Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fred Mitchell Confirms The Bahamas Voted in Support of Cuba’s Ascension to The New United Nations Human Rights Council

Former Prime Minister, Hubert Ingraham Responds: "If we were in office Cuba would not have the nerve or the gumption to ask us to vote for them to be on a human rights commission.  That’s an unthinkable event."

Hubert Ingraham said an FNM government never would have supported Cuba’s ascension to the United Nations Human Rights Council

Row Over Cuba Vote

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

18 May 2006

Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell tabled in the House of Assembly on Wednesday documents that confirmed that the Bahamas voted recently in support of Cuba’s ascension to the new United Nations Human Rights Council.

But the minister refused to state in clear terms while addressing the lower chamber exactly how the Bahamas voted.  He, however, did lash out at former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham over remarks Mr. Ingraham made in Grand Bahama on Saturday on the issue.

Mr. Ingraham said during his weekend press conference, "If we were in office Cuba would not have the nerve or the gumption to ask us to vote for them to be on a human rights commission.  That’s an unthinkable event."

In response, Minister Mitchell said the former prime minister was irresponsible in his comments and he accused him of political mischief making.

"I am concerned about the tenor and tone of the remarks coming from the side opposite about a country that sits on our western border, and who the last time I checked was considered at peace with us and a friend to our country," the foreign minister said.

"The language is contrary to the spirit of comity between the two countries…The position of the government as it relates to Cuba is no different from that of its citizens who, as the leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out, are free to travel where they wish.  The government must protect their interests."

Minister Mitchell tabled a document from Nicole L. Archer, who wrote on behalf of this country’s Permanent Mission in New York presenting the government the Mission’s recommendations regarding who the country should vote for.

The Mission identified both first-choice candidates and back-up candidates in the event that the Mission’s first-choice candidates were eliminated at any time during the balloting.

In all, the Mission identified 47 countries The Bahamas should vote for.

According to Ms. Archer, the Mission took into consideration each country’s human rights record and voluntary commitments to human rights.  It also took into consideration, The Bahamas’ relationship with specific countries and the need to ensure a broad and varied spectrum of political, economic and cultural views on the council.  Other factors were also taken into consideration.

One of the countries that the Mission advised The Bahamas to vote for as a first choice was Cuba.  Among the back-up candidates the Mission recommended The Bahamas vote for were Iraq and Iran.

But Minister Mitchell told reporters that the country did not vote for any of the back-up candidates because that did not become necessary.

Earlier, he told House members, "The government saw no reason to interfere with the advice offered and the votes cast on Tuesday 9 May were consistent with the advice given and consistent with historic patterns of voting by all previous administrations."

But Mr. Ingraham, who spoke with reporters in the Opposition Committee room of the House, accused Mr. Mitchell of misleading Bahamians.

"He did not and would not tell us how The Bahamas voted last week on Cuba’s membership on the Human Rights Commission," the FNM leader said.

"This is a new commission established by the United Nations and countries are able to vote for their choice.  It was wrong of Mr. Mitchell to lay the blame for The Bahamas’ vote or to support The Bahamas’ vote position by producing a minute of a relatively junior foreign officer in the Mission in New York."

During his communication, Minister Mitchell laid on the table of the House a copy of the record of the votes taken by The Bahamas on the embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba.

He noted that on each occasion, except two, the Ingraham government voted with the vast majority of the members of the UN General Assembly against the embargo imposed by the United States.

"If the Cuban government and people were so odious then why did he not change The Bahamas’ position when it was his time?" Minister Mitchell questioned.

He also noted that it was under the Ingraham Administration that the decision was made in 2001 to allow the Government of Cuba to establish a consulate general’s office in Nassau.

But Mr. Ingraham responded to this saying," No, we would not have had an embassy of The Bahamas in Cuba.  We may have had a consulate office, which is a downgraded position, in Cuba to deal with Bahamian nationals…I don’t know what it is about Cuba that causes it to rise to the level of ambassadorship from this government’s point of view.

"We didn’t see it that way and don’t see it that way, so if we came to office, we would downgrade the office in Cuba back to consular level."

The foreign minister also said the record will show that under the Ingraham Administration a statement was submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations which read, "The Commonwealth of the Bahamas enjoys normal diplomatic and trade relations with the Republic of Cuba.  The Bahamas has not promulgated or applied laws or measures against Cuba that would prohibit economic, commercial or financial relations between The Bahamas and the Republic of Cuba."

But Mr. Ingraham told reporters that Minister Mitchell was confusing issues.

He also said that during the time when the former government appeared to have voted in favour of Cuba on certain issues, it was because voting was done in groupings, meaning that countries were not free – like they were during the recent UN vote – to vote for individual countries.

"We would have ended up with many human rights violators on the commission before now," he explained.  "That’s why the UN scrapped that system and put in a system where you have to vote for individual countries.

So this is the first time The Bahamas has had an opportunity to vote for or against an individual country."

He said an FNM government never would have supported Cuba’s ascension to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

"There are many things that we support Cuba [on], but not to be a member of the human rights commission," Mr. Ingraham said.

"Cuba’s human rights record does not lend itself to membership on a human rights commission and one of those tenets for a human rights commission would be countries that allow their citizens to leave the country when they choose to and return when they choose.  Cuba does not do that."

Explaining the position his Administration took to refuse to support the US embargo, the former prime minister said, "We never supported the embargo the United States has against Cuba; we never did.  We don’t propose to do so in the future.

"The most critical (and important) relationship The Bahamas has with a country outside its borders is the one with the United States of America.  We want to maintain the relationship with Cuba, Haiti and other countries in the Caribbean and the world, but we’re not going to put at risk our relationship to cozy up with and be friends with Cuba."

He said the refusal of the Ingraham Administration to support the US embargo with Cuba is a completely different matter than a vote in support of Cuba on human rights.

But Minister Mitchell said that the record clearly shows that the instructions given to the UN delegation by the former government in 1994 were to support Cuba’s membership on the Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. Ingraham, however, accused the foreign minister of distorting the facts. 

The Raging Debate over the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) continues in The Bahamas

Clash Over CSME

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

23rd May 2005

The raging debate over the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) continued on Sunday as Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell locked horns with a leading attorney over various aspects of the agreement, which has created much furor in recent weeks.

A heated exchange between Minister Mitchell and Brian Moree on the Love 97 programme "Jones and Company" led to the attorney lashing out at the Minister over certain comments he made.

Throughout the show, Minister Mitchell, who at times appeared frustrated over what he termed misinformation on CSME, insisted that there will be no fundamental changes if The Bahamas signs onto to the agreement.

"What I'm saying is, let's not frighten ourselves by saying that there is going to be some fundamental change," he said.

"There is going to be no fundamental change and as for whether the reservations will last, I cannot say.  I can only speak for the Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas today."

There continues to be great confusion over whether the reservations the government is seeking will last indefinitely.  Several prominent figures, including Mr. Moree, have insisted that they are merely deferrals.

The government has said that at this time, The Bahamas will not participate in the free movement of people; the Caribbean Court of Justice at the appellate level, the single currency and monetary union, and the Common External Tariff.

Mr. Moree believes it is senseless to join an agreement and opt out of its major fundamental provisions.

"If you look at the literature that comes out of the southern Caribbean on the CSME, it seems to make the point very strongly that the CSME is a pipedream if it does not involve full integration of the peoples of the Caribbean countries," said Moree, who also heads the government-appointed Financial Services.

"There has to be political integration; there has to be full economic union.  When you get there, is perhaps debatable- and whether all countries get there at the same time is perhaps debatable.  The fundamental point is that these reservations do not mean that we are not going to be required to deal with these issues at some point in the future.  Before I get into something, I want to look at the future.  I don't have the luxury of mortgaging my children's future."

But Minister Mitchell shot back, "This emotive language is simply irresponsible."

It's a statement Mr. Moree took exception with.

"Minister, we should keep the level of debate high out of respect for your office," he said. "I am not irresponsible."

"I said the language was irresponsible," Minister Mitchell corrected him.

Mr. Moree responded, "That is a view, Minister...The Government of The Bahamas should listen to its people."

"I am listening to you, Mr. Moree," the Minister said.  "I am saying that if you want to keep the debate responsible we have to deal with the facts and the facts are that there will be no fundamental change."

Mr. Moree fired back, "But that is wrong and very few people agree with you."

Minister Mitchell insisted that that statement was simply incorrect.

"You're talking economic theory," he told Mr. Moree.

"I am talking what the facts are as presented by the Government of The Bahamas.  Those facts are that reservations exist- and there is no timing on those reservations and so the treaty as far as those provisions will apply, will not apply to The Bahamas.  How many times does one have to say [that]?"

Mr. Moree suggested sarcastically that the Minister "holds all wisdom" and is intolerant of anyone who opposes him on CSME.  But Minister Mitchell said this was not the case.

He said signing the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas is "really about our continued participation in CARICOM...What we are doing or proposing is to finish the work of becoming incorporated into CARICOM since the treaty is to come into force at the end of the year and maintaining our position with regard to the status quo as far as our relations with CARICOM is concerned by entering reservations pursuant to Article 237 of the treaty, which really puts us in the same position which we are in now."

The show's host, Wendall Jones, said, "The detractors of this say it makes no sense for The Bahamas to sign on to CSME because fundamentally, the economic side is fundamentally what CSME is all about."

"CARICOM is both political and economic, and the government's case has always been that we're a part of CARICOM for geopolitical reasons- and that now that we have the [Revised] Treaty of Chaguaramas, if we are to be fully a part of CARICOM, we should sign the treaty with the reservations, which will serve our national interest."

Mr. Jones then asked, "Are you suggesting therefore that if we do not sign the treaty then we are not a part of CARICOM or should not be a part of CARICOM?"

The Minister explained that, "The great beauty of the CARICOM movement is it isn't one of these hard and fast, black and white issues.  The fact is we do participate in all of the organs of the community at the moment, but it is just appropriate for us to be signatories to the treaty.  Everyone else in the community is a signatory to the treaty."

He added, "I believe that [the government should sign the treaty].  In fact, the government decided on December 31 that we ought to do that, subject to obtaining the reservations which we have advanced in the public domain."

But Mr. Moree said, "I do not think that The Bahamas should join a single economy with 14 other countries within the region.  That is my primary concern.  I don't think there are compelling economic interests for The Bahamas to join this single economy."

He was echoing sentiments expressed in recent times by former Governor of the Central Bank and former Minister of Finance Sir William Allen, and soon to be former Governor of the Central Bank Julian Francis.

Mr. Moree said, "The reservations that the Minister has indicated I think are very important, but there are many questions as to how long these reservations will continue.  Who will decide when they end?  Do we retain control over making these decisions?  And in any event, what about the right of establishment, which is not currently one of the four reservations?  What is the impact of the freedom of movement of skilled persons... as opposed to the free movement of labour generally?"

The Minister explained, "The right of establishment will not affect the retail and wholesale trades in The Bahamas because the right of establishment has to deal with those areas of the economy which are foreign exchange earners for the particular country.  These sectors include, amongst others, the hotel sector, the manufacturing export sector and some smaller areas like specialty restaurants.

"What right of establishment does is it gives you when you invest in a country the right to bring certain skilled labour to run your establishment.  If you look at the national investment policy of The Bahamas today, all of those areas that I have listed are already areas where foreign investors are able to come and invest in the country and part of the policy is that they are permitted to have the skilled labour to run their companies.  So it balances out."

While the Minister insisted throughout the show that signing the Revised Treaty of Chauguaramas would be merely a political move, Bahamas High Commissioner to CARICOM A. Leonard Archer said recently in an interview with The Bahama Journal that there are many economic benefits that will come if the government signs on to CSME.

Mr. Archer said that by signing the CSME, The Bahamas would see "increased investments and increased trade with the rest of the Caribbean."

Minister Mitchell said in a recent speech that not signing on to the CSME would have serious negative implications for the country's social and economic infrastructure that would set The Bahamas "at a serious disadvantage as a country, rather than enhance our growth and development, in that, our access to the facilities and services provided by the Caribbean Development Bank, the University of the West Indies, the Caribbean Disaster and Emergency Response Agency and others, would be greatly diminished."

"We would be the only country in the Caribbean, apart from Cuba, that would be outside a regional trade bloc; and since trade blocs provide benefits for their members that are not provided to non-members, it could easily be reasoned that our tourism industry, our manufacturing industry, our beleaguered agriculture industry and even our financial services industry would be immediately and negatively affected, largely in terms of the relatively higher cost of doing business in The Bahamas that we would have invited by trying to stand alone," Minister Mitchell said.

The Bahamas Government Ongoing Deficit Spending - Budget after Budget

The Bahamas Minister of State for Finance, James Smith on reducing the budget deficit: “What we must bear in mind in trying to reach deficit reduction targets is that it is not a one year exercise

Gov’t Facing Growing Deficit

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

06/05/2004

As the fiscal year winds to a close, government officials are working feverishly to bring a new budget to parliament at the end of this month.

It is too soon to tell whether the government will meet its revenue projection of $1.005 billion, but collections are expected to exceed the more than the $900 million collected in the 2002-2003 fiscal year, according to Minister of State for Finance James Smith.

“The deficit is likely to be a little larger than expected,” he told the Journal recently.

The 2003-2004 budget projects an overall funding shortfall of $122 million, which would raise government debt by 2.2 percent to 38.7 percent of GDP.

But Minister Smith has indicated that more than $30 million in unexpected expenditure will increase the deficit, unless the projected revenue is dramatically surpassed.

“As usual and without fail, you have the unexpected events that tend to throw it out of whack,” he said.  “Sometimes it’s favorable, most times it isn’t.  So the challenge is always there.”

The Minister added though that, “What we must bear in mind in trying to reach deficit reduction targets is that it is not a one year exercise.

“We try to do that over several years – three or four years as the case may be – because you really don’t want to choke real development.  If we have a run over the year over the projections that means that in framing the budget for the upcoming year, we take that into account and we might have to introduce revenue measures or additional expenditure controls or a combination of both.”

Prime Minister Perry Christie said Sunday while on the Radio Love 97 Programme “Jones and Company” that the government is “severely challenged” by the increasing expenditure and revenue collections.

But he reported that there were signs of improvements.

“We are very happy that we have now seen the beginnings of the turnaround in revenue,” Mr. Christie said.  “The last three months would suggest that the turnaround is setting in and that is headed toward obviously a better situation.  But even with that, we are going to be severely challenged given the kinds of developments that are taking place on our islands.”

On Wednesday, Minister Smith was unable to reveal specifics regarding collections.

The government is into its final weeks of preparing a new budget, facing a traditional rigidity in expenditure.

Minister Smith has pointed to the difficulties in preparing a budget when such a large portion of expenditure is fixed.  It is a situation he said is not easy to restructure.

“I think it’s going to be very difficult because 55 percent or thereabouts are salaries and wages and it’s a very difficult political decision to reduce the size of the public service, so you almost take the wages and salaries as a given,” he noted.

“Added to that would be another fixture of the budget, debt servicing, and that’s about another 18 percent of your budget.  So already you’re talking about 75 percent of your budget that’s fixed.  No matter how hard you try, unless we were to have some dramatic structural change in the economy, I don’t see that happening.  I know of it happening in no economy in the world, really.”

One way of beginning the reversal of this trend is making conditions conducive to the growth of the private sector, he said.

“If you create the jobs in the private sector then there is likely to be a drain from the public sector into the private sector,” Minister Smith pointed out.