Sunday 19th December 2004

I believe that The Nassau Guardian has done a disservice to its readers and the wider public in its editorial of Friday 17th December 2004 under the headline: BRITISH SURPRISE.

At the outset, it appears to me that The Nassau Guardian has to establish the evidence that The Bahamas Government was surprised by the decision to close the British High Commission in The Bahamas.  If The Nassau Guardian had taken note of the reports in the Bahamian press over the last ten years, they would have known that the British High Commission has been gradually reducing its activities in The Bahamas.  In fact, a previous British High Commissioner during the administration of former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham denied in The Tribune that the High Commission was going to close during his tenure, when the Strategic Review of the British Government was leaked to the Bahamian press.  The review at that time concluded that one of the embassies that the British could close was Nassau.

The Nassau Guardian could also research its own columns to discover that the British ceased processing visas in this jurisdiction within the last year.  All visas for Bahamians wishing to study in Britain now have to be processed online through its offices in New York.  The High Commission itself has been operating on an abbreviated schedule for some time.

All of this is easily verifiable and could have been checked by The Nassau Guardian.  The same information was available to The Bahamas Government no doubt.  Accordingly, it is unreasonable to assume that The Bahamas Government was caught by surprise.
 
Undoubtedly, newspapers of The Nassau Guardian's quality should be careful to distinguish political propaganda from fact and honest commentary.  Unfortunately, the editorial of Friday 17th December can be accused of being in the former category.  It tends to do disservice and to discredit the publication’s great lineage.

The editorial goes on to repeat what it claims is a theory of  “sinister minds”.  If this were the case, why then would a responsible newspaper repeat these theories, again without the basis in fact to support them?  Why indeed would they do so, when in their own columns they can discover the fallacious nature of these “sinister assertions”?

The theory is that because The Bahamas Government has decided that it will open an embassy in Havana, Cuba and one in Beijing, China, the British may be disturbed about this and are retaliating against The Bahamas.  The theory goes that this is because the two countries Cuba and China are communist countries.  This theory too is clearly false, and the falsity, again, is easy to verify.

The British themselves have embassies in Cuba and in China.  They have them there because it is in their economic and political interest to do so.  The Bahamas has made a sovereign decision to do the same.

There are hundreds of Bahamians who are in Cuba for medical care; tourism, business, education and there are even some are in prison.  There is no Bahamian presence to look after our citizens’ interests in Cuba.  The Bahamas needs to have a resident presence there to assist in looking after Bahamian interests.  The British presently process all Bahamian consular matters in Cuba on our behalf.  This cannot continue ad infinitum.  It is not wise for us to continue to delegate our consular duties to the British.  We have now decided to assume responsibility for the protection of our own interests.

Similarly, it must be clear to The Nassau Guardian that there is increased trade, economic and political ties with China.  The Minister of Tourism has announced a major initiative there in tourism.  The Prime Minister of The Bahamas recently visited China in his official capacity.  We have closed our Consulate in Hong Kong because there was less activity there, and the potential for furthering our mutual economic, trade and cultural interests in Beijing, makes opening an office there eminently sensible.  Again, the British have an office in Beijing and they handle our affairs in that city.  Thirty years into our independence, surely it is time for us to take this on ourselves.

How all of this could possibly be an embarrassment to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and The Bahamas Government, or some message to us as The Nassau Guardian's editorial asserts, defies logic.  The decisions made by the Minister in this regard are the Government’s decisions, not those of any one individual.  This, of course, is a trite feature of our system of Westminster government.

The final point made was that The Bahamas Government should check with the U.S. government to see if they have similar concerns about the opening of offices in Cuba and China.  The Government needs to do no such checking.  Again, The Nassau Guardian can easily verify that answer by checking its own columns.  Earlier this year in a story on its own front page, The Nassau Guardian spoke to the U.S. Chief of Mission at the time.  He indicated that the United States of America had no issue with The Bahamas opening an office in Cuba.  The answer on China would seem to be obvious since our neighbour and friend to the north has one of the largest embassies in Beijing, China.

The larger and more disturbing issue, however, is why would The Nassau Guardian suggest that a sovereign country needs to check with some other country about its economic and political decisions when there is no obvious hostile intent toward any nation.  But it also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how Government policy evolves.  Certainly, it is an insult to the diplomatic team that supports the Government's efforts in foreign affairs, because they would certainly have done their homework before suggesting that the Government make such a decision.

The British are closing their Nassau High Commission office for the reasons which they gave: financial and strategic.  The information can be found on the website of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office in plain English.   The Nassau post is one of eight that they are closing around the world.  They are even downgrading their Miami consulate.  I regret their decision and doubt its wisdom, but that is quite another matter.

Frankly, I do think that this is embarrassing, but not for the Minister!  Friday 17th December, 2004 was indeed a dark day for editorial journalism in this jurisdiction.

As Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I thought it important to comment on this matter.  I invite newspapers to think carefully before they write statements that are woefully incorrect, harmful, misleading and injurious to the public good.

I intend to hold hearings on these and other matters in the New Year and if The Nassau Guardian or any other person or entity has any information that would support their theories then I would be happy to have the Committee review that information.

I would wish to extend my heartfelt thanks and best regards to His Excellency the British High Commissioner Mr. Roderick Gemmell and his staff at the High Commission as they embark upon a new course.  Certainly those sentiments should also be conveyed to Her Majesty’s Government in London.