at the diplomatic level, whichever account is right, it makes little difference for The Bahamas.  The situation of tens of thousands of illegal Haitian immigrants in our country still represents one of our biggest national challenges and the academic discussion about Mr. Aristide only distracts us from focusing on much needed proactive solutions.

The Proposed Agreement

For the past 10 years, efforts have been made by The Bahamas' government to enter into an agreement with the Haitian government to cover mass repatriation of Haitians residing in The Bahamas.  To date, the agreement is still not signed and with the current unstable climate in Haiti, it is not likely to be signed any time soon.  However, even if we could sign the agreement today, what would it really accomplish?

As I understand it, this agreement was initially negotiated around 1994.  The intention was to seek to regularize Haitians who have resided in The Bahamas prior to 1985 and to repatriate those who arrived illegally after that date.  Had the agreement been signed and implemented around the time it was initially negotiated, tens of thousands of Haitians who had illegally resided in The Bahamas for periods of one to ten years would have been repatriated.  Among them would have been thousands of children born to Haitian parents, even though such children have the right to apply for Bahamian citizenship at age 18.

Considering that 1985 is still the threshold year for the agreement waiting to be executed, Haitians who have illegally resided in The Bahamas for as long as 19 years could potentially be repatriated.  While we as a country have the legal right to repatriate them, even without a signed agreement, would it be the humane thing to do after allowing them to remain for so many years?  How would we manage the future fallout that would come from the generations of Bahamians born to Haitian parents who were subjected to this traumatic experience?

Alternative Solutions

Am I proposing that we officially absorb the unknown tens of thousands of illegal Haitian immigrants currently residing in The Bahamas as opposed to repatriating them?  No, I'm not proposing that at all.  However, I am saying that we need to consider alternative solutions, because we know full well that repatriation is only a temporary solution, and a costly one at that.

While I believe successive governments of The Bahamas have sought international assistance to deal with the problem of illegal immigration from Haiti, it's my view that we need to redouble our efforts in this direction.  Somehow, we need to involve The United States, Canada, France and The United Nations in order to seek both short and long term solutions to the problems in Haiti and the illegal immigration situation we face as a result.  The reality is that unless Haiti stabilizes and attracts investment to create jobs, Haitians will continue to leave in search of a better way of life and The Bahamas is their logical first destination.

Here to Stay

For many Haitians, they are far beyond making that desperate seas voyage from Haiti to The Bahamas; they are already here.  And they are here to stay.  Some came prior to 1985 and much later.  While they were enduring exploitation by far too many of us, they seemed to have followed the advice Prophet Jeremiah gave to the Israelites who were in exile in Babylon: "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce.  Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters.  Increase in number there; do not decrease". (Jeremiah 29:5-6, NIV).  The Haitians also followed another one: Educate your children.  All of these they have done, so uprooting and deporting them today is not near as easy as it was 25 years ago.

Preview of Next Week

Since Haitians are here to stay in large numbers, how can we manage their assimilation for the overall good of The Bahamas?  Join me next week when I conclude my commentary and answer this question.

Apostle Cedric Moss serves as Senior Pastor at Kingdom Life World Outreach Centre. Commentary and feedback may be directed to: apostle@kingdom-life.org

The Haitian Situation in The Bahamas - Part 1>>>

The Haitian Situation in The Bahamas - Part 3>>> 

The Bahamas Public Hospitals Authority (PHA) Accused of Conflict of Interest

The Bahamas Public Hospitals Authority (PHA) is accused of involvement in a questionable arrangement

Bahamas Cancer Patients Deal - Public Hospital Authority Accused Of Conflict

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

16/03/2004

The Public Hospitals Authority is being accused of involvement in a questionable arrangement with local insurance companies that could put a Bahaman facility out of business.

Some medical professionals are also criticizing the Authority for what appears to be a conflict of interest situation.

The PHA has offered local insurance companies a special deal whereby it will pass on the 50 percent discount it gets from Mount Sinai Hospital in Miami, Florida if those companies agree to pay in full the treatment cost of private cancer patients.

For many years, Princess Margaret Hospital and the government have been referring indigent cancer patients to the Miami hospital for radiation and chemotherapy treatments.

The cost of these treatments per patient varies from $20,000 to $50,000, but Mount Sinai has an agreement with the PMH and the government to provide the treatment at a discounted rate for public patients who have no insurance.

The PHA wants private patients to also benefit from the same arrangement, which is expected to result in savings to local insurance companies.

One medical professional said Monday that what the PHA was doing was "collusion, unethical and wrong."

But a PHA official said, to the contrary, the Authority was seeking to protect patients in desperate need of care.

Philip Greenslade, financial controller of the PHA, said the intention is to ensure that private patients who are burdened with making co-payments still have access to high-quality health care.  He said private patients who may not be able to come up with these co-payments could face an early death.

"There was nothing bad or fraudulent on our behalf," Mr. Greenslade stressed.

In a letter to Imperial Life Financial dated January 21, 2004, PHA's Chief Cashier wrote, "As a primary insurance carrier, we are hereby proposing that you cover the cost of private insured patients in full."

She continued that, "This will be both beneficial to Princess Margaret Hospital and the patient.  For example, if a private patient covered under your insurance attends Mount Sinai for radiation and chemotherapy, [he or she] will be charged an average of $40,000."

The PHA proposes that Mount Sinai bill Princess Margaret Hospital for the private patients.  PMH in turn will bill the insurance company, which will in turn pay 100 percent of the bill.  PMH will then pay Mount Sinai.

Mr. Greenslade explained that by using the PMH arrangement to pass on the savings to insurance companies, PMH would in fact be fulfilling its mandate to look out for the best interest of all Bahamians in need of healthcare.  As mentioned, the private patient would no longer have to come up with the co-payment, which is usually 20 percent of the bill.

"We will ensure that patients are able to receive service that will add years to their life," Mr. Greenslade told the Journal on Monday.

He said that it would also make "a lot of economic sense" for insurance companies to agree to this arrangement.

He also said that in putting forth the arrangement, the PHA was unaware that Radiation Therapy Services Limited had secured a license from the Bahamas government to provide radiation therapy for cancer patients.

The medical facility, located on Collins Avenue, was actually licensed the day before the letter to Imperial Life was written.  The Journal has learnt that the Radiation Therapy Services has offered to give the PMH a 50 percent discount on radiation treatment for public patients, but has not yet been able to seal this deal.

The centre went into operation more than five years after the government closed down Oncology Associates Limited after it was found that deaths occurred among patients with curative diseases who were treated at that facility.

In a Bahama Journal story published February 20 on Radiation Therapy Services, Dr. Conville Brown, who heads the local team of professionals operating the facility, said, "The centre can be viewed as bringing first-rate American level medicine to The Bahamas while at the same time alleviating the need for most Bahamians to travel to the United States."

On Monday night, Dr. Brown said he was "too upset and frustrated to comment" on the situation at hand.

Buyers Are Interested In Earlin Williams Korean Boats

The Customs Management Act gives Customs officials the authority to put up for sale any item for which duties have not been paid after a given period of time.  Months after waiting for payment, Customs authorities appear poised to auction the vessels.

Buyers Want Korean Boats

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

11/03/2004

Government officials intend to seek a court order to have the 16 Korean fishing boats "condemned", which would give them the freedom to dispose of the vessels as they see fit, the Journal has learnt.

The 16 boats at the heart of the controversy that involved Korean investors were due to be auctioned before the end of the month, with unnamed buyers already expressing an interest in purchasing the vessels.

But those buyers will have to wait a little while longer for the opportunity to purchase the boats.

Fifteen of the boats remain impounded at Morgan's Bluff, Andros, and another one - that would have served as a processing ship - is in Grand Bahama, nearly four months after Fisheries Minister V. Alfred Gray told parliamentarians that the boats will be removed from The Bahamas "forthwith".

A government source conceded this week that Minister Gray was speaking without full knowledge of the law when he said the boats will be removed forthwith.

The Department of Fisheries revoked the registration certificates that were held by Netsiwill Holdings Limited after determining that the boats were not 100 percent Bahamian owned. Netsiwill principal, Earlin Williams, has since said that the Korean investors turned ownership of the boats over to him for $1.

He maintains that the revocation action should be reversed now that he has solved the issue of the "Bahamianization" requirement.

The boats remain in the possession of The Bahamas Customs Department, which said in a release last December that, "The vessels may not be moved or interfered with in any way without the express permission of the Department.  All 16 vessels are expected to leave Bahamian waters in due course of law after the completion of logistical arrangements for their removal from the jurisdiction of The Bahamas."

But after determining that Mr. Williams and his company had broken no law as it relates to Customs requirements, the department advised them to pay the $650,000 owed in duties.  The company paid $25,000 in stamp tax when the boats came in in October.

They were advised to pay duties after the revocation of the registration certificates, which meant that the items were no longer classified as duty-free.

Mr. Williams said on a Radio Love 97 programme in January that in the worst-case scenario, he would find the more than $600,000 to pay the customs duties for the boats.  But he did not return calls to the Journal on Tuesday and Wednesday to answer whether he had come up with the money.

The Journal has now learnt that government authorities do not want Customs to accept the payment if it is offered by Mr. Williams.

The Customs Management Act gives Customs officials the authority to put up for sale any item for which duties have not been paid after a given period of time.

Months after waiting for payment, Customs authorities appear poised to auction the vessels.

Minister Gray has explained that the registration certificates were revoked because the specifics regarding the Korean ownership of the boats were unknown to the government at the time the applications were submitted.

But Mr. Williams has said, "The Government of The Bahamas acted prematurely and acted without all the facts."

A $2.5 million mortgage had been attached to the vessels.

State Minister for Finance James Smith said Tuesday that the matter was now before the Office of the Attorney General and directed the Journal to Director of Legal Affairs Rhonda Bain.

But she was unavailable for comment on Wednesday.

The Government of The Bahamas - Led by The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Fred Mitchell Failed Policy on Haiti

It was never clear whether Minister Mitchell was making foreign policy on Haiti or carrying out the wishes of Prime Minister Christie

THE BAHAMAS GOVERNMENT’S HAITI POLICY A MISERABLE FAILURE

STRAIGH UP TALK
March 11,2004

If success is measured by achieving one’s objective, then clearly the government’s Haiti policy was a failure.  The government, led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Fred Mitchell, sought to address the problem in Haiti by supporting the presidency of Mr. Jean Bertran Aristide, securing international aid and ending the political impasse between President Aristide and Haitian opposition forces. 

All of these were laudable objectives; however, none was achieved.  In the end, Haiti’s instability worsened, President Aristide fled Haiti for the Central African Republic, no international aid was forthcoming and Haitian opposition forces rejected all efforts to bring them together with President Aristide.  The Bahamas Government was not alone in this failure; it shared it with CARICOM. 

It is clear that the international community, particularly the USA, Canada and France “dissed” The Bahamas and CARICOM in the Haiti situation.  Not only were they “dissed” they were also deceived.  Prime Minister Christie and his CARICOM colleagues were led to believe that the US, Canada and France supported their agenda in Haiti when in fact those countries had an agenda of their own.  CARICOM’s Haiti policy called for Aristide to remain president and be provided with international aid, the policy of the three developed countries was to remove Aristide.  In the end, Caricom had its say but the superpowers had their way.

Why did the government’s, and by extension CARICOM’s, Haiti policy fail?  There were several reasons, which include the following:

*       Their diagnosis of the real problem in Haiti was at best unclear and at worst non-existent;

*       They failed to realize that an entrenched mistrust between Haitian political factions was the principal reason for the instability in Haiti and that President Aristide was a major cause of that mistrust;

*       They ignored years of signals from the international community that it was not prepared to further support the Aristide regime and in fact considered it untrustworthy;

*       They assumed an arrogant posture in the international community that failed to give proper consideration to the interests and wishes of those who could most effectively assist Haiti, that is the USA, Canada and France;

*       They overestimated their own power and importance in the Haitian dilemma, failing to realize that they had nothing to offer any of the parties in the Haitian conflict that would persuade them to act differently than they had been acting for decades;

*       There was no genuine strategic plan to deal with the Haitian problem and certainly not one with any contingencies to account for the failure that was realized; and

*       They ignored the sentiments of the peoples of their territories in dealing with the Haitian crisis, most particularly the people of Haiti.

 

Understandably, Prime Minister Christie, Minister Mitchell and CARICOM leaders are disappointed and even embarrassed.  They should be.  What was done to them by the Americans, Canadians and French was unflattering to say the least.  What must they do now?  One thing they should do is to take the advice of former Prime Minister of Australia, Robert Hawk, who gave a speech at a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nassau in the 1985.  His essential message to his colleague heads of government was, “know the limits of your power”.

The fact is that Haiti is still in turmoil and Aristide is out of the country.  CARCOM can neither bring peace to Haiti nor restore Aristide to power.  Recognizing Mr. Aristide as president of Haiti will not stabilize Haiti or return him to power.  The reality is that the same countries that “dissed” CARICOM are the same countries needed to assist Haiti, that is, the USA, Canada and France.  Additionally, CARICOM countries, most particularly The Bahamas, continue to have needs that can only be met if they have wholesome relationships with these developed nations, especially the USA.  If CARICOM reacts to spite these countries it will further prolong Haiti’s unfortunate situation and jeopardize the economic, social and political prospects of its member states.

CARICOM leaders are between a rock and a hard place.  On the one hand they want to assert their independence in the community of states and on the other they must regard their dependence on those who are obviously more equal than they are.  What should they do?  Going back to the drawing board would be good start.

WHOSE POLICY WAS IT ANY WAYS?

Long before CARICOM entered the picture The Hon. Fred Mitchell seemed to be leading a charge to address the Haitian crisis.  His efforts were laudable indeed, even if somewhat misguided.  In fact, the determination with which Mr. Mitchell pursued this matter left many wondering whether addressing the Haitian situation was his personal policy or that of the government.

Foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the head of government or state of a country, in our case the Prime Minister.  The Minister of Foreign Affairs is Prime Minister’s chief emissary or diplomat.  He does not make foreign policy; he carries it out.  It was never clear whether Minister Mitchell was making foreign policy on Haiti or carrying out the wishes of Prime Minister Christie.  As he departed for his many Haitian missions he was seen entering airlines waving goodbye like a Prime Minister off to do his chief executive duties.

On his return from those missions he was seen disembarking airplanes like the chief of state returning to his domestic duties.  He would give briefings at the VIP lounge as if he was acting on his own behalf.  Even when the Prime Minister was involved, it appeared as if he were accompanying the Minister as opposed to the other way around.

One should not begrudge the media savvy, ambitious Minister of Foreign Affairs, especially if his Prime Minister has no issue with what he does.  However, protocol is a facility established to maintain order in a state.

One must question the protocol of the Minister Mitchell’s approach to his office in the Haiti matter.  A Minister of Foreign Affairs receives his charge from the Prime Minister and on executing that charge owes the Prime Minister the courtesy of being briefed first on his return from any mission given him by the Prime Minister.

The people should be informed of what the minister has done but not before the people’s principal leader, the Prime Minister.  One thing is certain, the only things allowed in a government are the things the chief allows.

WHERE WAS PRIME MINISTER OWEN ARTHUR?

Many curious things happened over the last several weeks in the Haiti dilemma.  The most curious of all to me was the absence form the CARICOM effort of Prime Minister Owen Arthur of Barbados.

Prime Minister P. J. Patterson is CARICOM’s present chairman but Prime Minister Arthur is perhaps CARICOM’s most widely respected leader in the international community.  His seniority and intellectual prowess has made him a voice much listened to among world leaders.

Why was Prime Minister Arthur so noticeably absent from CARICOM’s efforts?  Why was he not apart of the charge to support President Aristide?  Mine is only speculation but I suspect that Prime Minister Arthur, ever prudent, had long determined that Mr. Aristide was not salvageable and that those that sought to save him would end up with egg on their faces.  So said, so done.

The Bahamas Trade and Industry Minister, Leslie Miller says that The Government may Very Well Approve All Three Proposals to Lay Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Pipelines between The Bahamas and Florida

Minister Leslie Miller said he is "absolutely" satisfied that all of the environmental concerns raised regarding the proposed LNG projects have been addressed

Bahamas Gov't Closing Pipeline Deal

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

08/03/2004

Environmentalists fighting three projects to lay liquefied natural gas pipelines between The Bahamas and Florida appear to be losing that battle, with Trade and Industry Minister Leslie Miller saying Sunday that the government may very well approve all three proposals.

Minister Miller told the Bahama Journal that the AES Corporation continues to lead the race for The Bahamas Government's approval for its project, with a heads of agreement nearly finalized.

Two other companies - Tractebel and El Paso - are also moving close to convincing authorities to give them the go-ahead, the Minister said.

Minister Miller said he is "absolutely" satisfied that all of the environmental concerns raised regarding these projects have been addressed.

He also said that international professionals have already determined that the projects would pose no significant threat to the environment.

But it was recently reported in the Florida press that Tractebel, a Belgian company, was facing fines from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for scraping, crushing or dislodging 29 corals while taking samples of the ocean in preparation for its LNG project.

Minister Miller said Minister of Health and Environment Dr. Marcus Bethel and officials at the Bahamas Environment Science and Technology Commission [BEST] have been working hard to address environmental issues raised in relation to the three proposals before the government.

But BEST Commission Chairman Keod Smith continues to be against approving any LNG project in The Bahamas, saying that the legislative framework is not yet in place.

Minister Miller on Sunday pointed out that the benefits that such projects would bring to the Bahamian people would be significant.

For each project, Minister Miller said, the government would get between $5 million and $10 million for the initial license.

In year one of any of one of the projects, the government would get $10.8 million in various fees; in year five, that figures is expected to double; in year 10, it is expected to increase to $30 million; and by year 15, the government should be getting $40 million to $50 million from a company operating an LNG facility in The Bahamas, Minister Miller said.

Meanwhile, the AES Corporation has secured a partnership with Repsol, Europe's fifth-biggest oil company, to supply liquefied natural gas for what is says will be a $700 million project.

The companies expect to officially announce the deal shortly, according to AES Project Director Aaron Samson.

Minister Miller told the Bahama Journal that the arrangement between AES and Repsol strengthens the LNG proposal.

No company produces the LNG as well as sells it, Minister Miller explained.

Mr. Samson said Friday that while the approval is preventing his company from moving forward, he is satisfied that AES will soon get the necessary permits.

When asked whether the new partnership with Repsol was an indication that AES was facing financial instability, Mr. Samson said that was certainly not the case.

"We're not a producer of LNG," he explained.  "We never purported to be a producer of LNG.  We never pretended that we'd be doing this thing alone."

Mr. Samson said the partnership with Repsol will not impact the proposal before the government in any way and that relevant government authorities have already been informed about this development.

He said Repsol would transport the LNG via ships from Trinidad to the AES site at Ocean Cay, near Bimini.  The LNG would then be turned to the gaseous form and sent through a pipeline to South Florida.

While AES awaits final approval, it continues to carry out "environmental remediation" at Ocean Cay, Mr. Samson said.

The AES pipeline, which would run from Ocean Cay, would deliver natural gas to markets in Florida, as would the other two pipelines being proposed.

The Haitian Situation in The Bahamas - Part 1

The Bahamas Haitian Situation ‐ Part 1

By Apostle Cedric Moss
March 4, 2004

For several months I have been contemplating offering my thoughts on the Haitian situation in our country.  Prompted by the climatic events in Haiti this past week that resulted in President Jean Bertrand Aristide's resignation, I today I begin in earnest part one of a three part series.

More than talk

As I followed local news coverage of the events unfolding in Haiti, I was particularly moved by Dr. Eugene Newry's request for prayer for the strife-torn nation of Haiti.  Although Dr. Newry is the Bahamian Ambassador to Haiti, he seems to recognize that beyond diplomatic talk, the real need of the Haitian people is for divine intervention through prayer to Almighty God.  I agree with him.  Therefore, we who are followers of Christ should take heart that while governments talk and exercise human diplomacy; we can exercise divine diplomacy in prayer.

Balancing Two Concerns

For reasons that are obvious, a major concern in The Bahamas about the chaos in Haiti is that thousands of Haitians will come here with the hope of finding good fortune and a better life.  However, we must have an additional concern.  We must also be concerned about the plight of our brothers and sisters in Haiti, not just the effect that the situation there can potentially have on us.

I know it is easy to misunderstand my point so I will restate it: I am not saying that we must not be concerned about the potential additional strain that further amounts of Haitian immigrants will have on public services in our small country.  We obviously must be concerned because our resources are limited.  However, if our concern stops at the point of ourselves and does not take into account the grim circumstances faced by our Haitian brothers and sisters, we would be selfish.  So we must balance these two concerns.

A Major Challenge

The reality is that even if there was a way to prevent further illegal immigration from Haiti to The Bahamas, the existing number of Haitians already here (speculated by some to be as high as 60,000) presents us with one of the most significant national challenges we face.  This challenge cannot be wished away or talked away.  It is here and our best option is to try to deal with it proactively.

As I listen to some Bahamians propose solutions to the problem of Haitians residing illegally in The Bahamas it is becoming clearer to me that many of them do not realize how serious and far gone the problem is.  Therefore, their solutions are no real solution.  In addition, some of the so-called solutions are illegal and/or inhumane.

Our Day of Reckoning

In my view, although it is the lot of the present government to deal with the Haitian situation, successive governments of The Bahamas have to take collective responsibility for the state of affairs.  While it would be naive to minimize the task of effectively combating the problem of illegal immigration of Haitians to The Bahamas, I believe much more could have been done.  By this I do not mean more rounding up and repatriations since this strategy by itself is no real solution.

In addition to successive governments falling short, we are Bahamians in general must take responsibility.  Many among us took and still take economic advantage of our Haitian brothers and sisters and exploit them economically as modern day indentured servants, thereby contributing to the situation we now face.  The tragedy is that now many of these same exploiters are speaking the loudest and shouting, "Send them home!"  But it's a bit too late.  Our day of reckoning has come. 

Preview of Next Week

Now that the government in Haiti is in further limbo, the prospects of our government getting the much talked about treaty that covers repatriation, among other things, signed any time soon is not that great.  But what if they did get the treaty signed immediately?  What would it produce?  Join me next week when I will analyze the much talked about treaty and at the same time answer these questions.

Apostle Cedric Moss serves as Senior Pastor at Kingdom Life World Outreach Centre.  Comments and feedback may be directed to: apostle@kingdom-life.org

The Haitian Situation in The Bahamas - Part 2>>>

The Haitian Situation in The Bahamas - Part 3>>>