3rd January, 2010

Good evening.  It is a special honour this evening to speak to you as the spokesman for the PLP on Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade.  I think that this intervention is important given the recent exchange between the government of The Bahamas and the United States Ambassador and the legitimate speculation about what this means for the relationship between the two countries.

This broadcast also provides an important opportunity to explain the role of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade in our national life and why it is important for this area of public policy to take a more central role in the forward development of our country.

When I was Foreign Minister and the PLP was in office from 2002 to 2007, we made it a practice to be sure that the Opposition was informed of every major development with regard to foreign affairs and foreign trade and without them having to ask.

In fact the Permanent Secretary had been instructed by me that the Opposition’s spokesman had complete access to the files and information which the Ministry had if he desired to have any information with regard to the policies of The Bahamas government.  The Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs when I was minister was Brent Symonette, the now Deputy Prime Minister.

In this particular matter of the public spat between the U.S. and The Bahamas, we have not been briefed and certainly this is one of those occasions when we should have.

As it stands however, we think we understand from the exchanges what is happening and we have our views

This all began with one of those routine articles in which American Ambassadors have had the privilege of intervening in our country’s national debate via the newspapers of our country.

In the article which appeared on 19th December, the U.S. Ambassador Nicole Avant criticized The Bahamas for votes which this country took on several resolutions condemning the countries of Iran, Burma and the Democratic Republic of North Korea known as the DPRK.  The votes took place at the United Nations on 19th and 20th November 2009.

The press has said that the Minister did not have any foreknowledge of the US Ambassador’s article or the criticism.

The Bahamas government through its Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette responded on 24th December as follows:

“The Bahamas along with fifty nine (59) member states of the United Nations abstained, including several member states of the Caribbean Community: Barbados, Grenada Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, that is nine out of the 15, and 15 out of the 54 Commonwealth Nations.”

The Deputy Prime Minister said that when the vote came in the Third Committee at the United Nations, The Bahamas in an explanation of vote said that it was a strong supporter of human rights.

He said that Iran pointed out certain factual errors and there was no rebuttal from the six co sponsors.  So when the vote came in the plenary, The Bahamas abstained.  The Bahamas argued that the appropriate forum for this issue was before the United Nations Human Rights Council which had reviews scheduled of the named countries.

The United States Ambassador said in her article:

“We cannot stand by and wait when people's lives are at stake and the principles that we all purport to share: respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights; are in jeopardy.”

On 22nd December, I published a statement on behalf of the PLP which indicated that The Bahamas had faced this problem before.  We had a principled position on these issues when the Progressive Liberal Party was the government.

While in office the general policy was that we did not vote for what we called “country specific” resolutions. These are resolutions which contain words which seek to lecture and condemn, name and shame specific countries.

This policy was in line with the general Caricom consensus on these matters.  Many smaller countries hold the view that the business of naming and shaming was one that was really for the bigger players in the United Nations.

The Bahamas along with its Caricom neighbours did not think that (the practice of naming and shaming countries) was generally a useful policy.  That did not mean that we did not support human rights in those countries.  That was simply not our method of doing business.

The general policy changed in the last year of our government by the specific request of the American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  The Prime Minister at the time judged it to be in the best interest of The Bahamas to change the policy and to vote with the Americans on various country specific resolutions.

It is now interesting to see that the FNM government has reverted to the previous position, one which they, while they were in Opposition, labeled anti-American.

We thought that the FNM was irresponsible as an Opposition party in its constant hectoring and lecturing in the form of  frequent attacks on the PLP as being anti American because it stood up for the interests of The Bahamas, small as we are and even though clearly within the American sphere of influence.

The PLP’s argument was and is that even though The Bahamas operates within this sphere of influence, there is space enough to stand up for  principles which served the country's interests.

However, no matter how friendly, there were some issues on which we were compelled to speak frankly and openly about to our friends.  Hopefully, those times in public will be few and far between.

One of those times for example was the embargo by the United States government of Cuba.  Since 1992, every government of The Bahamas has voted to end the embargo.

Cuba is a neighbour and we have good relations with them, but even that relationship was ridiculed by the FNM in Opposition, saying that by supporting Cuba at the United Nations we were being anti American.  It was the most extraordinary campaign.  It was as irresponsible and foolish as it was inaccurate.  And it was made even more foolish by the fact that they, too, as a government from 1992 to 2002 voted to end the embargo against Cuba.

The record will also show that between 1992 and 2002, the Bahamas under the FNM had some 15 opportunities to vote against Cuba, but instead opted to vote in favor of Cuba 13 times and abstained twice; each time The Bahamas failed to vote with the United States.

Further, the FNM government publicly declared its relationship with Cuba at the United Nations: The FNM government confirmed that The Bahamas enjoyed good relations with Cuba and that Bahamians were free to travel to and from that country for the purposes of trade, education, tourism, and medical care.

The FNM did not consider this diplomatic relationship anti-American while it was the government.

However, their position apparently changed after May 2nd 2002.  Any semblance of diplomacy and civility between the two countries after May 2nd was branded as Anti-American.

One glaring example of this double-talk was the UN resolution to place Cuba on the UN Human Rights Council back in 2006.

The then leader of the opposition Rt. Hon. Hubert Ingraham said that “Cuba wouldn’t have the nerve and the gumption” to ask an FNM government to vote for them.

In the face of this current government’s voting record on Cuba in the UN between 1992 and 2002, this statement was misplaced; both incorrect and unnecessary and certainly unwise.

The FNM talked all kinds of foolishness as an Opposition party about foreign travel and being anti American and who now spends more time out of the country today than the Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs.  Dare we name the trips?  We do not begrudge them nor criticize them save to say that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

The present Minister of Foreign Affairs in one of his first statements to the press, indicated that because the then Charge D’affaires of the United States Embassy in The Bahamas was the physical neighbour of the Minister on the Eastern Road that relations were and would be somehow closer between the United States and The Bahamas now that he was the Foreign Minister.

The U.S. representative clarified that position at the time.

The statement by the present U.S. Ambassador puts the lie to all of that notion that personal relationships override national interests as nonsense.

While nations have friends, it is their interests that they pursue.  So regardless of personal friendships, the U.S. Ambassador is bound to pursue the interest of her nation.

The question is: will The Bahamas government do the same for The Bahamas?  Does The Bahamas government under an FNM administration that two years ago called the PLP anti American now consider itself anti American?

The PLP could of course be irresponsible and with glee take advantage of this public disagreement between The Bahamas and the United States.

As a Minister, I myself was taken by surprise as was the country by another Ambassador of the United States who said that the Government of the Bahamas was not properly investigating a drug transshipment gone awry some ten years before we got to office.  There was no warning of his statement.  It was simply dropped on us at a meeting in the midst of what had normally been perfunctory official opening remarks.

When the meeting was adjourned for further consultations on my part, the FNM and their friends again rushed to judgment saying that we had jeopardized the relations with the United States of America for standing up for our country.  The FNM and their political fellow travelers actually sided with the other side against The Bahamas because it was the PLP that was the brunt of the criticism.  Now what do they say?

We ask again: is the FNM now anti American because of this vote at the United Nations?  We prefer to think that a Government of The Bahamas should act in the best interest of this country and its citizens.

As a matter of principle, our point to the U.S. was that if there was ever a need to say anything to us of a controversial nature, that unless they meant to send a public message which would destabilize the relationship as a matter of U.S. policy, all of these matters should and could be worked out behind closed doors. That is what friendship means to us.  What is the FNM's position today?

The question is will the FNM stand up for our country?

The PLP does not believe that any fundamental change in the relationship between The Bahamas and the United States turns on this most recent matter.  But we could be just as irresponsible as the FNM were prior to 2007 and go crowing to the rafters about how relations between the United States have suffered since this most recent event.

The PLP could talk about how the US could close down the customs and immigration pre-clearance facility at the Lynden Pindling International Airport to teach the Bahamas a lesson.  But we understand that such behavior would be irresponsible for an opposition party.

One newspaper comment asked the government to explain why in the newspaper’s words, the government was “spitting” in the face of the United States of America.

Unlike the PLP, the FNM does not engage the Bahamian people in its foreign policy deliberations.  It does not explain why they do what we do.  The PLP makes it clear that its policy in foreign affairs is to facilitate the hassle free movement of Bahamian around the world and in foreign trade to increase the opportunities for Bahamian businessmen.

Nowhere is  the failure of the FNM’s policies more clear than in the area of international trade and in particular the efforts to get The Bahamas off the gray list of non cooperating countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development (the OECD).

You may know that we are on this gray list because we did not sign 12 international agreements for tax exchange with 12 countries. The Bahamas government promised that this would be done before the need of the year but the FNM will not meet that deadline.

In the meantime, other countries have proceeded apace to get themselves off this gray list and are being proactive in its fight to fend off the misinformation about the value of the financial services sector to both the developed and the developing world.  Where is the case being put by The Bahamas government to the world to protect the continued viability of this sector in The Bahamas?

It is interesting that with the FNM in power, and with a U.S. President in power from the Democratic Party, the United States continues to pursue its interests in a similar manner as the United States did when a Republican was in power.

The United States Ambassador writes a monthly intervention in the press. That was done under the Bush administration by their ambassadors. The United States has criticized The Bahamas for its votes at the United Nations. That was done by Ambassadors under the Bush administration.  In fact, the U.S. would come to us and tell us each year how many times we did not vote with them at the United Nations.

The point is that the United States policy is United States policy and the Ambassador is bound to carry out that policy no matter how much she may like us personally. The question for us is will we similarly have a government speaking up for our interest and working both in front of the camera and behind it to make sure that the best interest of the Bahamian people are served.

We continue, for example, to have difficulties with the visas policies of the United States and how our citizens are treated when applying for visas to the United States. What is our government doing about that?

In fact there is no reason why Bahamians traveling to the United States should need visas in any event and it ought to be the policy of The Bahamas government to fight for visa free access to the United States for The Bahamas just as we did for Europe.

It is simply not good enough to say you can go through the U.S. pre clearance on a police certificate. Bahamians ought to be able to travel to the United States from anywhere without a visa just as Americans can travel to this country without one.

There is a proposal on the table for general aviation pre clearance into the United States at the Grand Bahama International Airport. This will be one way of addressing the continued low volumes of traffic through Grand Bahama which may make the pre clearance facility there a target for elimination. We understand The Bahamas government has been dragging its feet on this. What is the government doing about that?

In the area of international trade, where is the vision of the Free National Movement in this area? It has a Trade Commission which was headed by someone who was anti trade. It now has an attorney general who has both the regulatory authority oversight as well as the promotion of the Financial Services sector. This was a criticism of the FNM about our Ministry of Financial Services. What do they intend to do about that?

From the PLP’s point of view, we have established in Opposition a Committee on Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade headed by myself and co-chaired by Ryan Pinder one of our Vice Chairs and an expert on international tax law. You have seen the PLP’s interventions on these matters consistently since we have been in Opposition.  We are now working through our party’s approval process, a paper called Vision 2020 which lays out a plan for the development of foreign affairs and foreign policy in The Bahamas to the year 2020 when we hope The Bahamas can become a developed country by that year.

The FNM has no vision in this area.

The bottom line ladies and gentlemen is that countries have interests and they pursue their inertest as they perceived them to be.

We hope that this government has now learned its lesson and will not continue with the foolish policies they pursued as an Opposition seeking at every turn to take cheap political shots at the PLP for taking principled stands on foreign policy.

Let us now 'grow up' in Bahamian affairs and declare that from this day forward when The Bahamas speaks to the outside world, that we do so with one voice, indivisible in the promotion of uniquely Bahamian interests.

I invite the leadership of the FNM who speak to matters of Foreign Affairs; the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to publicly subscribe to this mature course of action and I am empowered to assure the nation and the FNM that the Progressive Liberal Party and our leadership team will continue to guarantee the same thing. If this is not the course that the FNM decides to take then the PLP reserves the right to speak in the best interest of the Bahamian people.

As the year 2010 unfolds, the PLP will be more aggressive in bringing these matters to the attention of the public.  For too long the FNM has been able to get a pass because there is not an adequate response from those on the other side who are responsible for putting the other side to the Bahamian people. I recommit myself to the Agenda for Change that I launched at the start of this year. The issues remain the same and the principles ought to be embraced.

A country has friends but in the end it is their interests that are pursued no matter their friends. The FNM must begin to take stock of what our true interests are and begin to act to promote our country’s best interests at home and abroad.

I wish you all the best in the New Year. Thank you and good evening.