Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The social vision of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and the Catholic social tradition

Hubert Ingraham’s inclusive social vision


FRONT PORCH


BY SIMON





To compare the social vision of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham with that of the Catholic social tradition is not to suggest that they are identical. But they do bear a resemblance which led to collaboration between the prime minister and the late Archbishop Lawrence Burke, S.J., on a variety of ground-breaking social initiatives.


Bishop Burke, a Jesuit, was never seized by the hackneyed theology of those religionists who view politics and statecraft as inherently corrupt. “He understood modern life and the challenges of those responsible for the conduct of the business of state... ” He saw government as an indispensable means of advancing the common good and often preferred dialogue and private persuasion over hectoring and haranguing national leaders.


This does not mean that he did not have a prophetic voice. He famously and publicly chastised a now sitting member of Parliament for the latter’s comments related to the illegal migration of Haitians to The Bahamas. Bishop Burke’s response was swift and unequivocal, emanating from a first principle that ordered his social witness and mission and efforts in the realm of social justice.


It is the same principle or lodestar that has guided Hubert Ingraham’s ethic of care and compassion and his extraordinary social agenda: the defence of the dignity of the human person. Guided by this principle, Mr. Ingraham has expended political capital and energy combating inequality, prejudice and discrimination while expanding social and economic justice and mobility.


Remarkable


What is remarkable for a man of his age and times is that he has fiercely resisted the temptation to stigmatize various social groups or to pander to the baser instincts of some in The Bahamas who seek to maintain old prejudices or to scapegoat others.


The country often acknowledges those women from Dame Dr. Doris Johnson to Dr. Sandra Dean-Patterson who have enhanced women’s rights. Along with them, any hall of fame honoring champions of female equality must include Hubert Ingraham.


He has appointed or facilitated women attaining high office in government, including an unprecedented number of women to senior cabinet portfolios, and the first female chief justice and governor general, as well as senior posts in the public service.


Mr. Ingraham’s successive administrations instituted sweeping social legislation to secure greater opportunity for and to advance the equality of women and their children. As Hubert Ingraham was acting vigorously and boldly to improve women’s rights, there were some who conspicuously and in a self-congratulatory manner made speeches, travelled the globe and even collected awards for supposedly being champions of women’s rights.


When the courage of conviction was needed both of these evaporated in the face of political opportunism by some. It was Hubert Ingraham who was the profile-in-courage and proved to be more committed to feminist ideals when it came to amending the Constitution to make Bahamian women equal to men in the automatic transmission of citizenship to their children born to a non-Bahamian spouse.


Sadly, the party of Dame Doris Johnson failed to redeem itself on this glaring constitutional omission. It was the PLP who, at the Independence Conference in 1972, did not support the FNM’s progressive view that Bahamian men and women should enjoy equality in all things including this citizenship question.


During a break in the formal talks in London, when a senior PLP leader was pressed by an FNM delegate on the matter, the flippant response was that if Bahamian women got such a right, they would then want the right to use the men’s bathroom.


Opportunism


In the 2002 constitutional referendum, the PLP seemed on the verge of correcting a mistake it made three decades earlier, initially voting in favor of the citizenship question in the House of Assembly. But rank and hypocritical opportunism hijacked the remnants of progressive and liberal ideals that were calcifying in a party that abandoned the struggle for equality for Bahamian women on various fronts.


Returned to office in 2002 with the promise of constitutional reform and purportedly ardent female and male proponents of women’s rights and equality in the Cabinet, the PLP for a third time failed to do the right thing constitutionally on behalf of Bahamian women.


Then came the matter of proposed domestic rape legislation. Last week in a speech at a celebration luncheon for the 30th anniversary of the Bureau of Women's Affairs, Prime Minister Ingraham noted:


“It is an unfortunate and painful reality that when one seeks to equalize conditions that are glaringly offensive, the effort sometimes fails to attract support from those who would benefit.


“This was most recently demonstrated, for example, by the public debate which arose around my government’s initiative to extend protection in law to married women who may be abused by their husbands.”


He continued:


“Indeed, it appears that many in our society, both male and female, are not yet convinced that women are equal; instead stubbornly holding on to outmoded and long discredited 19th century social mores and laws which regarded women as chattel, incapable of making their own decisions and unqualified to vote, own property or defend themselves against the decisions of male relatives.”


While it is disheartening that such a regressive mindset still pertains among many, the sickening reality is those flamboyantly dressed in progressive garb, who mercilessly exploit such regressive mindsets for political advantage.


Courageous


Refreshingly, the PLP has been more progressive on removing discrimination against gays and lesbians and protecting such persons. It was the Pindling administration that decriminalized consensual sexual acts between gay people of consenting age.


In 1998 when a cruise ship with gay passengers travelling to Nassau stirred up the fire and brimstone and scapegoating and hypocrisy of some religious leaders and other belligerents, Hubert Ingraham made one of the most courageous and progressive responses ever by a Bahamian prime minister. It read in part:


“I have been chilled by the vehemence of the expressions against gay persons made by some in our newspapers and over our radio talk shows. Admittedly, there have also been expressions of reason and understanding on this matter on the editorial pages but these have been largely lost in a sea of bitter, poorly-reasoned diatribe.”


He pressed further:


“I do not believe that the future of The Bahamas will be placed in danger because chartered cruises by gay persons are permitted to continue to call at Bahamian ports. The future of The Bahamas is not threatened by foreign persons of homosexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a contagious disease; and it is not a crime in The Bahamas.


“Insofar as family life is concerned, studies conducted in developed nations around the world, most notably in North America and Western Europe, maintain that homosexuals are born and raised by well-adjusted loving heterosexual parents; and that well-adjusted homosexuals have given birth to and raised well-adjusted heterosexual children. While research has not been conducted in The Bahamas, the results would very likely be quite similar among Bahamians.


“An individual’s right to privacy is a basic human right cherished by all people. It is a right which citizens of democratic countries expect to be respected by their government.”


Option


One of the modern additions to the Catholic social tradition was a more pronounced and articulated option for the poor which placed the needs of the poor more deliberately at the heart of Roman Catholicism’s witness on social and economic justice.


Hubert Ingraham’s unrelenting, expansive and dogged focus on responding to the poor and promoting social and economic mobility grew out of his own life story and remarkable personal and public journey.


From helping to stimulate job creation to social development efforts in housing, education and health care, he has uplifted thousands of our poorer citizens. His massive increases in social assistance and landmark social legislation has helped to alleviate the burdens of poorer Bahamians whose daily struggles and ambitions he knows by lived experience.


In his person and his policies he has upheld the dignity of poorer and vulnerable Bahamians. While it is easy for some to caricature him because of his sometimes gruff personality, history will recall that he responded in a more Christian manner to various matters of social concern than some of his supposedly Christian critics including some religious leaders who presumed to be able to read the heart and soul of Hubert Ingraham.


History will also recall that his record of care and compassion will be measured in countless deeds, not the rhetoric of those who talk about compassion but whose records pale in comparison.


Moreover, Hubert Ingraham has enacted a more progressive and socially liberal agenda than those who cloak themselves in progressive rhetoric easily abandoned at the altar of greed and political convenience.


When a then former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham retires he will be able to go fishing, at peace with his record and his conscience that he significantly advanced the cause of social justice and progressive politics. Even some who now cuss or criticize him on a regular basis may eventually do some soul searching and reflection. And, maybe they will accord him the recognition that is his due for creating a more progressive, tolerant and just Bahamas.


frontporchguardian@gmail.com


www.bahamapundit.com


Jun 28, 2011


Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Every time an issue with Haitians comes up, it reminds us all how lackadaisical we've been over the years with finding a permanent solution to the illegal Haitian situation in The Bahamas

Haitians Bahamas

UN ASKS THE BAHAMAS TO HALT HAITIAN DEPORTATION FOR A WHILE



BY RICK LOWE



CONDITIONS reportedly remain so bad in Haiti that the UN asked several countries, The Bahamas included, if they would stop sending illegal Haitian immigrants back home for a while.

Apparently The Bahamas Government's position is to continue with repatriation efforts until further consultation with Haitian officials.



Every time an issue with Haitians comes up it reminds us all how lackadaisical we've been over the years with finding a permanent solution.

It seems impossible to prevent illegal landings with our limited resources. And our vast area of open water doesn't help. It's easy enough for interceptor vessels to pass sloops and other boats with loads of people looking for a better life entering our territorial waters without seeing each other out there.

So we have two problems. Illegal immigrants arriving on a daily basis and those many Haitians that have lived here, and in many instances, contributed to our country that have no status.

Now comes the hard part. How do we solve these issues?

It's very easy to say we'll stop the boats coming here. But how realistic is that? It seems we have to do a more effective and consistent job of "rounding the recent entrants up" and sending them back. And this is also easier said than done. The Immigration Department can circulate photos of their "raids" every day, but details of the entire process and its effectiveness is what's important. Not press releases.

With regard to those illegal Haitians who have been here for generations we must consider giving them status and property rights of some sort. And they do not have to have the right to vote initially.

We were fortunate to be born in a relatively rich country where opportunity is available for advancement as a general rule. At least the majority of our poor population still seem to live better than most of Haiti's population. So somehow, we have to get past the emotions of this subject, even if only for a short while to arrive at some useful positions to move this issue from the stalemate it has become.

So here are a few recommendations as thought starters:

Policing of illegal immigrants that are here must be improved.

Legalise the status of many of the Haitians who have been here for generations.

Provide property rights for the squatters and,

Figure out how to phase their status in so they can eventually become full citizens or leave voluntarily.

June 27, 2011

tribune242

Monday, June 27, 2011

WikiLeaks U.S. Embassy cables Nassau: Brent Symonette - Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs had encouraged “informal back-channel communication” with U.S. Embassy personnel, apparently because he had little faith in civil servants

Cables: FNM had 'hostile takeover' of civil service


BY CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com


When it came to office in 2007, the Ingraham administration was greeted by a recalcitrant civil service that was so bureaucratic and inefficient in its operations that the new government felt it was in the midst of a “hostile takeover”, according to cables obtained through WikiLeaks.

In several cables, the Americans highlight concerns about unhelpful civil servants, bureaucratic frustrations and inefficient operations.

In a 2003 cable, a U.S. Embassy official wrote: “The Bahamian civil service has honed sloth and delay disguised as deliberation and consensus-building to a fine art.”

In a 2007 cable, another official wrote that the new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Brent Symonette had encouraged “informal back-channel communication” with U.S. Embassy personnel, apparently because he had little faith in civil servants.

“He explained that the new government was effectively in the midst of a ‘hostile takeover’ of the bureaucracy and that it would take time for them to get a handle on the machinery of government.

“He told the Charge that we should not assume that information provided to ministry staff — or diplomatic representatives abroad — would get to him.”

As a result, Symonette suggested weekly or bi-weekly meetings with the then Charge d’ Affaires Dr. Brent Hardt to review priority issues so he could ensure necessary follow up.

“The charge welcomed the suggestion and expressed his appreciation for the openness and commitment to action on key issues,” said the 2007 cable.

“The foreign minister also noted that in his role as DPM, [Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham] wanted him to be a troubleshooter who could delve into issues that cut across ministerial portfolios.

“In contrast to former PM (Perry) Christie's consensus-oriented government, PM Ingraham's government will be top-down, and Symonette has offered us rare access at the top. This access and the open lines of communication suggest that an already close bilateral relationship will get even better under Ingraham's and Symonette's stewardship.”

In a cable written in 2008, a U.S. Embassy official commented on restructuring efforts in certain public service departments, as well as announced Cabinet changes.

“The reassignment of so many senior civil servants along with the Cabinet reshuffle may indicate that the Ingraham administration is completing its hostile takeover of the recalcitrant bureaucracy left over from the previous government,” the cable said.

Those changes came as the global economic crisis began to take hold and The Bahamas was starting to feel the effects in a major way.

“The greater concentration of portfolios in the hands of the prime minister and deputy prime minister also indicates a firmer grip on the reins,” an embassy official wrote.

“High-profile new government initiatives on sustainable energy, tourism, and education, continue to reflect the key importance of the [Government of The Bahamas’] relationship with the U.S.

“They also come in the face of painfully high energy prices for consumers and a rapidly softening tourism economy, leading to increasing insecurity about jobs.

“Visitor arrivals have declined even more steeply than usual in the traditional off-season, according to newspaper reports and anecdotal evidence, leaving premier Bahamian tourist destinations nearly empty and hotels struggling to fill rooms.

“The fractious opposition lacks a coherent social program or a response to the current, unfavorable economic trends.”

Jun 27, 2011

thenassauguardian

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham seems more concerned about women's rights in The Bahamas than many Bahamian women, who appear quite content to continue to walk a few paces behind their men

tribune242 editorial



PRIME Minister Ingraham resurrected the issue of women's rights at a luncheon given last week to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Bureau of Women's Affairs.

Mr Ingraham seems more concerned about women's rights than many Bahamian women, who appear quite content to continue to walk a few paces behind their men. Although women are no longer -- as they once were -- classified on our statute books with "children and lunatics" -- their children still cannot claim Bahamian nationality if their husband is not a Bahamian. However, the irony of the matter is that illegitimate children of a Bahamian woman are Bahamian citizens even though the children's natural father might be a foreigner -- and even though they might be born outside the Bahamas. So any child who wants Bahamian citizenship is better off if his mother is unmarried. Also, as in Common Law a child's nationality follows that of the father, children of Bahamian men married to foreign women, are also Bahamian -- regardless of where they are born.
The only children left out in the cold -- and at the discretion of the whim of a politician -- are the legitimate children of a Bahamian mother and a non-Bahamian father.

Make sense? Not to us, but if the rejection of the referendum to right an obvious wrong is to be the yardstick, its seems that illegitimacy has more status in this country than legitimacy. And given a chance by the Ingraham government in a free vote on February 27, 2002 it was the women themselves who rejected the referendum, and decided to remain unequal.

Of course, it was the PLP Opposition that muddied the waters and confused the electorate. The PLP apparently thought that the defeat of the referendum would be a defeat of the Ingraham government at the polls -- which it eventually was.

On the floor of the House -- and led by then Opposition leader Perry Christie -- the PLP did a most interesting two-foot shuffle. Having had an inordinate amount of time to consult with the government on the proposed referendum, which Prime Minister Ingraham assured them would not include any issue with which they disagreed, and after a five-day debate in the House on the proposed referendum, 39 of the 40 MPs voted "yes" to the referendum. All questions that were to go to the public for its vote, the Opposition on the floor of the House had agreed.
However, when it came time for the public to vote, the PLP -- again led by Mr Christie -- ordered their supporters to vote "no."

Surprisingly Mrs Alyson Maynard Gibson, at that time PLP MP for Pinewood, threw out the red herring that a "yes" vote for the referendum, which would make Bahamian women equal to their menfolk, would create a "marriage of convenience" market in the Bahamas. Why should it be more of a marriage of convenience for Bahamian women than for Bahamian men? Apparently she had no answer.

If Mrs Gibson had looked carefully at the 1973 Constitution and the proposed change, she would have known that this was not true. The nationality amendments to the Constitution were to make Bahamian women equal, not give them more rights than Bahamian men.

But all that did not matter. We have never seen or heard such jiggery-pokery as the PLP pulled during that referendum. It had become so political - PLP vs FNM -- that in the end the real issue was lost. As a result Bahamian women remain second class citizens -- and they have only themselves to blame.

"We put in our Constitution," Mr Ingraham said at the time, "a provision that gave to Bahamian women who had children outside of a marriage more rights than a Bahamian woman who was in fact married."

And so it remains today. It's now up to Bahamian women to do something about it.

About a year later -- by now Mr Ingraham had lost the 2002 election and Mr Christie was Prime Minister -- we attended a wedding at which Mr Christie was also present. The date was May 30, 2003. The place-- St Anselm's Church, Fox Hill.

Outside of the church we introduced Mr Christie to a Bahamian woman from an old and respected Bahamian family who had married a foreigner and whose children were left out in the cold by the defeated referendum. We brought the matter to his attention. He gave her his most affable smile, and, never at a loss for words, assured her that on his watch all wrongs would be made right. He said he knew that Mr Ingraham could not get the referendum through, but he, Perry Christie, certainly could. As Prime Minister he intended to do so.

That conversation took place eight years ago. Since then the young Bahamian man and his foreign wife, whose wedding we attended, have had four handsome Bahamian boys -- one of them born in England. Mr Christie was prime minister for five years and today the children of Bahamian women, whose husbands are foreign, are still out in the cold.

From the day of that conversation no more was heard from Mr Christie's quarter about women's rights, nor about doing something about the referendum that he helped scuttle.

June 27, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Ruth Bowe-Darville - President of the Bahamas Bar Association says: Bahamians who suggest abandoning the Privy Council as a final court of appeal are “treading in very dangerous water.”

Bar Council chief says Privy Council still needed



JUAN McCARTNEY
NG Senior Reporter
thenassauguardian
juan@nasguard.com



President of the Bahamas Bar Association Ruth Bowe-Darville has expressed concern over recent calls for the country to move away from the Privy Council as a final court of appeal in the wake of a controversial ruling on how the death penalty should be applied.

Bowe-Darville said Bahamians who suggest abandoning the Privy Council are “treading in very dangerous water.”

“Criminally, it’s one thing. Civilly, when you’re dealing with financial matters and the economic impact of it, litigants who come before our court, they need that assurance that there is some place of last resort that is independent and seen to be independent,” said Bowe-Darville while appearing as a guest on the Star 106.5 FM program “Jeffrey” on Thursday.

“Litigants who come before us with multi-million-dollar cases and they see us as a great financial center, they need the assurance that the Privy Council is there,” she said.

Last week, the Privy Council quashed the death sentence of murder convict Maxo Tido and ruled that the gruesome murder of 16-year-old Donnell Conover in 2002 did not warrant a death sentence.

When police discovered Conover’s body, her skull was crushed and she was badly burned.
But the Privy Council, while recognizing that it was a dreadful and appalling murder, said it did not fall into the category of worst of the worst.

Tido was sentenced more than five years ago.

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham announced in the House of Assembly on Monday that the government intends to bring a bill to Parliament before the summer recess to deal with “the question of the imposition of the death penalty in The Bahamas”.

The legislation would outline specific categories of murder.

Bowe-Darville said the government has to address the question of the death penalty through legislation, but has to be careful not to offend members of the international community.

“I think the question of the death penalty needs to be addressed. I think the country is torn by it because we’re in the throes of this crime epidemic as people have labeled it,” she said.

“People believe that the sentence of death and the implementing of the sentence is going to solve the problem — rightly or wrongly.

“The debate is wide open. Whether the passage of legislation will resolve the problem is yet to be seen, but we need to address it, not only for our own national or domestic needs, but the addressing of the death penalty issue also has international implications for us. It also has economic implications for us.”

Bowe-Darville said Bahamians must remember that the country is “a small fish in a very big pond.”

“The wider community out there with whom we interact internationally, they’re not for the death penalty and have long not been,” she said.

“We interact with them for trade; we look to them for funding. And so we have to consider those implications as well. [Certainly the prime minister] would have considered our greater good and he would consider our interaction with the wider world as well when the legislation comes forward.”

Jun 25, 2011

thenassauguardian

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Perry Christie - the Opposition leader says: ...while he recognises the sensitive plight of the Haitian people, the Bahamas' predicament as a transit point between Haiti and the United States should be taken into consideration when discussing deportation policies

Christie: The UN needs to understand Bahamas' 'burdensome' Haiti problem



By CELESTE NIXON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tribune242
cnixon@tribunemedia.net


OPPOSITION leader Perry Christie said the global community needs to be made aware of the Bahamas' unique and burdensome position when it comes to Haiti.

Responding to the United Nations call for the government to extend measures that will allow Haitians to legally remain in the country, Mr Christie said that while he recognises the sensitive plight of the Haitian people, the Bahamas' predicament as a transit point between Haiti and the United States should be taken into consideration when discussing deportation policies.

He said: "The United Nations and the world need to understand the burden the Bahamian people have carried on this issue if only because of our proximity to Haiti and as we are seen as a window to the United States."

As a result of the deplorable conditions that persist 18 months after the deadly earthquake in Haiti the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR) has recently appealed to the Bahamas and other countries to take measures to allow Haitian immigrants to legally remain outside their country.

Mr Christie said that while there should be an official response to any call of action by the United Nations, the government should also ensure the international community has a full understanding of the immigration situation in the Bahamas.

He said it must be made clear that because of the country's limited resources, the Bahamas will always need help in this regard, particularly through bilateral arrangements.

Mr Christie said: "We are always prepared to do the right thing with respect to our neighbours, but it must be understood that in that process, the Bahamas needs all the help it can get as we carry the brunt of the nationals of Haiti coming to and remaining in the country."

PLP MP for Fox Hill Fred Mitchell added that the party will be contacting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to gain a better understanding of exactly what the United Nations is requesting, in an effort to help determine the best way forward.

June 24, 2011

tribune242

Friday, June 24, 2011

WikiLeaks: ...U.S. Embassy cables document the unsuccessful diplomatic maneuvers made over two administrations to get a go-ahead for liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipelines from Florida to The Bahamas


WikiLeaks Bahamas


Failed diplomacy in LNG bid


By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com


A series of U.S. Embassy cables document the unsuccessful diplomatic maneuvers made over two administrations to get a go-ahead for liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipelines from Florida to The Bahamas.

One of the cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks said that in 2009 AES Corporation proposed constructing an LNG pipeline from Ocean Cay near Bimini to New Providence at no cost.

According to a former AES representative, when this idea was presented to Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, the PM said he “wouldn’t be pushed into doing it.”

AES eventually decided to forgo this idea due to technological challenges and associated costs, the 2009 cable said.

The cables show aggressive steps taken by companies like AES in an effort to convince, first the Christie administration, and then the Ingraham administration to approve the project.

In 2005, AES representatives met with then U.S. Ambassador to The Bahamas John Rood to discuss the status of their proposed $650 million LNG project.

“AES expressed its frustration at the inability to get a final decision from Prime Minister Perry G. Christie, whom they claim is delaying a decision in an effort to get them to withdraw so he will not be blamed for the project’s failure,” a U.S. Embassy official wrote in a cable.

“AES is the current front-runner to get the LNG project. Opposition has centered on the impact any possible environmental damage would have on the Bahamian tourist industry.”

The government at the time was also considering a pair of competing proposals for an LNG facility and pipeline in The Bahamas.

Both projects would have included an import terminal, a re-gasification plant, and an undersea pipeline to South Florida, in addition to other support infrastructure.

The AES project called for the construction of an LNG facility on Ocean Cay near Bimini.

The cable claimed the AES officials met with the ambassador “to provide an update on their LNG proposal and to request assistance in dealing with an indecisive Christie Cabinet.”

However, other cables show that AES officials were equally frustrated by the Ingraham Cabinet’s failure to make a decision on the project in a timely fashion.

At the 2005 meeting with the ambassador, AES representative Aaron Samson said the company had already spent more than $55 million on the project, and noted that an agreement in principle had been signed, “and the prime minister will not speak to them because there are no other requirements that AES must satisfy,” the cable said.

“AES officials are especially frustrated with Bahamians and complained that although they have visited an operating AES LNG plant and seemed to be convinced of its safety, they now fail to speak out in favor of an LNG plant on Ocean Cay,” the embassy official wrote.

The official said that at an earlier meeting, David Davis and Ronald Thompson of the Office of the Prime Minister said that in their opinion “LNG is dead”.

The cable noted that then Minister of Trade and Industry Leslie Miller, the government’s chief proponent of LNG, estimated that the project would generate approximately $40 million in average annual revenues over the course of 25 years, for a total contribution to the Public Treasury of nearly $1 billion.

The project was also expected to create about 450 jobs during the construction phase and 25 to 35 permanent positions.

The cable noted that Minister Miller had alleged in a radio interview that the environmental group Re-Earth’s opposition to LNG was getting more media attention than it normally might because the group’s leader, Sam Duncombe, is white.

“Had this been a regular Bahamian of a hue like you and I, it would not have been tolerated or she would not have gotten the coverage that she has certainly gotten,” Miller was quoted as saying.

The cable also documented the nasty exchange on Cat Cay between Miller and Cat Cay investor Manuel Diaz.

A protracted debate

In the comment section of the cable, the embassy official wrote, “The consideration of the various LNG proposals typifies the slow and opaque decision-making process of the Christie government.

“Government ministers have been promising a decision ‘in a few weeks’ for nearly two years.

“Even for the consensus-driven society of The Bahamas, the LNG debate has been long, protracted, and increasingly bitter.”

The embassy official wrongly predicted, “In the end a cash-strapped Bahamian government may be forced to make a decision about an LNG facility so it can start collecting the revenue the project will generate.”

In another 2005 cable, Christie told Ambassador Rood he did not want the Cabinet to touch the LNG issue while he was recovering from his stroke.

“He acknowledged that certain Cabinet members — Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell; Tourism Minister Obie Wilchcombe and Transport Minister Glenys Hanna-Martin — were resolutely against LNG, but that many others saw the benefit the project would have for The Bahamas,” the cable said.

“The PM gave his assurances that LNG ‘would be dealt with’.”

But it never was before the change of government in 2007.

The Americans’ hope that LNG would be approved under Ingraham also turned out to be wrong.

After a courtesy call on Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Brent Symonette by U.S. Charge d’ Affaires Brent Hardt in 2007, an embassy official noted in a cable that Symonette was against approving any such projects.

In June 2007, Phenton Neymour, state minister responsible for energy issues, noted that the new government had not had time to address the LNG issue “but he signaled that the door was still open to eventual approval.”

“Views on LNG within the new Cabinet are quite diverse, with some ministers known to be strongly opposed and some in favor,” an embassy official wrote.

“Having provided the initial approvals for LNG development back in 2002, however, the FNM will certainly take a close look at whether to move ahead with what would be an important new economic direction that would help diversify the tourism-dependent economy.

“Energy prices are very high in The Bahamas and the embassy continues to encourage the government to explore alternative sources of energy.”

Recognizing though that LNG was not a priority for the Ingraham-led government, AES officials planned to review other ancillary projects on Ocean Cay including a rest stop for cruise ships and reopening mining operations on the island.

A source close to AES told The Nassau Guardian that while the project was never officially taken off the table, it is not now being aggressively pursued.

Jun 24, 2011

thenassauguardian