20th April 2005
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CSME/OAS
Mr. Speaker
I can say without fear of contradiction that the present Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the present minister of Foreign Affairs has been more accessible than any other Foreign Minister in the history of our country.
It is therefore inexplicable to me that I read the following in The Nassau Guardian this morning in its editorial of Wednesday 20th April, under the headline: WHERE DO WE STAND?
The editorial is about the result of the elections held on 7th April for the position of Secretary General of the Organization of American States. The article says in part: " The Bahamas vote was cast by His Excellency Joshua Sears, Ambassador to the United States and Permanent Representative to the OAS, but how he voted could not be ascertained."
This is an incredible statement Mr. Speaker since the fact of the support of The Bahamas Government was announced up to the vote and after the vote.
The support of Mexico’s candidacy came as a result of extensive consultations with representatives of the Financial Services sector, and The Bahamas’ continuing concern about the continued listing of The Bahamas in Mexico as a country with harmful tax practices. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Bahamas has been working assiduously on this matter and in December 2004, there was a change in the law of Mexico, which ameliorated the position but does not go quite as far as we would want. We now have the commitment of the Mexican Government to go further. We perceived it as in our national interest therefore to support Mexico. The vote was deadlocked at 17-17 and a new round of balloting takes place on 2nd May.
There are further points, which arise out of that. First, it is clear that the majority of Caricom countries supported Chile. The Bahamas was not part of that majority. This is a clear example in answer to those critics who say that The Bahamas sovereign interests are subsumed in Caricom. The fact is when it is in the national interests of The Bahamas to move in a particular direction it must and it does. I cannot speak for future Governments of The Bahamas but that is the position of this Government. Each Government must act to meet and judge the conditions at the time they make the decisions.
Mr. Speaker, the United States supported Mexico in the recent round of the OAS elections. This again shows the ill informed commentary of the Nassau Guardian, which they were at all times in a position to check from the source. The Tribune did so the day after the election. The Bahamas, which supported Mexico, always reserves the right to act in its own best interests.
Mr. Speaker by a series of innuendoes and juxtapositions, the article then seems to assert that The Bahamas in the recent OAS elections ended up on the wrong side of the United States, and further that our position in this election is somehow another example of flying in the face of the United States to the detriment of our country. The other example the article gave is " Bahamians who question why The Bahamas is moving in the direction of establishing stronger relations with Cuba, including placing a resident Ambassador there.
" Granted, The Bahamas is a sovereign nation and has a right to determine which countries its has strong ties with, but hemispheric policies should certainly be taken under consideration in reaching such decisions. After all, the saying if the United States sneezes The Bahamas catches a cold."
Mr. Speaker, this is exasperatingly ill informed commentary. As you see The Bahamas supported Mexico’s candidacy, which means that the interests of The Bahamas and the United States did in fact coincide in this case. Secondly it is appallingly misleading, intellectually dishonest to suggest any other motive for establishing a resident presence in Havana than the stated purpose, which is to serve the interests of Bahamians in Cuba. This is plain an obvious on the face of it.
The country knows; the Nassau Guardian should know that there are 150 Bahamian students or more receiving an education in Cuba. Some 20,000 Bahamian tourists visit Cuba every year. There are 20 Bahamians in prison Cuba. They have consular issues that need to be addressed. There are businessmen who travel to Cuba, buying goods and services. Hundreds of Bahamians travel to Cuba for health care. They too all have consular needs to be addressed. Cuba is a state that borders The Bahamas and all of us should remember the tragic error made by Cuba on 10th May 1980 in our waters, which arose out of a lack of contact between the two states. The citizens of The Bahamas have been demanding the services that we are seeking to supply by providing a resident presence in that country.
Further, Mr. Speaker, and I hasten to add that this is not necessary to a decision in our national interests, the United States representative here in this country has said on the record that the decision to have an Embassy in Cuba is a matter for The Bahamas and not for them and that there are no issues that arise out of it.
This kind of commentary, however, betrays a disturbing pattern of ill informed commentary, and misguided propaganda, which in one instance is drawn by the desire to simply sell newspapers at any cost. Just this week, in a section of the gutter press for example, a similar line was being spun with regard to an announcement made in the United States and communicated to The Bahamas government early this month, that all U.S. citizens will require passports to return to the United States of America with effect from 1st January 2006 from the Caribbean region, and from Mexico and Canada by the 1st January 2008.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this announcement arises of out of a law passed in the United States in the post 11th September period, has not stopped the local rag sheet from inventing the grossest prevarications over this issue. The line is some how that this announcement on passports is a retaliation against The Bahamas for not appointing a drug czar and for not cooperating fully in the war on drugs. All of the assertions have been officially denied on the record by U.S. officials showing that these are complete and utter fabrications. Fabrications are the stock in trade of the particular newspaper. The paper has had to withdraw and apologize to me on pain of a lawsuit for libelous material it published about me.
I should say Mr. Speaker for the information of the public that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been working with the U.S. Embassy to represent the concerns of the tourism sector in this country over this issue. The U.S. Ambassador is aware of the concerns. I have spoken directly with the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Roger Noriega. The U.S. President recently announced that there would be a review of the policy and its unintended consequences. It is clear that the policy of the U.S. is not directed at any one country. Clear that is to all except a particularly vicious and malicious newspaper editor.
The other points raised in the gutter press were that this announcement by the U.S. is to bring pressure on The Bahamas for the following:
To stop stalling and speed up extradition of drug lords.
To step up the war on drugs and illegal smuggling amongst officials and law officers
To stop getting too friendly with the Cuban Government
To stop declining to back the US on key regional issues such as ousting former President Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti.
In each case Mr. Speaker these assertions are demonstrable, and gross prevarications, which can be discovered by the discerning minds to be so if they would only look. What you have here is an insidious campaign of prevarications designed by the use of gutter insinuations and complete fabrications to confuse the uniformed. It is an assertion of the principle that paper will stand still for anything to be written on it, even the grossest untruths.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I should like to inform this House that on the 21st December 2004, the Cabinet of The Bahamas made a decision to advance to the next stage of discussions on the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME). In my role as Minister, I have been charged with the responsibility to speaking to various groups in The Bahamas who wish to hear from me on this issue. Thursday evening 21st April at 7:30 p.m., the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will host a discussion with Civil Society on the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with Gilbert Morris as the presenter and I would invite you all to come. I will not engage in any public rows over this matter of CSME. This is not a matter over which there needs to be a fight. It is not a political issue. There is only one question to be decided and that is whether this is in the best interests of Bahamians. The mission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under my watch is to smooth the way for Bahamians around the world, to open markets to Bahamians around the world. It is in pursuance of that mission that we have been speaking about the CSME to explain what it is and what it is not. The fact of this Cabinet decision was announced in this House. It has been explained by way of radio. It is has been spoken of in the press. There is no secret about it and there is nothing to fear in it. There is no drama in it. There are no life and death issues in it.
This Minister is not on a frolic of his own.
The ill informed commentary about this matter continues unabated, however, even in some surprising quarters. It therefore seems clear that there are other motives in this matter, either some form of campaign to discredit at any cost the individual who is simply doing his job as a Minister of the Government or to discredit the party and Government that is seeking to do its job on behalf of the Bahamian people.
In either case, I am happy to meet the challenge at any level the critics and detractors may wish to engage. However, I have chosen to address the matter this morning, in this atmosphere: a reasonable statement with the facts for reasonable and discerning minds to hear and address. I have no doubt, however that those who wish to hear will hear and those who don’t, won’t.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.