'Most powerful' Bahamian women
THE five most influential women in the Bahamas were identified by the US Embassy in a cable released by Wikileaks yesterday.
They are: Tribune publisher Eileen Dupuch Carron, Court of Appeal president Joan Sawyer, former Deputy Prime Minister Cynthia "Mother" Pratt, former Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson and domestic violence victims' advocate Sandra Dean-Patterson.
In the 2007 cable Mrs Pratt, current Progressive Liberal Party MP for St Cecilia, was chosen because of her position as deputy prime minister and minister of national security within the Christie administration.
Last night Mrs Pratt said she was grateful to be on the list.
"It was an honour to serve, most of all when you feel that you're making a difference. It's also good to know that outsiders feel that way about you.
"When a woman's presence can be felt in one's country it is considered an achievement because women have come a long way in terms of leadership," she said.
Mrs Maynard-Gibson was an attorney general in the Christie administration and MP for the Pinewood constituency.
She is currently a senator.
When contacted for comment yesterday, she said she was "humbled" by the mention.
"I'm humbled and honoured to be in that category and my object on a day-to-day basis is to leave the Bahamas and the world a better place. (Whether I am influential) is something that history will have to record.
"I feel that they are far more influential than I am," she said of the other women on the list.
Mrs Dean-Patterson, director of the Crisis Centre, was chosen because her long-standing work for victims of sexual and domestic violence.
"Dr Dean-Patterson is a well respected advocate for women in the Bahamas, an influential participant in public discourse about women's issues and a regular representative for the Bahamas on women's issues in the UN," said the cable.
The document, signed by former Chargé d'Affaires Brent Hardt, noted that Mrs Carron heads "the largest distribution daily newspaper in the Bahamas."
The cable also noted that Mrs Carron's "influence on Bahamian politics is significant."
Mrs Carron is the second Bahamian female lawyer to be called to the Bahamas' Bar, the second Bahamian female publisher/editor of a news publication and the first Bahamian woman to pilot a plane.
Who do you think are the country's most influential women? Sound off on www.tribune242.com
September 02, 2011
Caribbean Blog International
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Showing posts with label US embassy cables Bahamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US embassy cables Bahamas. Show all posts
Saturday, September 3, 2011
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
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, June 20, 2011
Perry Christie's response to a US Embassy cable obtained by whistleblower Wikileaks: ...he (Christie) never considered resigning as PLP chief over Kenyatta Gibson's departure from the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)
Christie: I never considered quitting over Gibson departure
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Deputy Chief Reporter
tribune242
tthompson@tribunemedia.net
KENYATTA Gibson's departure from the Progressive Liberal Party "meant nothing" to Opposition leader Perry Christie who told The Tribune he never considered resigning as PLP chief over the ordeal.
In fact, Mr Christie said he was relieved to turn over a "problem" Member of Parliament - whose notorious Cabinet "fight" hurt Mr Christie's image - to the Free National Movement.
The Farm Road MP's comments came after a newspaper claimed the veteran politician considered stepping down in the wake of Mr Gibson's exit - and an earlier election court case defeat - based on a US Embassy cable obtained by whistleblower Wikileaks.
Mr Christie dismissed the cable as mere speculation crafted around political fodder of 2008.
"This is absolutely a figment of someone's imagination. I never told that to my wife, my children, never told it to my best friend, never told it to the people in the political organisation that I lead," Mr Christie told The Tribune yesterday.
"No one who is close to me could say that," Mr Christie said. He added that he did not forge close relationships with American diplomats in 2008, the year Mr Gibson left the PLP, and did not discuss his political future with them.
Although he conceded Mr Gibson's exodus was a blow to the PLP and to his image, Mr Christie said he redeemed himself after he won 84 per cent of his party's vote in his re-election bid at the party's 2009 convention. He added that the PLP's victory in the 2010 Elizabeth by-election was another redeeming factor which strengthened the party.
"The whole Kenyatta Gibson thing meant nothing to me. In fact I thought I had transferred a problem I had to the FNM and I thought 'God bless them'. I went on to the (PLP's) national convention and scored a very successful victory and went into the by-election and won."
The PLP leader conceded he paid a "political price" for not demanding that Mr Gibson and former Mount Moriah MP Keod Smith leave the party after having a scuffle in the Cabinet room in 2006. Despite opposition in some quarters, both men were nominated to represent the party in the 2007 general election. Mr Gibson won over FNM newcomer Michael Turnquest while Mr Smith was defeated by National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest.
"At the end of the day there is no doubt that I suffered as a result of what people perceived to be my response to the fight in Cabinet. Clearly after the fight there was a body of opinion that felt Kenyatta nor Keod Smith ought to be nominated to contest the seats (in 2007).
"I paid a price on Kenyatta so when he left I would have been disappointed that someone I made that commitment for (resigned) but that happens in politics and we moved on to demonstrate that the party has grown stronger as a result of it."
The men were not booted from the party because Mr Christie believed in second chances. He claimed that the altercation was just a heated moment that was exaggerated by political opponents.
"The fight I think was intensely blown out of proportion. I had always had a commitment to the redemptive power of a second chance. (From all accounts) it was one of those sparks that took place and everyone moved on.
"Politics being what it is, it was near election time and the FNM blew it up. When we reviewed the matter our opinion was they should not be disqualified," Mr Christie said.
June 18, 2011
tribune242
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Deputy Chief Reporter
tribune242
tthompson@tribunemedia.net
KENYATTA Gibson's departure from the Progressive Liberal Party "meant nothing" to Opposition leader Perry Christie who told The Tribune he never considered resigning as PLP chief over the ordeal.
In fact, Mr Christie said he was relieved to turn over a "problem" Member of Parliament - whose notorious Cabinet "fight" hurt Mr Christie's image - to the Free National Movement.
The Farm Road MP's comments came after a newspaper claimed the veteran politician considered stepping down in the wake of Mr Gibson's exit - and an earlier election court case defeat - based on a US Embassy cable obtained by whistleblower Wikileaks.
Mr Christie dismissed the cable as mere speculation crafted around political fodder of 2008.
"This is absolutely a figment of someone's imagination. I never told that to my wife, my children, never told it to my best friend, never told it to the people in the political organisation that I lead," Mr Christie told The Tribune yesterday.
"No one who is close to me could say that," Mr Christie said. He added that he did not forge close relationships with American diplomats in 2008, the year Mr Gibson left the PLP, and did not discuss his political future with them.
Although he conceded Mr Gibson's exodus was a blow to the PLP and to his image, Mr Christie said he redeemed himself after he won 84 per cent of his party's vote in his re-election bid at the party's 2009 convention. He added that the PLP's victory in the 2010 Elizabeth by-election was another redeeming factor which strengthened the party.
"The whole Kenyatta Gibson thing meant nothing to me. In fact I thought I had transferred a problem I had to the FNM and I thought 'God bless them'. I went on to the (PLP's) national convention and scored a very successful victory and went into the by-election and won."
The PLP leader conceded he paid a "political price" for not demanding that Mr Gibson and former Mount Moriah MP Keod Smith leave the party after having a scuffle in the Cabinet room in 2006. Despite opposition in some quarters, both men were nominated to represent the party in the 2007 general election. Mr Gibson won over FNM newcomer Michael Turnquest while Mr Smith was defeated by National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest.
"At the end of the day there is no doubt that I suffered as a result of what people perceived to be my response to the fight in Cabinet. Clearly after the fight there was a body of opinion that felt Kenyatta nor Keod Smith ought to be nominated to contest the seats (in 2007).
"I paid a price on Kenyatta so when he left I would have been disappointed that someone I made that commitment for (resigned) but that happens in politics and we moved on to demonstrate that the party has grown stronger as a result of it."
The men were not booted from the party because Mr Christie believed in second chances. He claimed that the altercation was just a heated moment that was exaggerated by political opponents.
"The fight I think was intensely blown out of proportion. I had always had a commitment to the redemptive power of a second chance. (From all accounts) it was one of those sparks that took place and everyone moved on.
"Politics being what it is, it was near election time and the FNM blew it up. When we reviewed the matter our opinion was they should not be disqualified," Mr Christie said.
June 18, 2011
tribune242
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Perry Christie - Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) leader was wise and measured in his response to the United States Embassy cables being published by The Nassau Guardian via WikiLeaks
Christie's WikiLeaks remarks appropriate
thenassauguardian
Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) leader Perry Christie was wise and measured in his response to the United States Embassy cables being published by The Nassau Guardian via WikiLeaks.
In an interview with this newspaper published yesterday, Christie said, “This kind of exposure that we’re getting now is more to give Bahamians an understanding that these things happened and perhaps at the end of the process those of us who are in public life clearly will be more disciplined in any discussions we have (with U.S. Embassy officials) moving forward.”
Christie is correct.
Too many Bahamians appeared to have thought that the conversations they were having with the Americans were chats between personal friends. The release of the cables has shattered that childish notion.
Going forward Bahamians, while talking to any foreign officials, should remain detached and only advance the interests of The Bahamas.
“When someone sits with you as prime minister, a communication is made to Washington based on what an ambassador says was his experience with a prime minister, who is me, and there is no third party to certify the truth of that,” added Christie.
In that interview, the former prime minister did not attack The Nassau Guardian as others in his party have done.
PLP MP Fred Mitchell during the budget debate in the House of Assembly stated: “Here we have a press that does not support the PLP. 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.”
Additionally Mitchell said: “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 was too excited when the cables were first published. Most Bahamians we have encountered are curious about the views of the Americans. And they certainly realize that what is written in the cables is written by the Americans and not The Nassau Guardian.
Though Mitchell still seems to think this newspaper has waged war against the PLP, maybe he is warming to the position espoused by Christie.
In that same budget contribution, he 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. ”
This, really, is one of the main lessons of the cables. Christie is right on and Mitchell seems to be getting on the right track. We hope Mitchell calms down and abandons his view that the publishing of these cables is a part of a vast anti-PLP conspiracy by this newspaper.
Jun 15, 2011
thenassauguardian
thenassauguardian
Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) leader Perry Christie was wise and measured in his response to the United States Embassy cables being published by The Nassau Guardian via WikiLeaks.
In an interview with this newspaper published yesterday, Christie said, “This kind of exposure that we’re getting now is more to give Bahamians an understanding that these things happened and perhaps at the end of the process those of us who are in public life clearly will be more disciplined in any discussions we have (with U.S. Embassy officials) moving forward.”
Christie is correct.
Too many Bahamians appeared to have thought that the conversations they were having with the Americans were chats between personal friends. The release of the cables has shattered that childish notion.
Going forward Bahamians, while talking to any foreign officials, should remain detached and only advance the interests of The Bahamas.
“When someone sits with you as prime minister, a communication is made to Washington based on what an ambassador says was his experience with a prime minister, who is me, and there is no third party to certify the truth of that,” added Christie.
In that interview, the former prime minister did not attack The Nassau Guardian as others in his party have done.
PLP MP Fred Mitchell during the budget debate in the House of Assembly stated: “Here we have a press that does not support the PLP. 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.”
Additionally Mitchell said: “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 was too excited when the cables were first published. Most Bahamians we have encountered are curious about the views of the Americans. And they certainly realize that what is written in the cables is written by the Americans and not The Nassau Guardian.
Though Mitchell still seems to think this newspaper has waged war against the PLP, maybe he is warming to the position espoused by Christie.
In that same budget contribution, he 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. ”
This, really, is one of the main lessons of the cables. Christie is right on and Mitchell seems to be getting on the right track. We hope Mitchell calms down and abandons his view that the publishing of these cables is a part of a vast anti-PLP conspiracy by this newspaper.
Jun 15, 2011
thenassauguardian
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)