Showing posts with label Fred Mitchell Wikileaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Mitchell Wikileaks. Show all posts

Friday, February 17, 2012

Wikileaks and Bahamian Politics: ...former Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell is accused of being ‘complicit in visa fraud’ and ‘pressuring’ staff at the ministry to issue visas to ‘ineligible’ Chinese applicants during his term in office... according to a secret U.S. Embassy cable tabled in the Senate

Mitchell accused of corruption



By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com



A senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs official accused former Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell of being ‘complicit in visa fraud’ and ‘pressuring’ staff at the ministry to issue visas to ‘ineligible’ Chinese applicants during his term in office, according to a secret U.S. Embassy cable tabled in the Senate yesterday.

Bahamian Consular Affairs Chief Dorothea Lafleur also told an Embassy official that Mitchell was ‘likely receiving financial kickbacks for the visas that were issued’, though she said she had no hard proof of this, the cable said.  Leader of Government Business in the Senate Dion Foulkes tabled the cable, which was written on April 24, 2007, and published on the Internet by the whistleblower organization, WikiLeaks.

According to the cable, the U.S. Embassy’s consular chief met with Lafleur on April 12 at Lafleur’s invitation.

The cable said, “[Lafleur] accused Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell of complicity in pressuring consular officers to issue visas to patently ineligible applicants.

“She further alleged that Mitchell was involved in a fraudulent visa scam to bring in a large group of Chinese nationals.  According to Lafleur, Mitchell attempted to pressure consular officers to issue the visas and, when unsuccessful, attempted to bypass Bahamian consular law and division leadership.”

After Foulkes tabled the cable in the Senate, Mitchell released a statement, dismissing the allegations as fabrication from a disgruntled employee.

He said the fabrication is now being used in the government’s election smear campaign.  The former minister also told The Nassau Guardian he plans to sue Lafleur over the comments attributed to her in the cable.

He said the Free National Movement made similar claims back in 2007, which were unsupported after a police investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing in the ministry during his five years as minister.

The cable said Lafleur told the Embassy official that Mitchell directly ordered her to issue visas to 30 Chinese nationals whose applications were sponsored by then Member of Parliament Sidney Stubbs.

Lafleur said she refused to issue the visas and after pressure from Mitchell she asked for further documentation on the applicants, according to the cable.

“She was informed by Mitchell and Stubbs that they all were high-level managers at large, multinational Chinese companies in China and were coming to The Bahamas at the invitation of Stubbs for business related travel,” the cable said.

According to the cable, after a week-long review, the Chinese Embassy told Lafleur that there was no record of any of the companies listed by Mitchell “with the exception of one company which they characterized as a small ‘mom and pop operation’ in China”.

“Lafleur again refused to issue the visas,” the cable added.

The document also said: “Lafleur claims that as a result of her refusals, Mitchell appointed another official above her in the Consular Affairs Office, who would have the authority to issue over Lafleur’s denials.

“This unlawful appointment provoked the entire consular division to go on strike.”

The Embassy official noted in the cable that the strike was widely reported in the news, but it was attributed to administrative issues in the consular division.

“Mitchell was forced to remove his appointee from the oversight position to end the strike,” the cable said.

“He then tried to get the Chinese visas approved by assigning issuing power to the Bahamian Embassy in Beijing, staffed by an ambassador.  That idea was squashed when the permanent secretary asked Consular Affairs about the idea, and was told that the ambassador had no consular training and that the UK Embassy in Beijing was more qualified by virtue of language and cultural familiarity to issue visas on behalf of The Bahamas.”

The cable said Lafleur also stated that Mitchell had sent another Bahamian to China to promote travel (and visas) to The Bahamas, but that person lacked diplomatic status there and had been removed from the country as a visa overstay.

“Asked why Mitchell would be personally interested in facilitating fraudulent visa issuance to Chinese nationals, Lafleur alleged that Mitchell received a portion of whatever fee the Chinese nationals paid for the visa,” the cable said.

“While lacking hard proof, Lafleur cited the lack of support for the visas from the Chinese Embassy and the involvement of the notorious Sidney Stubbs.”

The cable said Lafleur also expressed relief that Mitchell would not be returning as Foreign Minister.

“Citing internal sources, and noting that Mitchell had already completely cleaned out his office at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lafleur said that regardless of which party wins the election, Minister Mitchell would not be returning.

“Lafleur noted that she favored the governing PLP in the upcoming election, as long as the PLP does not reappoint Mitchell as foreign minister.”

The cable said Lafleur's bribery allegation adds credence to allegations that have long been circulating in The Bahamas regarding Mitchell, and which are being used by the opposition (FNM) to discredit Mitchell, who faces a tight race against a formidable opposition candidate for his  parliamentary seat, the 2007 cable said.

“The allegation also fits with a number of events that took place and suspicions that have been suggested by Ministry of Foreign Affairs contacts,” it added.

“For example, a staff walkout did take place within recent months that was poorly understood and explained in the media.  Newspaper reports have, however, hit around the edges of this scandal, and Mitchell is squarely in the cross hairs of the Free National Movement and its anti-corruption ‘It is About Trust’ election theme.

“In fact, FNM leader [Hubert] Ingraham has privately pledged to devote whatever resources it takes to defeat Mitchell.  The fact that Mitchell now also appears to be a target of his own senior staff — even staff that supports his party's re-election — adds more credibility to the view that Mitchell may not keep his Foreign Affairs portfolio even if he and the PLP are able to win re-election.”

But in his statement yesterday, Mitchell said, “There is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest any malfeasance by me in public office.  In fact, the record shows that with regard to both passport issuance and visa issuance I never issued any visa or passport to anyone or caused such an issuance. [The allegations] were discredited by a thorough police investigation, a management audit by the Public Service Commission and by the auditor general.”

During her contribution in the Senate yesterday, Leader of Opposition Business Allyson Maynard-Gibson said Foulkes’ comments were based on ‘Wikileaks gossip’.

She said there was an investigation into the allegations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the PLP was voted out of office in May 2007 and added that “no irregularities were found”.

Foulkes tabled the document not long after Maynard-Gibson asked him to.

Feb 16, 2012

thenassauguardian

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Wikileaks - US Embassy Nassau cables: Fred Mitchell criticizes the decision-making process in Perry Christie's Cabinet

Wikileaks reveals Mitchell 'criticism' of Christie cabinet

tribune242




CRITICISM of the decision-making process in Perry Christie's Cabinet made by then Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell have been revealed in the latest US Embassy cables released by Wikileaks.

During a lunchtime meeting hosted by US Charge Robert Witajewski for Mr Mitchell and then Permanent Secretary for the US Foreign Ministry Patricia Rodgers on March 29, 2004, Mr Mitchell complained of prolonged Cabinet debate, according to the newly-released cable about the 'Bahamian perspective on Caricom and Haiti'.

In response, inquiries from the US envoy about the status of ratification of the comprehensive maritime agreement (CMA), which had been negotiated over 18 months, Mr Mitchell said it had been decided there would be a formal briefing to the Cabinet about the document because of its significance and complexity.

"Optimistically, Mitchell thought that this could be completed in two Cabinet sessions over a two-week period," Mr Witajewski reported in the cable.

"What is essentially a codification and rationalisation of existing agreements, Mitchell again wistfully mused about how the Bahamian decision-making process might be improved.

"He related that he had learned as a result of his Caricom attendance that in other Commonwealth countries, debate and intervention on issues in the Cabinet is restricted to their ministers whose portfolios are directly impacted by the issue, or ministers that assert fundamental issues of principle.

"In contrast, Mitchell intimated, in the Christie Cabinet of the Bahamas operates much less efficiently since any minister can intervene and express a view on any issue before the government."

When contacted by The Tribune yesterday, Mr Mitchell said: "I didn't say that, I dont think I said that at all. I just don't see myself engaging in that kind of dialogue with a US diplomat."

But according to the cable, the then Foreign Minister also complained about Caricom's "cumbersome" decision-making style and said too much time was wasted by the ceremonial opening and closing of the sessions at the latest meeting of Caricom heads of government in St Kitts.

He said if each government had not insisted "on getting their own paragraph" into the final declaration, "they might have both accomplished more and not have been forced to hold their closing press conference at 2am," according to the cable.

Caricom-US relations were also discussed during the meeting, as the status of ex-Haitian president Jean Bertrand Aristide, and Caricom's request for a UN investigation of the events related to Aristide's resignation and departure from Haiti, also came under discussion.

Mr Witajewski reported that Mr Mitchell described a 'north-south' division within Caricom on Haiti, as northern Caribbean countries are more careful to balance their interests with Caricom and the US, being cognisant of the importance of their relations with the US, while the southern Caribbean nations are, "guided by political agendas".

Mr Mitchell warned the US not to "overreact" to Jamaica's offer to take in ex-President Aristide as he insisted the US should not be concerned with or opposed to Aristide's presence in the Caribbean.

And he, "argued that a perceived 'banishing policy' has racial and historical overtones in the Caribbean that reminds inhabitants of the region of slavery and past abuse."

The former Minister also insisted the US should not be concerned with Aristide meddling in Haiti's internal affairs from Jamaica, and was, "emphatic that Jamaica will not allow Aristide to play such an intrusive role and would 'deal' with Aristide if such a situation were to arise."

In his comments on the meeting, Mr Witajewski commented on Mr Mitchell's character.

He said: "Foreign Minister Mitchell was his usual business-like self during lunch as he pursued his agenda of downplaying the consequences of a division between Caricom and the United States on Haiti.

"Underlying many of Mitchell's arguments was the premise that Caricom/The Bahamas as small countries take (and are entitled to take) principled stands while the US necessarily engages in real politick.

"Despite a life-long career as a politician in a country where politics is personalised to the extreme, neither kissing babies nor making small talk comes naturally to Fred Mitchell.

"He prefers to deal with agendas expeditiously and then engage in philosophical discussions or reviews of international relations drawing on his seminar's at Harvard's Kennedy School.

"Holding two time-consuming portfolios, managing the civicl service and foreign policy, is also taking its toll on Mitchell's private time.

"Mitchell told Charge a year ago that he hoped to write a 12 chapter book combining policy, history and personal ideology to be published on his 51st birthday. Ruefully, he admitted he hasn't progressed beyond chapter four."

Although he published a third edition of his book 'Great moments in PLP history' last year, including a previously unpublished essay entitle 'Pindling and Me', Mr Mitchell has not yet completed the project he spoke of seven years ago.

As he approaches his 58th birthday on October 5, Mr Mitchell said he still plans to write his book, before he retires, but it has taken longer than he anticipated.

"It's a combination of allocating the time to do it and putting retrospective notes in order, with the difficulty being that I am an active politician," Mr Mitchell said.

"But I am hoping to do it before I retire."

August 22, 2011

tribune242

Monday, July 25, 2011

Wikileaks Bahamas documents: The Christie administration offered to send Bahamian troops to help quell a violent rebellion in Haiti and discussed the possibility of making Fred Mitchell joint leader of that country

Mitchell 'considered for Haiti leadership role'

tribune242



THE Christie administration offered to send Bahamian troops to help quell a violent rebellion in Haiti and discussed the possibility of making Fred Mitchell joint leader of that country, newly released Wikileaks documents claim.

According to confidential cables sent by US Embassy officials in Nassau at the height of the crisis in early 2004, if diplomacy failed to contain the crisis the Bahamas government felt military assistance would be necessary and was willing to commit "perhaps as many as 100" troops to a multilateral force - whether or not it was led by the United Nations.

The documents also claim then Foreign Affairs minister Fred Mitchell was close to being named one of a threesome of "wise men" to be charged with overseeing that country's affairs.

The three cables, sent by US Embassy officials in 2003 and 2004, detail the Christie administration's response to the rapidly developing crisis as understood by embassy staff.

They claim Mr Mitchell and former prime minister Perry Christie were very concerned about the violence - particularly in terms of what it would mean for Haitian migration to the Bahamas.

One cable quotes former Foreign Affairs permanent secretary Melanie Zonicle as saying that in Mr Mitchell's view, while the preferred mechanism for dealing with Haiti was the UN, "any outside intervention would be preferable to continued and increased chaos."

Another reiterated the importance of illegal immigration to local politics, noting that Mr Christie - despite being an "overprogrammed prime minister" - repeatedly requested and put aside a full hour for an urgent meeting to inform US officials of his position on Haiti.

That position, the cables claim, placed a comparatively low priority on the human rights of the Haitian people.

One of the cables, issued in April 2003 by notoriously combative US Ambassador Richard Blankenship (see story, page 7), said that fear of "mass migration" was the Bahamas government's top priority, but that an immigration agreement with the Aristide government stalled over the Haitian demand that amnesty be granted to the illegals already in the country.

It said: "Such a concession would be suicide for Mitchell in the xenophobic Bahamian political landscape. Pursuit of this agreement and any other means to slow down migration will continue to push any concerns for democracy and human rights into the backseat."

A February 2004 cable quoted Mr Christie as saying that if large numbers of Haitians started arriving in Bahamian territory, the government would not offer asylum, but rather rely on the United States to help with repatriation.

"The Bahamas, he said, simply had no capacity to maintain large numbers of migrants for any period of time. Declaring that he had no concert with 'those liberals' on this issue, he declared that there would never be asylum in the Bahamas for Haitians.

"The total population of the Bahamas was, he said, 'less than that of a small town in the United States. We simply cannot do what Amnesty International and other groups would insist on us'."

The February 2004 cable quotes Mr Christie as mentioning the possibility that Fred Mitchell could play a "new and significant ongoing role in Haiti as the third member in a tripartite committee that, Christie seemed to believe, would effectively serve as a kind of 'Council of Wise Men' in governing the country."

Under this scenario, Mr Mitchell, as the representative of "CARICOM and others" would have governed Haiti along with a new Haitian prime minister and a representative of the opposition.

The former PM is quoted as saying President Aristide had reservations about the plan and for his own part, Mr Christie would prefer the third member to be French or American - although he seemed to think Mr Mitchell was the US's preference. The cables do not clarify if this was the case.

However, they do paint a picture of a prime minister who is a bit naive about US policy towards Haiti.

Despite the hard line on the Haitian regime sustained throughout the crisis - culminating in claims that the United States government abducted President Aristide - Mr Christie appears in the cables as appealing to the US to share his sympathy for the Haitian leader.

The February 2004 cable notes that the former PM "appeared comfortable in his newly-assumed role of international mediator," mentioning that he had spoken with Aristide "at least a dozen times" recently and at least once a week that day.

Mr Christie is said to have stressed that he and Mr Mitchell felt an agreement should be reached that conferred some "dignity" to Aristide, and that he sympathised with the Haitian leader's complaint that he was being asked to take unconstitutional actions.

He added that he does not believe Aristide would be opposed to working with the opposition on the joint appointment of a new prime minister and cabinet, but simply did not want to be "left out of the process."

Mr Christie also seemed confident that Mr Mitchell and US Assistant Secretary Roger Noriega would fly to Haiti later that week and "continue to work all sides of the issue."

Mr Mitchell, on the other hand, is quoted in a 2003 cable as saying the US position on Haiti was "hard-minded" and calling for more dialogue.

Another cable compared Mr Mitchell to Mr Christie, saying that: "While his decision-making style may be protracted and indecisive, Bahamian Prime Minister Perry Christie is also an impressive, dynamic, charismatic and ebullient presence and an indefatigable seeker of consensus. For the purpose of promoting peace in Haiti, his personality complements that of Foreign Minister Mitchell, which is steadier, stealthier, and more methodical."

July 25, 2011

tribune242

Friday, June 3, 2011

Petulant, petty and vindictive Fred Mitchell in the House of Assembly on the Wikileaks publication of confidential US embassy cables on Bahamian political affairs

Fred Mitchell and journalistic ethics

tribune242 editorial



IN THE House of Assembly on Tuesday Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell held forth as though he were an authority on journalistic ethics.

At one time in his life he fancied himself as a journalist. Those of us properly trained in the profession considered him a scribbler of propaganda. We never took him seriously.

Obviously upset by the Wikileaks publication of confidential US embassy cables on Bahamian political affairs -- especially those pertaining to himself -- Mr Mitchell decided to take out his venom against the reporter who gave an accurate, objective report that quoted -- but did not interpret -- the content of those cables.

In a 2005 cable former US Ambassador John Rood saw "two Fred Mitchell's" - the polite and polished public Mitchell and the more private, but more revealing Mitchell. We have often seen a third side -- petulant, petty and vindictive -- and this is the side that Fred Mitchell exposed in the House on Tuesday.

Upset by the reports, he turned his venom on the Guardian reporter.

"I always envied my colleague, the Member for North Andros, that former lady friend of his who shall remain nameless who works at the Guardian and wrote that whole section about me," he told the House. "'That gal look good!"

"My only point is that journalism, the kind that The Nassau Guardian, The Tribune and The Bahamas Journal are to practice carried with it certain ethical standards and it is unethical to write a story about one subject of which you had a close personal relationship as if you are a disinterested party. It can be seen as malicious. But neither she nor her employers seem to get the point," he said.

What rubbish is the man talking?

Here he is complaining about an article that the reporter wrote about him. Is he referring to that article and the subject of that article when he complains that it was unethical of the reporter to write on a subject of which she had a close personal relationship as if she were a disinterested party? Knowing Fred Mitchell we are satisfied that she had no personal relationship with him. So who is the subject to whom he refers and how is that "subject" relevant to the article of which he complains?

The fact that this reporter can write on a subject in which Mr Mitchell claims she has a personal interest as though she were disinterested shows that she is a good objective reporter, who does not let personal relationships cloud her judgment. This is more than can be said about the writing of Mr Mitchell on his Bahamas uncensored website about which Ambassador Rood had reason to complain to then prime minister Christie. Mr Rood was concerned about what he perceived as Mr Mitchell's anti-American viewpoints.

According to Mr Mitchell there is public "fascination and revulsion" at the disclosures. Revulsion that public officials "would be so open and callous" with information they share with "American diplomats." He condemned these Bahamians for "spilling their guts" to junior diplomats. He seems to forget that the assessment on himself of which he complains was made by the Ambassador himself -- no junior diplomat.

But, talking about "gut spilling," according to the diplomatic cables, we have Mr Mitchell expressing his frustrations with the level of efficiency of the Christie cabinet.

In commenting on the practices of restrictions on cabinet debates in Commonwealth countries, Mr Mitchell "intimated, the Christie cabinet of the Bahamas operates much less efficiently since any minister can intervene and express a view on any issue before the government."

At a meeting with Ambassador Rood in March 2007, Mr Mitchell "expressed his frustration at the indecision in his own government stemming from the pending elections.

"Mitchell cited the delay in signing the airport management contract and the delay in moving ahead with discussions on the Flight Information Region as two examples," the cable said.

"He noted that if the elections had been called in November and held in December, the government would either be out of power already or be finished with the elections and able to govern effectively."

Now who is gut spilling? Here Mr Mitchell is caught "spilling his guts" on the very issue that today has many Bahamians concerned -- the indecision of the Christie administration.

This obviously is going to be an issue in this election. In May, 2007 Bahamians cut this indecision short by dismissing the Christie government at the polls. It would be surprising if -- despite what Mr Mitchell now says -- they would vote in 2012 for a repeat performance.

June 02, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Fred Mitchell - Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs critical of U.S. Embassy officials in Nassau on WikiLeaks diplomatic cables

Mitchell critical of Americans over WikiLeaks cables

CHESTER ROBARDS
Guardian Staff Reporter
thenassauguardian
chester@nasguard.com





Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell was critical yesterday of U.S. Embassy officials responsible for certain information contained in diplomatic cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks.

Mitchell said the Americans accepted “propaganda lines” about the Progressive Liberal Party.

“It strains credibility to me that U.S. professional diplomats, a person so high as a deputy chief of mission who was actually sitting in the seat of the ambassador, would accept and adopt uncritically propaganda lines from the Free National Movement (FNM),” Mitchell said in the House of Assembly during his contribution to the budget debate.

“That is simply not a professional report.”

During the years of the (Perry) Christie administration, deputy chief of mission was Dr. Brent Hardt.

One cable that followed a meeting between the Progressive Liberal Party and U.S. Embassy officials after the 2007 general election, painted the PLP as a party that “seemed more interested in photographs and a press release of the meeting to signal their continuing good relations with the U.S.”

Yesterday, however, Mitchell dismissed the cables as “untested” and “gossipy,”.

“But the country can learn from this,” Mitchell said.

“Our public officials including myself can learn the cautionary tale of being careful with your mouths, not to let these positions cause you to show off.

“...Secondly, that Bahamian public officials must stand up for The Bahamas at all times. Bahamians must come first.

“Thirdly that Bahamians should not allow their opinions of themselves to be governed by their ability to travel to the United States.”

Mitchell suggested that the U.S. Embassy consider disassociating itself with the information in the leaked cables so as to dismiss the notion that they were an official view of events.

And though Mitchell insisted that the cables have become (seemingly reliable) tools to attack the PLP, cables on the Free National Movement (FNM) has already been released as well.

“Here we have a press that does not support the PLP,” Mitchell said.

“They oppose the PLP. They have now used their resources to get these so-called cables. They do not get an independent panel to edit and release the information.

“Instead they arrogate to themselves the right to selectively choose what to release. Now in a situation where there is support for the FNM why would anybody not be surprised that the PLP is the subject of these attacks with the same tendentious propaganda and slogans of the FNM now repeated in the mouths allegedly of U.S. diplomats.”

Mitchell also scolded Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham for “spilling all his guts” to “junior U.S. officials,” which the cables also exposed.

Mitchell was referring to a meeting Ingraham had in 2003 with a U.S. Embassy official in which Ingraham extensively discussed local politics, according to a cable.

“(Some people) wonder if it is possible for a former president of the United Stares to spill his guts to junior Bahamian diplomatic officers about his own people,” Mitchell said.

He called for current Minister of Foreign Affairs Brent Symonette to use this “teachable” moment in U.S./Bahamian political affairs to explain to the Bahamian people the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the role of The Bahamas as a member of a global community.

Mitchell contended that the cables have not changed The Bahamas’ relationship with the U.S.

“The relationship is sound as ever,” he said.

“These alleged cables do not change the fundamentals with the United States,” said Mitchell. “This is a teachable moment. And I call on the ministry to use its resources to teach the Bahamian people about their country and its role in the world.”

Jun 01, 2011

thenassauguardian

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

[WikiLeaks] John Rood - United States Ambassador to The Bahamas: ...there seemed at times to be “two Fred Mitchells” — the polite and polished public Fred Mitchell and the more private, but more revealing Fred Mitchell

The Mitchell Files: What the Americans really thought


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


THE NATIONAL REVIEW


In 2005, United States Ambassador to The Bahamas John Rood remarked that there seemed at times to be “two Fred Mitchells” — the polite and polished public Mitchell and the more private, but more revealing Mitchell, according to one of the cables in The Nassau Guardian’s treasure trove of diplomatic documents secured through WikiLeaks.

Because of his position as foreign minister for most of the years covered by the cables, Mitchell is mentioned in the documents more than any other person.

The view of Mitchell is a mixed bag.

One U.S. diplomat wrote of Mitchell, “He is one of the government’s sharpest and most active ministers.”

The cables expose fascinating, behind the scenes insights into how country-to-country diplomacy works, and in unpolished details, how the Americans truly viewed Fred Mitchell.

Their assessment was amazingly candid.

One embassy official wrote in one of the cables: “In public, FM Mitchell studiously avoids commenting on scandals and making overly-provocative speeches.

“A pretentious and intellectual man, he prefers to remain above the fray in these situations.”

Mitchell has a desire to be seen and heard in the international arena, wrote a diplomat in another cable.

In yet another cable, a U.S. embassy official claimed businessman Franklyn Wilson had “pleaded with us” to engage constructively with The Bahamas and support Foreign Minister Mitchell’s desire to play a more prominent role on the world stage.”

A U.S. diplomat observed in a 2004 cable: “Despite a life-long career as a politician in a country where politics is personalized to the extreme, neither kissing babies nor making small talk comes naturally to Mitchell.

“He prefers to deal with agendas expeditiously and then engage in philosophical discussions or reviews of international relations drawing on his seminars at Harvard’s Kennedy School.”

It is clear from the cables — and perhaps a surprise to no one — that Fred Mitchell almost single-handedly drove the country’s foreign policy during the Christie years.

His knowledge of world issues and events, his intelligence, ambition and trademark discipline have made him well respected in both regional and international circles.

He is at home on the world stage.

Today, as opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and the public service, Mitchell shows more interest and persistence as a shadow minister than any other colleague in the Progressive Liberal Party’s parliamentary caucus.

The Americans recognized these qualities in Fred Mitchell, although they seemed deeply concerned about the foreign policy stance on a number of issues, which he drove. In some ways, the Americans viewed Mitchell as unhelpful.

“His intelligence, work ethic, and undisguised ambition have made Bahamian Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell one of the three or four most powerful members of the Perry Christie government and a person of growing influence in the Caribbean,” observed a U.S. official in 2005.

“…Fred Mitchell is a Bahamian and a black nationalist.

“The public Fred Mitchell is polished, sophisticated, and smooth and with a skilled attorney’s ability to make commitments that commit to nothing.

“Mitchell’s ‘personalistic’, close to the vest operating style frequently leaves his own ministry in the dark about his motives, policies and actions.”

The cable said the foreign minister accepted that The Bahamas is located next to the world’s superpower while constantly seeking, in small ways, to play a mini-balance of power game to try to expand The Bahamas’ foreign policy options.

The embassy official wrote that Mitchell had been particularly unhelpful on certain issues, including Haiti and a wide variety of U.N. General Assembly votes.

“Mitchell sees CARICOM as a means to an end,” the official wrote.

“The Bahamas would have little to no influence in the internal sphere if it did not band with ‘its Caribbean brothers and sisters’.

“…Minister Mitchell believes that the only time the U.S. pays attention to CARICOM countries is when Washington needs something from the region.”

A diplomat also wrote: “Mitchell has developed a persona of an aloof and humorless, but highly intellectual and respected politician.

“Oftentimes, Mitchell appears to be in agreement with officials at meetings, and then expresses opposite opinions to the media or in Cabinet. He has aspirations of being an international player and future prime minister.”

But the diplomat predicted that Mitchell’s political assent would be hampered.

The official continued: “Mitchell is respected for his intellect, but not particularly well-liked — (not) even by the current prime minister (Christie).

“PM Christie has made snide remarks with reference to the dress and manner of the foreign minister in front of embassy personnel.

“Nevertheless, Christie trusts Mitchell, defers to him on all foreign policy matters, and often chooses him to represent The Bahamas at CARICOM heads of government meetings.”

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

The Americans’ observation of Mitchell went past his role as foreign minister.

For instance, two days before the May 2, 2007 general election, Mitchell walked his constituency with a U.S. Embassy official at his side, a cable reveals.

Mitchell talked about local politics and the rigors of campaigning in what was shaping up to be a hot race.

According to the cable, Mitchell invited the embassy official to observe his campaign. To avoid any claim of favoritism, the diplomat also observed an unnamed FNM candidate campaign in a neighboring constituency, the cable said.

When he visited Fox Hill with Mitchell, the diplomat sat in living room after living room observing Mitchell’s interaction with voters, many of whom placed their many needs before the MP, the cable said.

“As we entered each voter’s formal salon, they proceeded to regale Mitchell with their problems,” wrote the embassy official.

“A few wanted to talk issues, but most were eager to petition Mitchell for help as a serf may have done when granted access to his feudal lord.”

The diplomat said in the cable that the voters clearly had the upper hand and knew it.

While it is unclear what Mitchell’s motive was when he extended the invitation, the constituency visit provided an opportunity for that official to conduct an extensive analysis of Mitchell the politician, and the American diplomat goes into remarkable details in his writings that followed the Fox Hill visit.

The diplomat documented what he perceived to be Mitchell’s frustrations on the campaign trail. He provides direct quotes attributed to the then foreign minister.

“This is Bahamian politics,” Mitchell is quoted as saying. “You want to talk about issues and they (voters) want to take whatever they can get.

“You want to help, you want to ease pain, and you must show that you care to get elected. But there is a line they want you to cross.”

The cable said a campaign worker acknowledged that the line is sometimes crossed: “People get bills paid, appliances are bought, cash changes hands. It happens, but we don’t do it.”

According to the diplomat, Mitchell openly complained that his role as minister of foreign affairs and public service put him in a particularly bad position during the campaign.

“Everyone wants a government job,” Mitchell is quoted as saying. “I wish I didn’t have the public service portfolio and I could tell them nothing could be done.”

The cable said: “Mitchell also acknowledged, however, that his public service portfolio was busiest during the campaign — taking him away from the road for hours a day as he signs for new perks and jobs.”

That cable — which was classified by then Charge d’Affaires Brent Hardt — says: “Mitchell is ill at ease with the personal interaction of grass-roots politics, but he balances this with cunning strategic planning, making his reelection uncertain and, as confirmed by his own maps, too close to call.”

The diplomat also observed: “Mitchell, not warm and sympathetic by nature, was obviously uncomfortable with deeply personal interactions with the voters. Outside their homes, however, he shined, engaging in detailed strategic discussions, planning neighborhood events and deftly directing campaign activities with staff.”

The embassy official wrote that the focus on the individual in campaigning carries over to broader Bahamian politics.

Mitchell, according to the cable, remarked to the diplomat: “Now you know why we can’t get to international agreements in Cabinet.

“We are too busy working on benches.”

He reportedly made the comment after a voter complained about the state of repair of public benches on her street.

On an earlier occasion, the Americans wrote about Mitchell’s frustrations with the level of efficiency of the Christie cabinet.

According to that particular cable, at a luncheon on March 29, 2004, Mitchell was asked by a U.S. diplomat about the status of ratification of the comprehensive maritime agreement. Mitchell reportedly indicated that the matter had to go to cabinet.

“Mitchell again wistfully mused about how the Bahamian cabinet decision-making process might be improved,” the cable said.

“He related that he had learned as a result of his CARICOM attendance that in other Commonwealth countries, debate and intervention on issues in the cabinet is restricted to their ministers whose portfolios are directly impacted by the issue, or ministers that assert fundamental issues of principle.

“In contrast, Mitchell intimated, the Christie cabinet of the Bahamas operates much less efficiently since any minister can intervene and express a view on any issue before the government.”

At a meeting with Ambassador Rood in March 2007, Mitchell expressed his frustration at the indecision in his own government stemming from the pending elections.”

“Mitchell cited the delay in signing the airport management contract and the delay in moving ahead with discussions on the Flight Information Region as two examples,” the cable said.

“He noted that if the elections had been called in November and held in December, the government would either be out of power already or be finished with the elections and able to govern effectively.”

A diplomat wrote in the 2007 cable that followed the Fox Hill visit: “Indeed, the Bahamian cabinet is notoriously overburdened, unable to ratify important international agreements or national policy items as it considers road paving, speed bumps (a voter favorite), stop lights and other issues important to the local population and vital for re-election.”

Mitchell claimed to have the race in Fox Hill locked up, but the cable said the embassy official’s glance at Mitchell’s shaded maps counting support home by home told the story of a very close race.

“Mitchell’s unease with personal politics cannot be helpful to him in The Bahamian system, but is likely balanced by his strategic planning and assistance of a dedicated campaign staff,” the cable said.

“In such a close race — common in The Bahamas because of the small constituencies and important role of swing voters — every vote counts.”

A separate cable said FNM Leader Hubert Ingraham had privately pledged to devote whatever resources it takes to defeat Mitchell.

“The fact that Mitchell now appears to be a target of his own senior staff — even staff that supports his party’s re-election — adds more credibility to the view that Mitchell may not keep his foreign affairs portfolio even if he and the PLP are able to win re-election,” an official wrote.

Commenting generally on the Bahamian election system, the diplomat wrote, “A well-meaning politician could easily be confused between legal attempts to assist those in need and illegal vote buying.

“A dishonest politician, of which there are more than a few in The Bahamas, has ample opportunity for corruption.”

The diplomat highlighted what he suggested was the need for national anti-corruption and good governance legislation.

The embassy official also noted that with small constituencies of only about 4,000 people, candidates know voters by name, and are expected to visit with each voter personally.

“The result is a democratic system that affords everyday Bahamians incredible access to government, and gives representatives intimate knowledge of the concerns and needs of the people they represent. In one sense, it is the classic model of Athenian democracy.

“However, the system creates sometimes irresistible temptations for corruption as needy residents base their votes not on national policy or constituency leadership, but who can put the most in their pockets.

“It also focuses politicians away from larger policy issues towards local minutia, which helps explain the sometimes frustrating lack of action within the Bahamas Cabinet on issues of concern to the U.S. and often to foreign investors.”

DIPLOMATIC BLUNDER

As part of their extensive analysis of Mitchell the foreign minister, the Americans in a 2005 cable reveal an alleged diplomatic blunder on Mitchell’s part.

According to the cable, visiting Israeli Ambassador David Dadonn — who was stationed in Mexico City — expressed dismay to the American ambassador and another embassy official during a private meeting that he had been unable to see Bahamian Prime Minister Perry Christie during his visit to the Bahamas.

“A clearly frustrated Dadonn complained to the ambassador that his meeting with the prime minister had been repeatedly re-scheduled and then cancelled,” the cable said.

“Dadonn’s problems are similar to those encountered by former Salvadoran President Francisco Flores in scheduling his February 14-15 visit to Nassau to promote his candidacy for the OAS Secretary Generalship.

“Flores first encountered difficulty obtaining a meeting time with the prime minister. Then, while he was airborne on his way to Nassau from El Salvador, the meeting was arbitrarily moved up to start prior to his scheduled landing time. In Flores’ case, however, the meeting eventually occurred and lasted about 45 minutes.”

The focus of Ambassador Dadonn’s unease, however, was his report of his February 14 meeting with Mitchell, the cable said.

“According to Dadonn, his Monday meeting with Mitchell was tense and abrupt,” the diplomat wrote.

“A ‘curt’ FM Mitchell, related Dadonn, entered the Foreign Ministry reception room for the meeting and proceeded to equate Israeli ‘oppression’ of the Palestinian people in the Gaza with ‘white South Africans oppression of the country’s black majority’ prior to majority rule.

“Dadonn told the [U.S.] ambassador that he felt, at this point, no option except to abruptly end the meeting and walk out after only about five minutes.”

The cable continued: “Apparently realizing what he had done, Ambassador Dadonn said FM Mitchell passed a message through the ministry’s number two official, Permanent Secretary Dr. Patricia Rogers, to the Israeli Consul in the Bahamas, Ralph Seligman, that any offense that he might have conveyed was ‘unintended’ and ‘regretful’.

“Dadonn said [Rogers] scheduled a meeting for the following day — one that lasted 50 minutes — during which the permanent secretary said that the minister’s views had been ‘personal’ and ‘did not reflect (Bahamian) government policy’.”

According to the cable, Ambassador Rood made the remark of the “two Fred Mitchells” when he was asked by Dadonn for his analysis of Mitchell’s behavior.

“The [U.S.] ambassador agreed with Dadonn that the Bahamas had not been helpful to the U.S. in several [United Nations General Assembly] votes this past year, citing the Sudan and anti-Israel UNGA resolutions.

“The [U.S.] ambassador also noted that the Bahamas continued to not be as helpful on Haiti as they could be considering the massive U.S. assistance provided to the Bahamas in illegal drug and migrant interdiction.”

The cable said: “The Israeli ambassador was clearly taken aback by FM Mitchell’s comments equating Israel with racist South African policies.

“He stated that such rhetoric isn’t even heard in the Arab world anymore…Mitchell’s candid outburst to the visiting Israeli ambassador probably reflects the ‘real’ Fred Mitchell much more than his deliberately calculated, polished ‘foreign minister’ image.”

BEIJING AND HAVANA

It their scrutiny and observations of Bahamian foreign policy, the Americans viewed closely the Bahamas government’s decision to establish an embassy in Beijing and to upgrade diplomatic relations with Cuba by establishing a resident Bahamian diplomatic presence in Havana.

When Mitchell sat down with a U.S. embassy official in 2003, he was asked about a recent extensive trip he had taken to China.

The official observed that Mitchell remained “closemouthed and uncommunicative”.

As rumors swirled in diplomatic circles that Prime Minister Christie was planning to travel to China as well, the British High commissioner to The Bahamas called a U.S. embassy official to report “that he found it strange that the trip had still not been announced”.

In the cable — which concludes with the last name of then Charge d’Affaires Robert Witajewks — an embassy official said the openings to Beijing and Havana were coming at a time of considerable budget constraints in The Bahamas.

“The government that is delaying salary increases and promotions for civil servants, and cutting back on public projects, apparently has decided that upgrading relations with Cuba and China is worth the expense,” the cable said.

“Certain members of the Christie government support FM Mitchells initiative out of either ideological sympathy, or pure balance of power reasons. Mitchell is doing this for both reasons.”

The embassy official wrote that it is difficult to imagine any concrete benefits to The Bahamas from establishing a closer relationship to Cuba.

“Ideologically, FM Mitchell and others in the Bahamian cabinet will also get psychological gratification from proving that they can conduct an independent foreign policy at odds with (their) superpower neighbor.”

The Americans noted that Mitchell is extremely knowledgeable about the Untied States, at ease in the United States, a frequent visitor to the United States, and accepts the reality of the United States.

“But he probably doesn’t ‘love’ the United States,” the cable said.

“...Like many colleagues in the PLP, he is most comfortable with, and has the most contact with liberals.

“He seeks to differentiate the Bahamas from what he sees as a neo-conservative militaristic tilt in U.S. foreign policy.

“China, Cuba, CARICOM, even the British Commonwealth are all, in Mitchell’s eyes, vehicles that could serve to somehow increase Bahamian freedom of action otherwise constrained by the geographical reality of being located less than 50 miles from the United States.”

The diplomat wrote that Mitchell thinks of himself as a policy intellectual and strategist on par with players of larger countries in the global arena.

“In his role as foreign minister, Fred Mitchell has been criticized for his excessive travel by the Bahamian public,” an embassy official wrote.

Today, Mitchell is again seeking re-election in a constituency he won marginally in 2007. A week ago, he formally launched his campaign.

As opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, he has sought to keep a close relationship with the Americans.

Whether he would see a return as foreign minister should the PLP be re-elected, remains unclear, especially in light of the views U.S. diplomats have expressed about his “unhelpfulness” in certain foreign policy areas.

5/30/2011

thenassauguardian

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Fred Mitchell, opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) spokesman on Foreign Affairs criticized The Nassau Guardian for reporting on the [WikiLeaks] United States Embassy in Nassau confidential cables

U.S. was unimpressed with new opposition


By BRENT DEAN
NG Deputy News Editor
thenassauguardian
brentldean@nasguard.com



Cable says PLP was concerned by claim U.S. favored FNM


The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) sought to project the image of an energized opposition in a meeting with senior officials of the United States Embassy in Nassau shortly after it lost the 2007 general election, but the American description of the party after the sit down indicated that those officials were not impressed with the PLP.

The confidential cable, with the surname of then Chargé d'affaires Brent Hardt at the end of it, said the September 2007 working lunch was hosted by PLP leader Perry Christie and former Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell.

“The lunch, which emerged from a discussion Hardt had with Christie in the weeks after the elections, itself reflected the shortcomings of the PLP's governing style. The date and format was repeatedly changed at the PLP's request as they could not agree internally on a suitable date,” said the cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian from the whistleblower WikiLeaks.

“Characteristic of the PLP, half of the 12 participants arrived late. And, while there was some substance in the discussions, the PLP seemed more interested in photographs and a press release of the meeting to signal their continuing good relations with the U.S.

“The party as a whole continues to have difficulty accepting their surprise electoral defeat, and the divisions that plagued the party during elections have become worse in the wake of the defeat, with blame for the loss usually being directed at Christie for his indecisive leadership style or at those ministers with scandals that tainted the party.”

According to the cable, Christie emphasized his party's commitment throughout its tenure in office to maintaining close relations with the U.S. and his desire that the U.S. continues to view the PLP as a trusted partner.

The cable said the PLP was concerned about a suggestion by the Free National Movement (FNM) after the election that relations with the U.S. were better under that party than they were under the PLP.

Referring to Christie, the cable said, “He noted that many PLP supporters felt that the U.S. had been ‘unhappy’ with the PLP prior to elections, and that this had had an impact on the campaign.
“The chargĂ© d'affaires pointed out that whenever he had been asked publicly about the foreign minister's statement, (Brent Symonette) he had stated that we enjoyed outstanding relations with the current government and outstanding relations with the previous government.”

The Americans, according to this cable, emphasized that it was fortunate that in The Bahamas the major political parties both wanted “to have and be seen to have close relations with the U.S.”

After reviewing the highlights in bilateral relations during Christie's tenure, including agreement on mega-ports and container security initiatives and mutual support for the new Haitian government, “the charge reiterated U.S. appreciation for Christie's support for the close partnership we enjoyed,” said the cable.

Despite the assurance given to Christie and the PLP, in a confidential April 2007 cable, the embassy remarked that “the FNM would likely be a stronger supporter of U.S. international goals” while affirming that both parties were friendly bilateral partners.

PLP on policy issues

The September 2007 cable also said that the PLP was concerned that the U.S. was unhappy with the Christie administration because of perceived closer ties with Cuba.

“He (Hardt) explained that the U.S. understood The Bahamas’ need to work with Cuba to resolve migration matters and look after Bahamians who travel to or study in Cuba,” said the cable.
“At the same time, we sought to encourage democratic countries, such as The Bahamas, to use their relationship with Cuba to encourage Cuban government respect for the same values and rights that people in The Bahamas demand.”

PLP officials, according to the cable, also queried embassy staff on the incoming ambassador, Ned Siegel, the status of Operation Bahamas, Turks and Caicos (OPBAT), the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, Haiti and visa issues, “even including some specific visa concerns on behalf of constituents,” said the cable of the meeting.

With the PLP having raised relevant questions about these numerous policy issues, it is unclear why the Americans concluded the meeting with such a mediocre view of the party’s performance.

PLP decries commentary on cables

Fred Mitchell, opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, issued a statement yesterday criticizing The Nassau Guardian for reporting on the cables.

Major international news organizations such as The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and Der Spiegel have made the same decision as The Nassau Guardian to publish the cables.
In Jamaica, The Gleaner started publishing cables on that country one day before The Nassau Guardian.

“(Yesterday) morning in a drop box on its front page May 26, The Nassau Guardian is promoting the continued release of the gossip papers that they have obtained by WikiLeaks,” said Mitchell.
“In it they attack the PLP, repeating untested, unproven and hearsay statements about a meeting which allegedly took place with the PLP and the United States Embassy officials in Nassau in 2007.

“The information which they are promoting is certainly prejudicial and uninformed. In addition, it is incredible that a national newspaper of record in the face of the major issues of crime and unemployment would be engaging in the promotion of tattle tale gossip as if it were fact.”

Mitchell argued that the information contained in the “so called cables is almost certainly biased and skewed to reflect the current FNM propaganda of the day.”

He added: “The PLP remains focused on returning to government and seeking to put people back to work and to lessen crime. We urge The Guardian to get focused on what is actually happening in the country and not seeking to rehash untested gossip about what happened four years ago.

“The PLP is not the government today. The FNM is the government and they bear responsibility for the foreign affairs of this country and the state of this economy and the level of crime.”
The Nassau Guardian’s coverage of the cables has provided to The Bahamas historic coverage of the behind-the-scenes decision-making process between the U.S. and The Bahamas.

The cables cover the period from 2003 to 2010, mostly pertaining to the PLP’s period in power from 2002 to 2007. Stories published thus far have revealed opinions, held by both sides, of the bilateral relationship never before revealed to the Bahamian public.

The cables detail meetings the Americans had with PLPs, FNMs, fringe politicians, church leaders, businessmen, journalists, law enforcement officials, civil servants and many others.

5/27/2011

thenassauguardian