US diplomacy in the Bahamas not understood
tribune242 editorial
WE RECALL seeing during the Second World War a most effective poster of Uncle Sam, top hat and all, with a cautionary finger to his silent lips and the warning: "Lose lips costs lives."
The leaked diplomatic briefing cables flowing to Washington from the US Embassy on Queen's Street have not cost lives, not even reputations, but have just reaffirmed what Bahamians openly talked during that period about their politicians and the state of their country.
However, many Bahamians seem not to like the fact that their open talk got to the ears of Embassy officials through official channels.
We do not know whether Bahamians who complain about Americans informing Washington about our "dirty linen" really understand the functions of an embassy in a foreign country. Embassies and high commissions are not established just to take care of their own citizens who might find themselves in difficult situations far away from home, or to issue passports and visas. They are also here to promote friendly relations between our two countries, find out what the problems are in the host county as it relates to the embassy's home country so that a potential problem caught early can be settled by discussion and a friendly handshake. For this it is important to get to know the country's leaders, how they view various situations of mutual interest and how far they can be persuaded to be on "your side" when it comes time for that all important vote on various world issues at the UN.
It is a world of friendly persuasion -- for this it is important to know your neighbour, how they think, their ambitions and how far those ambitions can be meshed with your own. And so all these small and big talks -- confidential as both sides thought they were -- are all a part of a day's work in an embassy. In their reporting the US Embassy staff were doing their job -- it is not their fault that their security was breached.
And for Opposition leader Perry Christie to complain that Embassy officials "seem to have taken on the FNM propaganda" about him is not realistic. US diplomats did not have to be told what to think about Mr Christie. Like others they had frequent dealings with him as prime minister, and like all those others, it is no coincidence that most arrive at the same conclusion. In one Embassy report it was said that Mr Christie "has always been weak and indecisive and lacks vision, but is a good man." This happened to be an Ingraham quote, but the same could have been said in all honesty, and without malice, by almost anyone who has ever had to depend upon Mr Christie for a decision. The Americans would have arrived at the same conclusion in their own dealings with him.
During the drug years the performance of the Bahamas government and its citizens was important to the US because it was through the participation of so many Bahamians in the drug trade that American lives were being adversely affected. And so it was important to infiltrate the network, and keep the information flowing during the drug wars. The Americans during that era certainly knew who they could trust and not trust and that is why -- as they did in Afghanistan -- several surprise raids were conducted without their Bahamian counterparts being included in the planning. Probably that is why in the end -- like Tribune staff -- they trusted few in official circles.
It was during that period that Paul Adderley, then Attorney General, made a trip to Washington and came back home breathing fire and brimstone against The Tribune. He accused us of sending Tribune clippings to Washington to keep them informed on our narco-economy. Therefore, we were traitors.
Here at The Tribune at the time, not only were we fighting the drug trade, but we were fighting a government that was trying to close this newspaper down for the position we had taken. We had no time to be a newspaper clipping service for Washington. This was an example of the work of US Embassy staff in their business of keeping Washington informed.
It was during that period that at least two of our anti-drug editorials were read into the records of the US Senate. What Mr Adderley did not realise until the 1984 Commission of Inquiry report into the transshipment of drugs shook him into reality was that in his own government he was daily rubbing elbows with some of this country's real traitors.
Today we think that the Bahamas and the position of its government would be of great interest to the US-- especially with China in a strong position at her backdoor in the Panama Canal, at her front door in the Bahamas, and infiltrated throughout the Caribbean basin. The world's two giant powers are now paddling in what was once America's exclusive zone of influence. For the sake of our country and its people when it comes to a crucial vote in the UN, let's hope that China and the US are on the same side. The day that the Bahamas has to make a choice as to which one it will support, will be the day that it will certainly have to do a mean "Long Island shuffle" to disappear into the shadows.
June 30, 2011
tribune242 editorial
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
WikiLeaks - 2003 confidential U.S. Embassy in Nassau cable: “Challenges of Illegal Migration; Can The Bahamas Manage?”
Heavy Haitian burden
U.S. cables question The Bahamas' capacity to manage illegal immigration
BY ERICA WELLS
NG Managing Editor
thenassauguardian
erica@nasguard.com
When the United Nations last week urged countries with high Haitian refugee populations to stop repatriations, the highly emotional and contentious issues surrounding The Bahamas’ own immigration challenges once again took center stage.
The U.N. argues that the conditions in the impoverished country continue to be “precarious” since the January 2010 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The Bahamas, which temporarily halted repatriations to Haiti following the earthquake, says that if a formal request is made, it will be taken under consideration. Illegal Haitian migration places a heavy burden on the local economy.
It’s an issue that is always there but the approach to tackling the country’s immigration issues — largely surrounding Haitians — has been an obvious challenge for successive governments due in large part to limited resources and some would say, a lack of planning.
The Bahamas’ challenge of illegal migration was a topic of a 2003 confidential U.S. Embassy cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
The cable, headlined, “Challenges of Illegal Migration; Can The Bahamas Manage?” addressed the need for The Bahamas to add a mass migration contingency component to its ongoing natural disaster planning.
The cable stated that the Department of Immigration was unprepared for mass migration.
Then Director of Immigration Vernon Burrows admitted to Nancy Iris, Deputy Director for the Bureau of Population, Refugee and Migration (PRM) who visited Nassau from October 13 - October 17, 2003 that “migration is a scary issue for us. We can’t handle more (migrants) than we already have,” according to the cable.
At that time, the Carmichael Road Detention Center had the capacity to house 500 migrants indoors, with enough land to erect tents to provide shelter for an additional 500 detainees. At the time there were just under 200 people being detained, the majority being Haitians and Cubans.
“If there should be a sudden increase in these numbers, there is no GCOB (Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas) plan for how to attain the additional food, beds, or shelter.
“Burrows suggested that GCOB has no contingency plan for a spike in migration, although this was disputed by other government officials who claimed that a draft plan is under preparation.”
The cable also noted the “complexity and inefficiency” of processing asylum requests in The Bahamas.
Once one of the few trained senior immigration officials has completed the interview, the information is sent to UNHCR in Washington for an assessment of the case. Their recommendation is then forwarded to the Department of Immigration, who then passes it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Cabinet approval.
According to the cable, the senior immigration official who spoke with Ms. Iris admitted that this is a slow and laborious process, especially given that the final designation must be made by Cabinet, “an unusually high level of decision making for such a determination”.
“The senior official told Ms. Iris that where Cubans are automatically pre screened for asylum, Haitians must request the interview. Few Haitians actually request an interview for asylum, perhaps because they believe their efforts would be futile,” according to the cable.
“Haitians are also at a disadvantage in the interview process because there is no full-time Creole-speaker at the detention center, and despite relatively high Haitian' migrants' rate of illiteracy, there is limited help in filling out the requisite forms for seeking asylum. For calendar year 2002, only four migrants were given refugee status, according to Bahamian officials.”
The cable also noted that the Detention Center used to house illegal migrants appeared inadequate in terms of space and services given the number of detainees housed there.
“Children held at this facility are given no access to education even if their length of stay extends for several months. Limited healthcare, restricted access to outside communication and legal advice, difficulty in obtaining toiletries and necessary clothing, and small food portions are the main complaints from migrants.
“Should the Detention Center ever receive a large increase in its numbers, (an official) admitted that the sewage and plumbing systems, security and the current food distribution method would be woefully inadequate.”
There were also concerns of an uprising should the migrants' numbers increase, as various ethnic groups of different languages and cultures are held in the same dorms at a time.
A political mine field
A U.S. Embassy official concluded in a separate cable that the bottom line for The Bahamas on Haiti “is the fear of mass migration and doing anything that might trigger an outflow”.
This concern was highlighted in a Confidential 2003 cable headlined “Bahamas Unlikely to Pressure Aristide.”
While then Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell acknowledged problems with democracy in Haiti at the time, he made it clear to U.S. Embassy officials that The Bahamian government preferred continued engagement with President Aristide to any type of public confrontation.
“Mitchell’s main concern is doing whatever he can to slow down illegal immigration from Haiti — a key domestic political imperative — and he has been fruitless pursing an immigration accord with the Government of Haiti for several months,” according to the cable.
The cable noted that Mitchell in particular made conclusion of an immigration agreement his top foreign policy priority.
“Our sources in the Immigration Department tell us the negotiations are not going well, stalled over Haitian insistence on an amnesty for the 30,000 – 100,000 Haitians already in The Bahamas (most illegally),” stated the cable.
“Such concession would be suicide for Mitchell in the xenophobic Bahamian political landscape. “
According to the cable, the pursuit of that agreement and any other means to slow down migration would continue to push any concerns for democracy and human rights into the backseat.
“While The Bahamas will remain engaged on Haiti, the Christie government will resist any effort to put real teeth into any diplomatic effort to Pressure Aristide, preferring (endless) conversation and dialogue to the alternative,” the cable stated.
A thorny issue
The issue of Haitian migration obviously goes beyond the country’s capacity to deal with a mass influx, or the political fallout of such an event.
The topic of illegal immigration and how to stem its flow and impact on the country spurs heated discussions.
Author and playwright and Nassau Guardian columnist Ian Strachan recently wrote in his East St. Blues column that the Haitian “problem” is shaped by a number of factors.
“Haitian migrants are a crucial source of cheap, reliable, motivated labor, particularly in the agricultural sector. Increasingly, however, as the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the Bahamian working poor swell, there is growing resentment toward Haitian immigrants and their children because they are now competing for jobs deemed above their social station,” Strachan writes.
“Where once a Haitian only worked as a gardener, farmer, grounds keeper or “handyman”—work young Bahamian men have looked down on for the past forty years—they are now working at gas stations, in hardware stores, and gaining employment as masons and carpenters, jobs Bahamian men have dominated. Many a Bahamian contractor prefers Haitian immigrant labor to Bahamian, not simply because it is cheaper, but because it is better.
“There is also the real and perceived strain on national services, such as education and health care, created by the immigrant influx. And there are national security concerns, fed by the fear of Haitian immigrants ‘violent’ people. Added to this are Bahamians’ fears of cultural erasure, and political/economic displacement due to the perception of Haitians as a lurking enemy intent on ‘taking over’.”
Well-known businessman Rick Lowe, in a recent letter to the editor wrote that the approach to finding a permanent solution to the country’s immigration issues has been “lackadaisical”.
Lowe offered the following suggestions:
• Policing of illegal immigrants who are here must be improved.
• Legalize 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.
The U.S. Embassy cables also note the sensitive social issues connected to the Haitian population in The Bahamas.
“Bahamians strongly resent the social cost, cultural impact, and crime linked – in popular stereotypes certainly – to Haitian immigration. These sentiments are confirmed in contacts with government officials, political activists, especially the youth, and NGO leaders who interact with both communities,” the Americans observed in a cable.
“Haitians are thought to impose disproportionate demands on inadequate social services, primarily health and education, due to the higher birth rate in the Haitian community.”
These issues, the Americans observed, have the potential to explode someday in The Bahamas if constructive policies are not introduced to further integration.
Immigration is a national issue that will no doubt top any administration’s national agenda and will require some tough and politically tough decisions.
Jun 27, 2011
thenassauguardian
U.S. cables question The Bahamas' capacity to manage illegal immigration
BY ERICA WELLS
NG Managing Editor
thenassauguardian
erica@nasguard.com
When the United Nations last week urged countries with high Haitian refugee populations to stop repatriations, the highly emotional and contentious issues surrounding The Bahamas’ own immigration challenges once again took center stage.
The U.N. argues that the conditions in the impoverished country continue to be “precarious” since the January 2010 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The Bahamas, which temporarily halted repatriations to Haiti following the earthquake, says that if a formal request is made, it will be taken under consideration. Illegal Haitian migration places a heavy burden on the local economy.
It’s an issue that is always there but the approach to tackling the country’s immigration issues — largely surrounding Haitians — has been an obvious challenge for successive governments due in large part to limited resources and some would say, a lack of planning.
The Bahamas’ challenge of illegal migration was a topic of a 2003 confidential U.S. Embassy cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
The cable, headlined, “Challenges of Illegal Migration; Can The Bahamas Manage?” addressed the need for The Bahamas to add a mass migration contingency component to its ongoing natural disaster planning.
The cable stated that the Department of Immigration was unprepared for mass migration.
Then Director of Immigration Vernon Burrows admitted to Nancy Iris, Deputy Director for the Bureau of Population, Refugee and Migration (PRM) who visited Nassau from October 13 - October 17, 2003 that “migration is a scary issue for us. We can’t handle more (migrants) than we already have,” according to the cable.
At that time, the Carmichael Road Detention Center had the capacity to house 500 migrants indoors, with enough land to erect tents to provide shelter for an additional 500 detainees. At the time there were just under 200 people being detained, the majority being Haitians and Cubans.
“If there should be a sudden increase in these numbers, there is no GCOB (Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas) plan for how to attain the additional food, beds, or shelter.
“Burrows suggested that GCOB has no contingency plan for a spike in migration, although this was disputed by other government officials who claimed that a draft plan is under preparation.”
The cable also noted the “complexity and inefficiency” of processing asylum requests in The Bahamas.
Once one of the few trained senior immigration officials has completed the interview, the information is sent to UNHCR in Washington for an assessment of the case. Their recommendation is then forwarded to the Department of Immigration, who then passes it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Cabinet approval.
According to the cable, the senior immigration official who spoke with Ms. Iris admitted that this is a slow and laborious process, especially given that the final designation must be made by Cabinet, “an unusually high level of decision making for such a determination”.
“The senior official told Ms. Iris that where Cubans are automatically pre screened for asylum, Haitians must request the interview. Few Haitians actually request an interview for asylum, perhaps because they believe their efforts would be futile,” according to the cable.
“Haitians are also at a disadvantage in the interview process because there is no full-time Creole-speaker at the detention center, and despite relatively high Haitian' migrants' rate of illiteracy, there is limited help in filling out the requisite forms for seeking asylum. For calendar year 2002, only four migrants were given refugee status, according to Bahamian officials.”
The cable also noted that the Detention Center used to house illegal migrants appeared inadequate in terms of space and services given the number of detainees housed there.
“Children held at this facility are given no access to education even if their length of stay extends for several months. Limited healthcare, restricted access to outside communication and legal advice, difficulty in obtaining toiletries and necessary clothing, and small food portions are the main complaints from migrants.
“Should the Detention Center ever receive a large increase in its numbers, (an official) admitted that the sewage and plumbing systems, security and the current food distribution method would be woefully inadequate.”
There were also concerns of an uprising should the migrants' numbers increase, as various ethnic groups of different languages and cultures are held in the same dorms at a time.
A political mine field
A U.S. Embassy official concluded in a separate cable that the bottom line for The Bahamas on Haiti “is the fear of mass migration and doing anything that might trigger an outflow”.
This concern was highlighted in a Confidential 2003 cable headlined “Bahamas Unlikely to Pressure Aristide.”
While then Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell acknowledged problems with democracy in Haiti at the time, he made it clear to U.S. Embassy officials that The Bahamian government preferred continued engagement with President Aristide to any type of public confrontation.
“Mitchell’s main concern is doing whatever he can to slow down illegal immigration from Haiti — a key domestic political imperative — and he has been fruitless pursing an immigration accord with the Government of Haiti for several months,” according to the cable.
The cable noted that Mitchell in particular made conclusion of an immigration agreement his top foreign policy priority.
“Our sources in the Immigration Department tell us the negotiations are not going well, stalled over Haitian insistence on an amnesty for the 30,000 – 100,000 Haitians already in The Bahamas (most illegally),” stated the cable.
“Such concession would be suicide for Mitchell in the xenophobic Bahamian political landscape. “
According to the cable, the pursuit of that agreement and any other means to slow down migration would continue to push any concerns for democracy and human rights into the backseat.
“While The Bahamas will remain engaged on Haiti, the Christie government will resist any effort to put real teeth into any diplomatic effort to Pressure Aristide, preferring (endless) conversation and dialogue to the alternative,” the cable stated.
A thorny issue
The issue of Haitian migration obviously goes beyond the country’s capacity to deal with a mass influx, or the political fallout of such an event.
The topic of illegal immigration and how to stem its flow and impact on the country spurs heated discussions.
Author and playwright and Nassau Guardian columnist Ian Strachan recently wrote in his East St. Blues column that the Haitian “problem” is shaped by a number of factors.
“Haitian migrants are a crucial source of cheap, reliable, motivated labor, particularly in the agricultural sector. Increasingly, however, as the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the Bahamian working poor swell, there is growing resentment toward Haitian immigrants and their children because they are now competing for jobs deemed above their social station,” Strachan writes.
“Where once a Haitian only worked as a gardener, farmer, grounds keeper or “handyman”—work young Bahamian men have looked down on for the past forty years—they are now working at gas stations, in hardware stores, and gaining employment as masons and carpenters, jobs Bahamian men have dominated. Many a Bahamian contractor prefers Haitian immigrant labor to Bahamian, not simply because it is cheaper, but because it is better.
“There is also the real and perceived strain on national services, such as education and health care, created by the immigrant influx. And there are national security concerns, fed by the fear of Haitian immigrants ‘violent’ people. Added to this are Bahamians’ fears of cultural erasure, and political/economic displacement due to the perception of Haitians as a lurking enemy intent on ‘taking over’.”
Well-known businessman Rick Lowe, in a recent letter to the editor wrote that the approach to finding a permanent solution to the country’s immigration issues has been “lackadaisical”.
Lowe offered the following suggestions:
• Policing of illegal immigrants who are here must be improved.
• Legalize 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.
The U.S. Embassy cables also note the sensitive social issues connected to the Haitian population in The Bahamas.
“Bahamians strongly resent the social cost, cultural impact, and crime linked – in popular stereotypes certainly – to Haitian immigration. These sentiments are confirmed in contacts with government officials, political activists, especially the youth, and NGO leaders who interact with both communities,” the Americans observed in a cable.
“Haitians are thought to impose disproportionate demands on inadequate social services, primarily health and education, due to the higher birth rate in the Haitian community.”
These issues, the Americans observed, have the potential to explode someday in The Bahamas if constructive policies are not introduced to further integration.
Immigration is a national issue that will no doubt top any administration’s national agenda and will require some tough and politically tough decisions.
Jun 27, 2011
thenassauguardian
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) has denied former Member of Parliament, Whitney Bastian a nomination to run in South Andros as its candidate in the upcoming general election
'Liability' Bastian dropped by DNA
By PAUL G TURNQUEST
Chief Reporter
tribune242
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net
FORMER Member of Parliament for South Andros, Whitney Bastian has been denied a nomination to run for the Democratic National Alliance in the upcoming general election.
According to Mr Bastian the DNA felt that he would be more of a "liability" rather than an asset because of his storied past, having been placed on the "restricted list" of the United States of America.
The DNA has been getting lacklustre reviews from observers for the choice of candidates they have selected so far. The decision to reject Mr Bastian is seen as a surprise considering his popularity in South Andros.
Still without a US Visa to this date, Mr Bastian said that he has never sought to have himself removed from this list after he was charged and later acquitted of a drug offence back in 1987.
"This Visa issue is a simple thing. My position to them was that, in fact this was an issue that came up sometime ago. I said you don't need a Visa to go to the US. You can go on your police record, and my police record is clean. If you are charged with any offence you are put on the restricted list. And since that was an issue, and since I have no issue with that I presented them (the DNA) with my clean police record.
"But unless you apply to be reinstated, a Visa is not automatically given to anyone. I was told in the same breathe, that the nomination decision had to be unanimous and they were so sad that they could not get everyone to agree. They feel that I would not be an asset to the organization, and instead I would be a liability," Mr Bastian said.
Attempts to reach the leader of the DNA, Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney for comment on Mr Bastian's nomination were unsuccessful.
As a former MP who has held the seat of South Andros before, Mr Bastian said that he can accept the DNA's decision for what it is, but vowed that he will continue to campaign and run in the area as an Independent.
"I am not going to hit the roof, or get into a fight with anyone. I have run as an Independent before and won, and I will run as an Independent again. But I only held on because Branville asked me to hold on and be a part of his team. But it looks like someone else is running the party now because this is not what we discussed initially," Mr Bastian remarked.
"I don't know who is advising Bran, but I don't think they know what the hell they are doing. But Bran is the leader. I respect him and I have never done anything to undermine his position. And I will do nothing to undermine that position and you will never hear me talking bad about Bran and his organization, but there are some things that need to be fixed, but over time I believe they will be fixed," he said.
June 29, 2011
tribune242
By PAUL G TURNQUEST
Chief Reporter
tribune242
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net
FORMER Member of Parliament for South Andros, Whitney Bastian has been denied a nomination to run for the Democratic National Alliance in the upcoming general election.
According to Mr Bastian the DNA felt that he would be more of a "liability" rather than an asset because of his storied past, having been placed on the "restricted list" of the United States of America.
The DNA has been getting lacklustre reviews from observers for the choice of candidates they have selected so far. The decision to reject Mr Bastian is seen as a surprise considering his popularity in South Andros.
Still without a US Visa to this date, Mr Bastian said that he has never sought to have himself removed from this list after he was charged and later acquitted of a drug offence back in 1987.
"This Visa issue is a simple thing. My position to them was that, in fact this was an issue that came up sometime ago. I said you don't need a Visa to go to the US. You can go on your police record, and my police record is clean. If you are charged with any offence you are put on the restricted list. And since that was an issue, and since I have no issue with that I presented them (the DNA) with my clean police record.
"But unless you apply to be reinstated, a Visa is not automatically given to anyone. I was told in the same breathe, that the nomination decision had to be unanimous and they were so sad that they could not get everyone to agree. They feel that I would not be an asset to the organization, and instead I would be a liability," Mr Bastian said.
Attempts to reach the leader of the DNA, Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney for comment on Mr Bastian's nomination were unsuccessful.
As a former MP who has held the seat of South Andros before, Mr Bastian said that he can accept the DNA's decision for what it is, but vowed that he will continue to campaign and run in the area as an Independent.
"I am not going to hit the roof, or get into a fight with anyone. I have run as an Independent before and won, and I will run as an Independent again. But I only held on because Branville asked me to hold on and be a part of his team. But it looks like someone else is running the party now because this is not what we discussed initially," Mr Bastian remarked.
"I don't know who is advising Bran, but I don't think they know what the hell they are doing. But Bran is the leader. I respect him and I have never done anything to undermine his position. And I will do nothing to undermine that position and you will never hear me talking bad about Bran and his organization, but there are some things that need to be fixed, but over time I believe they will be fixed," he said.
June 29, 2011
tribune242
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.
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)