Philip Galanis on the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) 60th anniversary - (Part - 1)

A response to Philip Galanis on ‘The PLP at 60’, pt. 1

By Kirkland Turner

Philip Galanis picked the wrong day to publish his piece on the Progressive Liberal Party’s 60th anniversary. Its publication in The Nassau Guardian coincided with the publication of Rupert Missick Jr.’s thoughtful article in The Tribune entitled “The Cuban Detainees and the Long Awaited Revolution”.

Galanis’ piece regurgitated the PLP propaganda line that “God gave The Bahamas to the PLP”. These words were actually spoken on the floor of the House of Assembly by a former member – a minister no less – and stand as stunning testimony to the frightening culture of entitlement and exceptionalism that has long corrupted the PLP.

It is a sickness with multiple delusional aspects that leads them, for example, to believe that rules which apply to other people do not apply to them, that ‘taking care’ of PLP cronies at the public’s expense is alright, that nobody loves their country as well as they do, that victimization of their opponents is justifiable, and that branding fellow citizens as traitors is also justifiable.

It also accounts for the persistent lie perpetrated against the FNM that that party was against independence when, in fact, the leaders of the FNM were passionate advocates of independence but were convinced that Sir Lynden Pindling was not the right person to lead an independent Bahamas. The Bahamian electorate thought otherwise and elected him and the PLP.

The FNM came to this conclusion for a number of reasons including the fact that while they were still members of the PLP they were beaten up in broad daylight by PLP goons who were ordered not to allow them to speak at a meeting in Lewis Yard. Their judgment that Sir Lynden was not the right person to lead an independent Bahamas was vindicated by events, some of which I shall refer to here.

A nationalist party?

In his column Galanis describes the PLP as “The Bahamas’ first and some would argue only nationalist party”. The most recent reference to the PLP and nationalists was by its current leader, Perry Christie, who termed his party a “black nationalist party”. He has not chosen to so describe his party since its re-election as government last year.

Perhaps that would be offensive to one of his Cabinet ministers and to the many wealthy white local and international sponsors whom he and his party so ardently court, in some cases with generous gifts of Bahamian land and other special considerations.

The dictionary offers a number of views on the term nationalist, ranging from the simple “an ideology which is pro-independence, pro self-rule or pro-separatist” to a more complex “an ideology that creates and sustains a nation as a concept of a common identity for groups of humans”. Nationalism, it is said, “seeks the preservation of identity, features and promotes the well-being, and the glory of one’s own fundamental values”.

While the PLP can justify itself as a political party that sought and achieved political independence for The Bahamas, the jury is certainly still out on whether its policies in government have served to create a common identity for the groups of humans living in The Bahamas and entitled to citizenship on July 10, 1973. Many would assert just the opposite.

Still others might claim that PLP policies facilitated the infiltration of a violent drug culture into our country in the late 1970s and early 1980s, contributing to the destruction of traditional family and social values, branding The Bahamas internationally as a “nation for sale”, and compromising the government which suffered the humiliation of being disparaged and criticized in the international community.

Two PLP Cabinet ministers were forced to resign their posts in the face of serious allegations of corruption, and then two other Cabinet ministers were fired because of their stance against corruption in high places. The government suffered a final humiliation when the serving Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Leader of the Party A.D. Hanna resigned his posts not wishing to be aligned with so compromised a government. Surely this was not leadership by nationalists interested in promoting the well-being and the glory of our fundamental values.

As The Bahamas’ reputation suffered, the government’s pronouncements about our sovereign independence and our nationalism became more strident, even shrill. There are echoes of this in recent hysterical charges of “siding with the enemy” and “treason” belching from members of the present Cabinet.

Missick’s article goes straight to the heart of the matter. Speaking of aspiring revolutionaries who missed the “first revolution”, Missick suggests that some in this generation of imitator revolutionaries are satisfied to mouth “frothing, hyperbolic defense of nationhood and national identity” when in fact their noise is of a “generation desperate to fight a revolution, only it’s not the one that is actually theirs to fight”.

The sad reality is that when The Bahamas joined the international campaign against the illicit drug trade it was not from a position of principle or even one of strength but rather from a position of weakness, the PLP government and its leaders were so compromised as to be forced to accept the dictates of the world community.

Some may argue that The Bahamas’ agreement to “Hot Pursuit” and “Ship Rider” anti-drug trafficking arrangements agreed with the United States of America by the Pindling administration was the first surrender of Bahamian sovereignty. While positive developments, it is a sad reality that they were entered into by a compromised government anxious to demonstrate, even though late, a willingness to join the international anti-illicit drug war.

Similarly, a compromised Bahamas government was forced to negotiate and conclude the terms of the lease of the AUTEC Base in Andros from a less than ideal position.

Throughout the decade of the 1980s The Bahamas had only one profile internationally – drugs. It would take the election of the FNM to government in 1992 before The Bahamas could become a respected voice in the international community on a host of issues important to wider Bahamian national interests and national aspirations: protecting the environment, drawing international attention to the human, political and economic crisis in Haiti, achieving the Millennium Development Goals and campaigning to address and contain the epidemic of non-communicable diseases afflicting and killing too many in our population.

Strayed from founding principles

As to the bona fides of the PLP as a nationalist party, an objective look at the history of the PLP reveals that it was created by mixed race men, mostly out of Long Island. These men, but particularly Henry Taylor, had studied the formation and organization of political parties in the United Kingdom.

In writing the constitution for their new political party the founders adopted what they believed to be tried and tested rules and regulations for political parties including, for example, a requirement that the party meet in convention annually. As a result of the diligence of its founders the PLP had without a doubt one of the best institutional frameworks for political association in a modern democracy.

The past 60 years, regrettably, has demonstrated that a constitution creating a strong political party framework is not enough. In fact, it has proved inadequate to ensure that those who came to lead the party in government would be progressive or liberal. And, it proved, sadly, that the party’s name and constitution were inadequate to keep the party’s leadership transparent, accountable or dedicated to good governance.

Galanis should not be surprised that the PLP decided to jettison their constitutional requirement to meet in convention annually. The PLP has often enough jettisoned its principles – particularly when principle interfered with self-aggrandizement, personal advantage and privilege.

Galanis makes a plea for his party to remain progressive and liberal ignoring the fact that those labels are anathema to a party whose primary interest is securing place and position for a selected few connected individuals.

Party history vs. the record

Galanis was careful to list the development of virtually every national institution during the 25-year leadership of Lynden Pindling as PLP accomplishments without acknowledging that these were quite simply the basic requirements of nationhood.

To call one’s country an independent nation and to seek to interact with other nations on the world stage without establishing a central bank, a defence force, a national social security scheme and a tertiary level learning institution would be to contradict the meaning of nationhood.

Galanis, in a glib piece unworthy of the training he received as a chartered accountant and once aspiring leader in one of the most prestigious international public accounting firms, seeks to erase from the national memory the terrible damage to this country caused by visionless, self-interested and corrupt leadership in the PLP.

In a contrived sentence which may or may not actually admit to the official corruption that sullied The Bahamas’ reputation internationally throughout the 1980s and which fatally wounded the legacy of the first prime minister of an independent Bahamas, Galanis said that the Pindling era came to an abrupt end in August 1992 when the PLP government was defeated by the FNM led by Hubert Ingraham.

Democracy stifled in the PLP

Galanis chose to ignore a history that records that following political victory in 1967 but before independence in 1973, the dictatorial self-interested obsessed leadership of the PLP had long dispatched the founders of the party. Perhaps they were inconveniently neither black enough nor educationally refined enough for the young black barrister who wrested control of the party soon after its founding.

By 1965 two free-thinkers among that British-trained lawyer group – Paul Adderley and Orville Turnquest, together with U.S.-trained engineer Holland Smith and businessman Spurgeon Bethel – made their exit from the PLP already concerned that they could never influence or change their party’s leadership. Adderley would return to the PLP, married to the “ideal that could have been” and incapable of aligning himself with others who had made the difficult decision to stay the course in a new party committed to true democracy.

By October 1971 the Dissident Eight – Cecil Wallace Whitfield, Arthur Foulkes, Warren J. Levarity, Maurice Moore, Dr. Curtis McMillan, James (Jimmy) Shepherd, Dr. Elwood Donaldson and George Thompson – also exited the PLP. Given the political environment of the time, their departure from the PLP meant almost certain political death. Most would never see the inside of the House of Assembly as sitting members again.

They left nonetheless because the dictatorial traits they saw growing in their charismatic leader and the personality cult being nurtured around him troubled them to the core of their democratic souls. Cecil Wallace Whitfield famously echoed the U.S. civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in his address to the PLP convention during which he announced his resignation from the party proclaiming: “Free at last! Free at Last! My soul is dancing!”

With much of the democratic soul of the PLP having been forced out, the PLP led the country into independence with one of the most conservative (read least progressive or liberal) constitutions agreed for any former British colony in the Caribbean.

The “progressive and liberal” PLP delegation to the Independence Conference rejected an opposition proposal to give Bahamian women full equality and opposed it again in 2002 when the FNM government attempted to correct it. Also, no other Caribbean constitution is so encumbered by requirements for referenda to amend entrenched clauses.

September 06, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Philip Galanis on the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) 60th anniversary - (Part - 2)>>>

Cuban detainees at Carmichael Road Detention Centre have reported that their situation has improved ...since news broke of alleged beatings and mistreatment at the facility

 

 Miami Group Notes “Improved Conditions” At Detention Centre

 The Bahama Journal:




Miami-based human rights group members, who have launched relentless attacks on The Bahamas following allegations that Cubans were abused at the Carmichael Road Detention Centre, say detainees are reporting “improved conditions” at the facility.

Democracy Movement Leader, Ramon Saul Sanchez said over the past three months he has heard nothing but bad things from Cubans detained at the detention centre, but since news broke of alleged beatings and mistreatment, the remaining detainees have reported that their situation has improved.

“We’re not getting complaints of any mistreatment. In fact, they say they are treating them better in the detention centre itself,” he said.

“However, some [detainees] in the high security of the prison [are complaining that the conditions] are not proper for someone not charged of a crime. The environment is bad for them. They are saying that although the water is very bad and can’t be consumed the treatment is better on the part of the guards.”

Last week, Democracy Movement held a string of interviews with Cuban and other former detainees to hear their stories of alleged abuse and mistreatment in The Bahamas and elsewhere in the world.

Testimonies came from Mauricio Valdez and Randy Rodriguez who were being held at Her Majesty’s Prisons (HMP) and who were granted asylum in the United States last week.

According to Mr. Sanchez, the men noted that they were not allowed to shower for 15 days while at HMP and that they had to urinate and defecate in a slop bucket that was only taken out every two days.

Now that those two men are in the United States Mr. Sanchez said he is more concerned about the Cubans who were left in The Bahamas, but he noted that based on what he has heard so far things at the centre are getting better.

Even though that may be the case, the Democracy Movement spokesperson said they will not stop their protests until the government releases the full details of investigations into alleged abuse at the detention centre.

An alleged report, which was leaked last week, noted that at least five RBDF officers admitted to abusing and beating the detainees on several instances.

Government officials have maintained that the investigation into abuse allegations is not complete.

Allegations of sexual and mental abuse by the officers were also levied by some detainees, but Mr. Sanchez said this is just the tip of the iceberg and said his group will not stop until the full report is released.

“We want to refocus our effort in demanding from the Bahamian government to disclose the investigation,” he said. “We also want them to make available to the press, those [Cubans who] are still detained in The Bahamas and somehow demand from the Cuban government to make available the victims [who were] sent back to Cuba, so that all their testimonies can be obtained. We need to know what happened to them.

“The results have to be made public and the investigators must have no restraint in that.”

Mr. Sanchez said he is hoping that the Bahamian government finally agrees to sit down and talk with them to clear the air on this issue once and for all.

But in the meantime he said the group has delivered testimonies from alleged victims to The Bahamas Consulate Office in Miami, Florida.

He said the group is still waiting to have a meeting with Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell.

03 September, 2013

Jones Bahamas

Caribbean Blog International

The long awaited revolution in The Bahamas

The Cuban Detainees And The Long-Awaited Revolution

By Rupert Missick Jr

THERE are a generation of Bahamians, men in particular, who in their minds missed out on their opportunity to make revolution … not necessarily “the revolution” or “a revolution” but any revolution.

 

They have a subconscious fear that they will close the final chapter of their lives as tepid footnotes in the annals of our history.

 

You see, they were old enough to have fed on the godlike words of Martin Luther King Jr, to drink the prophetic sermons of Malcolm X and bathed in the hot bath of Newton and Seal’s Black Panther Philosophy but were too young to do anything about it other than channel their teenage and collegiate angst to sympathize and dream of the day when they too could really speak truth to power.

 

They read the fiery words of CLR James and Fanon and believed that one day, when they had their turn in directing the wheel of the nation’s progress, that “Wretched of the Earth” would become the basis of their national and foreign policy.

 

They envied the testicular fortitude of Fidel Castro, Jomo Kenyatta and Nelson Mandela and promised themselves that when it was their turn, they would be no less of a man than they were.

 

This was the generation who, as doe-eyed children looked upon Butler, Pindling, Hanna and Foulkes on the platforms of the Southern Recreation Grounds as they clung to the hem of their mommy’s housecoat.

 

These are the ones who sat at a distance when the founding fathers heatedly debated Independence under the shade of their newly hard fought for political power.

 

But when they came of age, their bodies eager to convert that potential energy into a kinetic force of progressive postcolonial action, they found that the Caesar of the day, unlike his Roman counterpart, had indeed surrounded himself with fat, sleek-headed men.

 

They found a Bahamas that was no longer willing to, or at least did not see the need to march, to rebel, to revolt and even if they did, who would it be against?

 

The colonialist, beaten and worn by the blitz and the strain the colony placed on their purse, were gone and happy to leave; the white men who ran Bay Street, while an ever present and available scapegoat had been virtually castrated and became, in their estimation, regrettable partners in building this new nation.

 

The country to the north that Cuba and Jamaica had once defied was now sacrosanct and the source of most imports and the reason behind most jobs.

 

They found themselves in a place where the sexiness of the physical struggle against oppression was gone and the romance of a postcolonial world was a smouldering ember in the campfire of greater men than they were.
 

They woke up with the reigns of political power, and by extension the means to direct economic power, in their hands.

 

So, now, if their revolution would come, it would come for them.

 

They were now faced with being actors in a more difficult kind of revolution. This revolution would require a more existential change; a revolution of consciousness, a revolution that would require them to abandon their new found comfort and launch into unchartered waters.

 

It required them to be creative, to reject the perpetuation of paternalism, of tribalism to teach a new reality to a new people.

 

But they failed. It was too abstract for them; it was not the kind of fight they were looking for.

 

This was a fight that was complicated, required work and had no clear enemy. In fact, in this fight sometimes they were the enemy and other times the people were the enemy. But how could you ever admit that out loud?

 

No, better resurrect the ghosts of the enemies from the decades before, the “hidden, outside forces” that they wanted to fight in the 60s and 70s.

 

Perhaps the biggest opportunity of their lifetime would have been to transform the Bahamas’ constitution into a progressive, modern document that could have been the envy of the hemisphere.

 

But through negotiations between tradition and the status quo we were served a bland report which amounted to a watered down porridge of convenience, necessity and compromise.

 

With the more “radical” positions on the Constitutional Commission beaten back by “reality”, this great post-colonial Bahamian generation now faces a future where they will die with their Queen or her successors reigning over them, a bicameral parliamentary system with an appointed senate, and a final court of “real adults” in London to correct their judicial errors.

 

In this regard I found the juxtaposition of our Prime Minister standing in the same spot where a great man once drew the attention of his nation to the “fierce urgency of now” and exhorted the world against taking the “tranquilizing drug of gradualism” heartbreaking.

 

I don’t know if that generation will ever understand what they missed, what they had, what they let slip through their fingers.

In the United States, activists like King, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers never had the kind of power that the men of their same generation had in the Bahamas.

 

Even today, there is no constitutional power in the United States which is comparable to the power which Mr Christie wields here at home.
 

What could Rep John Lewis, the last living speaker of the original March on Washington, who as a 23 year old led and organized the march from Selma to Montgomery, who faced down the dogs, hoses and state troupers of Southern racists, who is now only three years older than Perry Christie, what could he have done for his country and his people if he possessed the kind of constitutional powers that Mr Christie has now.

 

Mr Christie’s grand appearance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and his call to stand up for “dignity” and “social justice” is punctuated by his laid back response and acquiescence to the counterintuitive, self-destructive approach his minister has taken to handling the controversy of the brutal beating of illegal immigrants at home.

 

Today the language that we hear surrounding the controversy of the Cuban detainees, the frothing, hyperbolic defense of nationhood and national identity, the subtextual suggestion that those who fail to defend the abuse of the detainees are somehow ashamed of their skin colour, the accusations of aid giving to the enemy and promises that political opponents will be crushed, these are the death rattle of a generation desperate to fight a revolution, only it’s not the one that is actually theirs to fight.
 

Our great post-colonial generation missed a teachable moment where honesty, forthrightness and transparency could have not only shortened the length of this issue but could have served as an excellent counterpoint to the malignant dishonesty prevalent in our society.

 

Instead, they hunkered down, wrapped themselves in our flag and warmed themselves with anti-colonial rhetoric.

 

These words neither protect nor advance our nationhood. They are just words and they will never fill the hole that their lack of creativity and courage will leave behind in our society.

 

It’s cheap invective that in the long run means nothing significant to either the world or the future of this country.

 

But in the end, it’s red meat for the base; it’s a pleasant distraction from the work of the long awaited revolution.

September 02, 2013

Tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Cubans allege sex abuse by Bahamian detention guards

MIAMI (CMC) – A Cuban family who arrived in the US from a migrant detention centre in the Bahamas has alleged that guards regularly beat some of the male inmates and sexually abused some of the women.

The Democracy Movement, a Miami group that has been helping undocumented migrants detained in Nassau, said one of the women repatriated from the centre to Cuba earlier this month was impregnated by a guard.

Ramón Saúl Sánchez, Democracy Movement head, who greeted the family on their arrival, said a 24-year-old woman repatriated from Nassau to Havana last week reported that she was six months pregnant.

The movement led a string of protests against the Bahamian government this summer after detainees at the Carmichael Road Detention Centre smuggled out cell phone images of inmates sewing their lips together in protest and an alleged guard kicking prisoners, according to the Miami Herald.

Randy Rodriguez, 31, his wife Misleidy Olivera, 30, and their two children were the first detainees to speak in person to reporters about conditions at the centre after they arrived in Miami on a flight from Nassau.

“That video is real, and after the video came the beatings” (by guards) as punishment for the negative publicity, said Rodriguez.

However, Bahamas Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell has said the video is a fake and that the allegations are under investigation.

“I wish to say that no one from the Bahamas government has admitted that there was any abuse of detainees by the Bahamas government,” he said in a statement.

The Bahamas repatriated 24 Cubans to Havana on August 16 and another eight on August 21, including several of the alleged victims of beatings and sexual abuse.

The Miami Herald said another 18 undocumented Cubans detained in the Bahamas will be allowed to fly to Panama, which has agreed to issue them “territorial asylum” while they try to arrange onward trips to the United States.

 

Marleine Bastien, Executive Director for Haitian Women of Miami, who joined Sánchez at the news conference, said for several years Haitians have also complained about how they were treated at the Carmichael Road centre.

Septer 01, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Caribbean Blog International

 

What will be the impact of Value-added tax (VAT) on the cost of goods and services in The Bahamas?

Preparing for VAT

The Nassau Guardian Editorial

The government has set July 1, 2014 as the date for the biggest change to the Bahamian tax system in recent memory. It plans to bring forward a value-added tax (VAT), to create a central revenue service and to cut many customs duty rates.

To inform the people of what will take place the government has published a white paper on VAT that is available for all to see on its website. The government has also pledged a significant public relations campaign to help educate the Bahamian people on the proposed new tax.

The government will have challenges with this education effort. In its white paper, it admits that VAT is one of the more complicated taxes. It involves multi level taxation up the chain of production and distribution and it also includes rebates for some.

The Bahamas has challenges with education. The public school system in New Providence has an average in the national exams somewhere not too far from an F. The technical language of the white paper is inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of our population.

Sweeping tax reform requires the understanding and consent of the people. If the people think something they don’t understand is being forced on them, and it leads to a higher cost of living, the political party that did the deed will pay at the polls. The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) administration should know this.

While one challenge for the administration will simply be breaking VAT down for regular Bahamians to understand, there are some fundamental questions that will be asked by those who do understand. These are questions the white paper does not answer.

It remains unclear how the imposition of VAT will impact the cost of goods and services across the board.

In fact, the white paper acknowledges that the government is unable at this time to indicate comprehensively either way.

“The effect of VAT on prices will vary as between goods and services and, within the goods category, the effect will depend on the current taxation of individual goods.

The final impact on the price of goods will depend on the extent of reductions in import tariff rates flowing from accession to the WTO,” according to the white paper.

The government attempts to reassure the public by saying that agricultural, food and certain other products that currently benefit from duty free status under the Tariff Act will also be exempt from VAT.

“Similarly, the services also proposed to be exempt from VAT, such as health and education services, etc., should experience no direct change in price under a VAT system,” the white paper adds.

However, Bahamians will simply want to know how much more expensive items at the grocery store will be as a result of this proposed change. How much more expensive will clothing and electronics be? Is there a tax for using the already expensive services of lawyers? Will there be a 15 percent tax at restaurants on top of the 15 percent charged for gratuity?

To answer some of these questions, the government would have to announce its full range of cuts to customs duties. Other answers may be so unacceptable to the people that the government may have to alter its position.

When the official education campaign begins, business owners and professionals will have many questions for the government and its representatives, as will concerned citizens who can understand the magnitude of the change. It is necessary for the government to ensure that it works out the answers to the obvious questions Bahamians will ask before it starts the talking and education tour.

Prime Minister Perry Christie led the government’s communications effort on gambling. He was not well versed on the subject. He confused the issue and said things that were contradictory. The people noticed and rejected the referendum – an initiative the governing party hoped Bahamians would support.

Government bureaucrats and the PLP should not just assume Bahamians will accept VAT because international advisory agencies said we should try it. The people have to think it is better for them and the country. They know little of the details of this move now. If this tax reform is to succeed they must know more and agree to it by the implementation date.

August 31, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Peter Nygard has unlawfully “trespassed” on Crown Land through his construction activities at Simms Point/Nygard Cay

Government Proposed 21-Year Lease Of Reclaimed Crown Land To Peter Nygard

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government proposed a 21-year lease of reclaimed Crown Land at Nygard Cay to its fashion mogul owner, with an annual rental rate pegged at $25,000.

Documents obtained by Tribune Business reveal that the Christie administration sought to justify the lease on the grounds that it was needed to support an “estimated $50 million touristic development” at Nygard Cay.

The August 3, 2012, letter from Richard Hardy, the Department of Lands and Surveys’ acting director, provides the first concrete confirmation that the Government was assessing its options for granting a Crown Land lease - the issue at the heart of recently-launched Judicial Review proceedings.

The letter, described as a Memorandum, does not go into detail about the nature of the tourism project proposed by Peter Nygard for his Lyford Cay property.

However, the $50 million sum referred to matches the figure discussed at a meeting between Mr Nygard and Bahamas Investment Authority (BIA) officials, which was held two months’ prior to Mr Hardy’s letter.

Previously obtained notes of that June 2012 meeting revealed that Mr Nygard was proposing a $25-$30 million investment to rebuild his fire-destroyed Nygard Cay home, with the balance earmarked for a stem cell research and treatment facility targeted at medical tourism. It would thus appear this proposal is what Mr Hardy is referring to.

Mr Hardy’s memorandum, addressed to the permanent secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, and which bears the director of investments’ (Joy Jibrilu) stamp, dated August 15, 2012, is headed: ‘ Proposed Lease of Land at Nygard Cay for a proposed touristic development’.

Referring to an August 1, 2012, missive he had received, containing two proposed “plans”, Mr Hardy disclosed that the minister responsible for Crown Lands - who is Prime Minister Perry Christie - had decided to lease a portion of the reclaimed seabed at Nygard Cay to Mr Nygard.

“It is noted in your second paragraph that the Minister Responsible for Crown Land has determined that appropriate acreage should be leased to Mr Peter Nygard to facilitate the proposed estimated $50 million touristic development,” Mr Hardy wrote.

Referring to one of the lease options presented to him, Mr Hardy said the “area coloured red is recommended on a 21 years renewable lease basis, at an annual rental of $25,000, (with reviews after seven and 14 years)”.

The Lands and Surveys acting director then effectively confirmed the acreage involved was Crown Land reclaimed from the sea.

He added: “In effect, this recommendation is in respect of the property between the December 1984 high water mark and the June high water mark.

“It does not include those areas..... which are covered by water (other than the northern lagoon) and are tidal, i.e. (4.779 acres minus tidal, non-lagoon, areas).”

A handwritten note at the bottom of Mr Hardy’s letter says a proposal was expected imminently, and that all these details “should factor into Cabinet/National Economic Council papers”.

While there is no evidence to suggest that the Nygard Cay lease was a ‘done deal’, the contents of Mr Hardy’s letter are likely to reignite the controversy surrounding its Canadian owner’s construction endeavours.

This is because the Save the Bays coalition, in its Judicial Review action, is challenging the Government’s alleged failure to prevent “unauthorised development” at Nygard Cay - the same development it claims has resulted in the seabed reclamation subject to the Crown Land lease.

In effect, if the coalition’s allegations are correct, the Christie administration’s plan to lease the reclaimed Crown Land to Mr Nygard, under cover of facilitating a tourism development, would be tantamount to legitimising/sanctioning wrongdoing.

Mr Nygard has argued that his Simms Point property has expanded through natural accretion, but this has been dismissed by both Save the Bays and the former Ingraham administration.

In the Attorney General’s draft defence and counterclaim, filed in response to a legal action initiated by Mr Nygard, the former government sought a court declaration that the Canadian fashion mogul had unlawfully “trespassed” on Crown Land through his construction activities.

Implying that Mr Nygard lacked the relevant permits and approvals, the Attorney General’s Office had also sought a court Order requiring Nygard Cay’s owner to remove - at his own expense - all the groins, docks and seabed infilling he has allegedly carried out, thus returning the coastline to its original 1984 boundaries.

The Christie administration’s Crown Land lease proposals thus represent a stunning U-turn on the position taken by its predecessor within three months of the 2012 general election. The $25,000 annual lease payment, which over 21 years would amount to a collective $525,000, also pales into insignificance alongside both the Government’s fiscal deficit and the alleged $25-$30 million valuation Save the Bays has placed on Mr Nygard’s reclaimed Crown Land.

And the coalition had previously warned that granting Nygard Cay’s owner his much-desired lease would set a bad precedent, sending signals to Bahamian and other foreign landowners that they could ‘do as they pleased’ with respect to developing their properties without reference to existing laws and regulations.

Further evidence that the Government was contemplating a Crown Land lease to Mr Nygard is contained in the August 16, 2013, affidavit by Hyacinth Smith, an attorney in the Attorney General’s Office.

The affidavit, sworn in support of the Government’s bid to have Save the Bays’ Judicial Review action thrown out, refers to “the consideration of any lease options by the Government” in relation to Nygard Cay.

Other documents filed in support of the Government’s application, though, have also revealed previously unknown facts related to the Nygard Cay situation.

• The former Ingraham administration obtained two $2.7 million-plus bids from construction firms to return Nygard Cay’s size, and coastline, to 1984 conditions. The work, it told Mr Nygard, would have to be paid by himself.
  
  
• The Christie administration issued Mr Nygard an annual dredging permit, via the Department of Lands and Surveys, for the period June 13, 2012, to March 12, 2013. The issuance came just six weeks after the general election.

A transcript of the court hearing at which Save the Bays obtained permission to file its Judicial Review action saw its attorney, Fred Smith QC, disclose the contents of a January 9, 2009, letter sent by the then-government to Mr Nygard.

Referring to talks with the fashion mogul’s then-attorney, Sidney Collie, the Government said it was its “intention to cause the coastline at Simms Point... to be reinstated”.

It added: “The Government has sought and obtained bids from two suitably qualified firms, Tycoon Management and Bahamas Marine Construction, in the amount of $2.75 million and $2.73 million respectively, to undertake the proposed reinstatement work.

“The two bids are being reviewed, and you will be advised of the successful bid shortly. It is the Government’s determination that the full cost of the work be borne by you.”

Tycoon Management is headed by James Curling, while Bahamas Marine is part of the Mosko Group of Companies.

Ms Smith’s affidavit for the Government, though, questions the “bona fides” behind the Save the Bays’ Judicial Review claim.

She alleges that the action is nothing more than the latest extension of the battle between Mr Nygard and his Lyford Cay neighbour, hedge fund billionaire Louis Bacon, who is a prominent member of Save the Bays.

This, she added, “throws doubts on the bona fides of the Judicial Review claim”. And the application’s reference to the Bahamas Investment Authority meeting “speak clearly to the collateral interest of the coalition in opposing the consideration of any lease options by government with respect to the Nygard Cay matter, and a stem cell facility connected to Mr Nygard”.

All three of the Government, Mr Nygard and the latter’s attorney, Keod Smith, are seeking to have the Judicial Review action dismissed on legal technicalities.

For example, the Attorney General’s Office and Mr Smith are alleging that in obtaining leave to file its Judicial Review action at a hearing where only it was present, Save the Bays and its attorneys failed to properly disclose all material facts relevant to the case.

Indeed, Mr Smith’s summons blasted those behind the Judicial Review action as “busybodies with misguided complaints”.

Mr Nygard, for his part, wants the injunction halting all further construction works at Nygard Cay thrown out on the grounds that he is not a public official or body subject to Judicial Review. He is also seeking damages for the injunction.

And the Attorney General’s Office has blasted the document discovery order imposed on the Government as a “fishing expedition”.

April 26, 2013

Tribune242 

Caribbean Blog International

...it seems that there is an effort on the part of various South Florida Cuban interest groups ...and their political leaders ...to force The Bahamas to become a conduit for illegal Cuban immigrants seeking entry to the U.S.

Cuban migrants: Testing Bahamian foreign policy

By Simon

The strategic location of The Bahamas archipelago, sharing maritime borders with the U.S. and Cuba, has posed a particular test for Bahamian foreign policy since independence.

We are geographically bracketed between the two countries. We are also of necessity keen observers of decades of an acrimonious history between our immediate southern and northern neighbors.

As a much smaller country, we are sometimes caught in the whirlwind that is the U.S.-Cuban relationship. Still, though we are a small country, we have not been devoid of certain diplomatic tools.

Successive Bahamian governments have maintained a diplomatic posture enabling us to brace and defend ourselves when category-five-like hurricane winds blow back and forth between our immediate neighbors, threatening our good relations with both.

To buffet ourselves while maintaining our balance within our immediate neighborhood, we have adhered to two ballasts that have proved foundational and stabilizing, namely Bahamian national interests and international law.

Necessity has proven to be the mother of invention and neighborliness in our relations with Cuba and the U.S. We are good neighbors to both even as we insist on the inviolability of Bahamian sovereignty as do our American and Cuban friends of their sovereignty.

Our Bahamian national interests, which are often of mutual interest to our neighbors, include bilateral issues ranging from commercial ties to matters pertaining to the law of the sea.

The video

The latest test of our long-established policy foundations, diplomacy and good neighbor policy was a well-circulated video purporting to show the abuse of Cuban inmates at the detention center.

Without benefit of an official investigation most Bahamians who saw the video dismissed it as a hoax. Yet it was used as a pretext to launch a well-publicized attack on The Bahamas.

Given the specious nature of the video, many Bahamians were shocked and angered by the vicious attack on their country by a group of Cuban exiles in Miami calling themselves the Democracy Movement, an ironic name given their seeming contempt for our Bahamian democracy.

As a hypocritical aside: Think of the number of Cuban Americans supportive of the U.S. economic embargo of Cuba who have used the good graces of The Bahamas to travel to Cuba or to send money and messages to loved ones there.

The Florida-based mob accusing The Bahamas of the abuse and torture of inmates at the detention center in Nassau, and of cover-up, made it clear that they intended to inflict maximum damage on our tourism industry by calling on Americans not to visit The Bahamas.

There were shrill demonstrations in Florida lambasting The Bahamas, with all manner of nasty and hysterical signs including, reportedly, signage attacking Prime Minister Perry Christie.

When warranted, Bahamians, including this columnist, have not been reserved in criticizing the prime minister. But those who have sought to inflict harm on our country, and who have attacked our prime minister, need not be confused.

On this issue, the overwhelming majority of Bahamians stand behind our country, and just to emphasize, and in lieu of language unacceptable in a family newspaper: Don’t screw with our prime minister!

While the opposition is rightly justified in criticizing various elements of the government’s foreign policy, there should be no disagreement on the basic policy in question.

If there was a credible allegation of abuse, those demonstrating in Miami would be justified in calling for an investigation, not launching a damaging attack on a small, friendly nation.

Blackmail

But even with the most serious doubts being cast on the video allegations, many continued with their program of intimidation and attempt of blackmail against The Bahamas.

What arrogance and hubris by those who seek to inflict damage on our economy, while eagerly chasing the approximately $1 billion Bahamians spend annually in Florida.

They are a vocal minority who should be isolated as surely merchants in South Florida and local and state officials in Florida must be as alarmed and disgusted by these suggestions as are Bahamians.

Indeed, Cubans in South Florida particularly and Florida generally should not be lumped into a single cohort. Cuban-Americans are an increasingly diverse group, and an evolving demographic. Today, younger Cubans are tending towards greater liberalization of U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba.

Yet there remain prominent Cuban-American politicians at the municipal, state and federal levels in the U.S. who make common cause with those opposed to the fuller liberalization U.S. policy towards Cuba.

Many of these same politicians have often sought to run roughshod over Bahamian sovereignty, seeking to have U.S. immigration policy adopted in The Bahamas for Cubans – certainly not for Haitians – as if we are a mere appendage of the U.S.

Still, despite their outlandish rhetoric, various Cuban-American politicians know full well that The Bahamas is a democracy and that it has never been the policy of any government of whatever political stripe to practice or condone abuse and torture of detainees.

They know that in The Bahamas we are committed to the rule of law. They also know that despite the best efforts of any government in the world, including their own, abuses are likely to occur in institutions of incarceration, as they do regularly in the U.S.

They know too that The Bahamas has maintained the most cordial relations with the U.S. and has, indeed, cooperated with the U.S. in many ways for their mutual benefit including joint efforts against drug interdiction and illegal immigration.

The Bahamas must not allow a group of rabble-rousers pressing their interest to upend our good relations with the American government and the American people, including the good citizens of Florida.

Moderated

Meanwhile, despite the efforts of various prominent Cuban-American politicians, the American government moderated its open door policy to Cuba in an effort to stem the unregulated influx of immigrants from that country with the so-called “wet-foot dry-foot” policy.

Now, it seems there is an effort on the part of various South Florida Cuban interest groups and their political leaders to force The Bahamas to become a conduit for immigrants seeking entry to the U.S.

For our part, all illegal immigrants and all persons claiming political asylum of whatever nationality or racial or ethnic origin must be treated the same under Bahamian law.

As it continues to handle this test of the consistency of Bahamian foreign policy, the Christie administration should keep the domestic public informed while briefing our Caribbean sister states and others of the issues in play.

The government is rightly insistent that its talks are with the government of the United States of America, not a group of private citizens in Florida. We should talk also with friends in the U.S. Congress, including those from Florida.

If the government is to be faulted in this matter, it has to do with the matter of tone, and of its appointment fiasco of an ambassador to the U.S.

At times, Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell, who is understandably under a great deal of pressure, has struck the wrong tone. He should not allow himself to be seen to be rattled, and needs to be more tempered in some of his remarks. There are things best said by surrogates rather than a foreign minister.

As a small country, one of our strongest diplomatic tools is the quality of our diplomats. Capable diplomats are able to express energetically and articulately the country’s views on a given matter. With one or two exceptions, the diplomats appointed by the Christie administration are notably poor choices.

Had there not been a screw-up in the appointment of an ambassador to the U.S., there would have been someone in the chair to help shoulder the issue at hand.

Further, having Dr. Elliston Rahming remain as permanent representative to the OAS, while serving at the UN is a mistake which the government should quickly rescind.

This dual appointment will leave Rahming bouncing back and forth between New York City and Washington, D.C., with all manner of scheduling conflicts and unnecessary expense.

Our ambassador to the U.S., Dr. Eugene Newry, should be made ambassador to the OAS, which is resident in Washington, D.C., allowing for better policy coordination especially with our CARICOM partners.

In its WikiLeaks series, this journal noted comments reportedly made by Christie in his previous term that made it appear that he had basically ceded foreign policy to his foreign minister.

No prime minister should ever make such a statement to foreign diplomats as such an admission may be an invitation to mischief and manipulation by those diplomats.

But more importantly, a nation’s leader is potentially one of the most valuable assets in a country’s foreign policy. Before and now we are paying a price for Christie’s incuriosity and clear lack of understanding of the intricacies of foreign policy and diplomacy.

There are more diplomatic tests to come. There always are. To up our game we need the strongest possible team, including able personnel at Foreign Affairs, good diplomats in the field – and a prime minister more serious about and engaged in matters of foreign policy.

August 22, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International