Political ineptness in The Bahamas... ...

Rights and wrongs of Cuban migrant dispute

By Front Porch
frontporchguardian@gmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

Last week was settling into another stretch of bad news for the inept and faltering Christie administration.  Suddenly, on Thursday, Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis handed a government in a defensive crouch a line of offense, an unexpected opening to attempt to switch the storyline from that of its gross incompetence to one of Dr. Minnis’ patriotism.

With the announcement of its trading places two-step, swapping the placements of ambassadors to the U.S. and the UN, the bungled appointment of Dr. Elliston Rahming neared a sort of climax, though leaving serious unanswered questions, the government on its heels, looking amateurish and incompetent.

Of alleged abuse of Cuban migrants at the detention center and the domestic and international fallout from what is now widely acknowledged as a fake video of the alleged abuse, the government seemed stuck in Goldilocks mode with Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell often too hot in his rhetoric and Prime Minister Perry Christie too cool when it came to taking charge of the matter.

The opposition was left with two prime opportunities to flex its policy and political muscles.  First, continuing to hammer away at the ambassadorial appointment fiasco.

Secondly, in the vacuum left by the government’s too cool indecision and too hot impetuousness on the Cuban migrant issue, Dr. Minnis had a golden opportunity to get it just right on a contentious matter at the intersection of domestic and foreign policy.

Tone-deaf

Prudence and good judgment are synonyms for getting it just right.  Gifted by events with the opportunity to demonstrate prudential judgment, Dr. Minnis proved to be foolhardy and tone-deaf.

Effective communication involves not just what one intends to says.  More importantly, it concerns what others hear you to say and what they don’t feel they have heard.

There are multiple issues related to the current Cuban migrant affair.  Dr. Minnis and the opposition are right in vigorously pressing for the full disclosure of any abuse at the detention center.

But what has been sorely lacking in the opposition’s response is a more comprehensive approach.  That approach should have included a clearer message reaffirming the opposition’s support of basic immigration policy relative of migrants.

More so, the opposition needed to be more emphatic in demonstrating national unity in the face of those seeking to scuttle our immigration policy, run roughshod over Bahamian sovereignty and inflict damage to our tourist-based economy.

Dr. Minnis’ failure to ensure the proper sequencing and calibration of the FNM’s messaging left the opposition open to severe criticism.  And it has been withering, from charges of recklessness to failing to stand up for the country.

While Dr. Minnis may not have shown the best judgment in handling the complex of issues at hand, attacks on his patriotism and that of the opposition are ridiculous and offensive.

Mitchell is no more of a patriot than Dr. Minnis.  And vile and contemptuous are claims by some that various of Dr. Minnis’ remarks were treasonous; which is not to say that such attacks are ineffective.

In his handling of the Cuban migrant issue, Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell has often proven imperious, rattled, undiplomatic, bellicose and belligerent.

Understatement

The Opposition and others are justified in criticizing various elements of his conduct of the matter at hand, as minister responsible for both foreign affairs and immigration.  Mitchell himself has admitted that matters could have been handled better.  Which of course is an extraordinary understatement.

By failing to act quicker and in a more forthright manner in addressing the abuse claims, the government helped provide fodder to the Florida-based interest group Democracy Movement, endlessly itching for any opening to attempt dictating Bahamian immigration policy to their liking.

As an aside, by interfering in domestic politics in calling for the resignation of Minister Mitchell, the interest group again demonstrated its unbridled arrogance.  Imagine how out of bounds it would be for a Bahamian group to call for the resignation of a federal U.S. Cabinet member.

Now Prime Minister Perry Christie is hemming and hawing about whether information will be provided to the public on abuse at the detention center, abuse that is said to be quite gruesome and sickening.

When will politicians learn that covering up certain matters makes a bad situation even worse. The information should be released as soon as possible.  Failure to do so will fuel more demonstrations and potential international fallout. Meanwhile the credibility of the Christie administration continues to dwindle.

Amidst its prevarication, ineptitude and bungling, the government has seized the politics of nationalism and the politics of empathy, something Dr. Minnis, thus far, has gotten wrong to the amazement and consternation of many, including many FNMs.

The FNM has often gotten wrong the politics of nationalism and the politics of empathy, despite its record of protecting the country’s national interests and better record than the PLP in areas ranging from social policy to economic empowerment to women’s rights.

Pretending

And yet the FNM has consistently allowed the PLP to get away with pretending to be the more nationalist and empathetic party.  A part of the PLP’s winning combination in 2012 was to appear as the feeling party that also put Bahamians first.

In politics, empathy typically beats arguments of competence and effectiveness. And nationalism is usually a trump card, something that many in the FNM seem unwilling to learn.

The PLP’s claim of being more nationalistic than the FNM is laughable and far from credible given its record of allowing drug barons to overrun the country in the 1980s, its dalliances with all manner of shady foreign interlopers, the massive giveaway of land at Mayaguana, clear conflicts of interest by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister with a foreign oil exploration company, and many other examples.

But when Dr. Minnis failed initially and more clearly to express common cause with the government in the face of certain attacks from abroad, it made the FNM seem less empathetic and nationalistic than the PLP on an issue necessitating a demonstration of national unity.

This is yet another blunder by Dr. Minnis, who has now demonstrated an entrenched pattern of misjudgement and shockingly poor judgment.

Increasingly more and more Bahamians and FNMs are concluding that Dr. Minnis is far from up to his current role, which is disheartening as the country desperately needs a more prudent and capable opposition leader who can mount a more effective opposition to a feckless and disaster of a government that is the Christie administration.

In the end, the Cuban migrant affair is not about the opposition’s response.  It is about whatever abuse may have taken place at the detention center and the government’s response in getting the facts out and taking appropriate action in a timely manner.

Further, it is the prime minister and his Cabinet who are ultimately responsible for acting appropriately or with “gross stupidity”, negligence and arrogance in handling the domestic and foreign policy elements of this entire affair.

August 29, 2013

thenassauguardian

The Oil Drilling Referendum in The Bahamas ...and Pontius Pilate

No Referendum For Oil Drilling


Tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas

ALREADY they are discussing how to share the oil wealth, even before the first vein of oil has been discovered to make the discussion relevant.

 

In our opinion politicians are putting the cart before the horse or, as the farm hand would say, “counting their chicks before they are hatched.”

 

What they should be giving serious thought to is whether they should even be playing russian roulette with the future of these islands, whose wealth lies in the extraordinary beauty of its waters, powder soft beaches and colourful marine life. One slip of the drill and our future is gone forever.

 

Already, the livelihood of our fishermen are threatened with the overfishing of the conch, and the threat of a US ban on its importation as a food delicacy to save the species from extinction. Now enters King Oil with its offshore rigs which could further pollute — despite safety precautions — the natural habitat of the conch.

 

We need only one slip — equipment failure, staff error, a hurricane — and the purity and beauty of our shallow seas are gone forever.

 

As pointed out in the book Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry, the “main hazard is connected with the spills and blowouts of oil, gas, and numerous other chemical substances and compounds.

 

“The environmental consequences of accidental episodes are especially severe, sometimes dramatic, when they happen near the shore, in shallow waters, or in areas with slow water circulation.”

 

Offshore rigs, said another report, “can dump tons of drilling fluid, metal cutting, including toxic metals, such as lead chromium and mercury, as well as carcinogens, such as benzene, into the ocean.” And yet another report claims that “exploration for offshore oil involves firing air guns which send a strong shock across the seabed that can decrease fish catch, damage the hearing capacity of various marine species and may lead to marine mammal strandings.” It is claimed that “drilling activity around oil rigs is suspected of contributing to elevated levels of mercury in Gulf of Mexico fish.”

 

The big oil companies will extol the benefits of oil drilling, the elaborate safety measures taken around the wells, until the big blow comes and then they are in such a state of confusion that their tongues are tied to find an explanation of what went wrong. In 2010 the world watched in horror the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. As the thick oil spread south, even the Bahamas trembled. The talk then was who would our government hold responsible to clean up the mess that Bahamians feared might touch our shores. Fortunately the Bahamas was spared.

 

But in that disaster 11 workers were killed and more than three million gallons of crude oil poured into the Gulf.

 

Don’t say that it can’t happen here. It can happen here and this is where it is most likely to happen because, as we know in the Bahamas no one observes the rules for long, and security will soon slip.

A news report recently suggested that the Gulf accident happened because the US interior department “exercised lax oversight in approving BP’s operations in the Gulf, accepting too readily the company’s claims that there was little risk of an accident.”

 

It is almost obscene to think that the politicians are discussing the financial returns before investigating whether the dangers are too great for us to subject our fragile tourist economy to the oil consortiums.

 

As for a referendum. This is one problem that should not be put to a referendum. All Bahamians will see is the possibility of quick wealth — as in the drug peddling years — they will not even consider the possibility of these islands being covered in thick tar — off limits to everybody.

 

When Bahamians went to the polls on May 7th they elected Perry Gladstone Christie as prime minister, not Pontius Pilate, who washed his hands and walked away from the problem. Rather than leaving such a weighty problem to voters, who do not have access to the necessary information, it is for MPs to study the pros and cons, the benefits and the dangers, and with a vote of the Assembly, where they represent the people, make a rational and considered decision. If they are incapable of doing that then call it quits, go back to the people and give them a second chance to find someone willing to do the job they were elected to do.

 

This is not a vote for a referendum. This is a vote for members of parliament — all of them.

 

September 13, 2012

 

Tribune 242

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie backtracked on a statement he made a week ago ...confirming that Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) was benefiting from advice he was providing as a consultant for Davis and Co. law firm

Christie backtracks on oil statment

PLP leader contradicts earlier admission on issue

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie last night backtracked from a statement he made a week ago confirming that Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) was benefiting from advice he was providing as a consultant for Davis & Co. law firm.

Christie said in a statement he no longer works as a consultant for the firm. He said the professional relationship was severed “well before” the issue became a controversy.

However, the press release contradicted statements Christie made during a recent telephone interview with The Nassau Guardian that was recorded with his consent.

In that interview, Christie indicated he was still providing advice for BPC, which is seeking approval from the Bahamas government to drill for oil in Bahamian waters.

Last Thursday, Christie said he is a consultant for Davis & Co. and gives legal advice for BPC. He made no mention of the relationship being over — in fact refering to the advice he is ‘now’ giving.

“It’s not a conflict because the advice I’m giving now has nothing to do with any decisions I [will] make as prime minister,” he said.

Davis & Co., the law firm owned by Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Deputy Leader Philip Davis, is one of two Bahamian firms that represent the oil company.

“Once we became in Opposition, part of the professional services I render is by way of a legal consultancy to Davis & Co,” the PLP leader said last week.

“As a part of the legal consultancy, I consult on work the firm deems I am qualified by the office I’ve had, by the knowledge I have in terms of government and by my own grasp of the legal principles involved in issues to do with governance. So that is my consultancy and that embraces whether [it’s] matters of tourism or in this case, Bahamas Petroleum.”

The revelation that Christie is providing advice for BPC was made by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham last week, after Ingraham was asked by The Nassau Guardian about the issue of oil drilling.

Christie confirmed he was providing advice through Davis & Co. after he was contacted by The Guardian and questioned on the matter.

During that interview, Christie expanded on the advice he gives to the oil company through Davis & Co.

“If there is an issue they need advice on, if they need someone to speak to the issue of environmental impacts, the issue of whether or not in my judgment a matter is worthy for the government to approve, whether or not an application is ready, whether or not they should employ, who should go on the board of directors, whatever views they ask of the firm in the event that the firm regards it as necessary they would consult me on it — those are the services I provide,” Christie said.

Last night, he said his working relationship with Davis & Co. and BPC is over.

“Well before this current controversy, which is motivated solely by Ingraham’s last-minute attempts to derail his impending loss, my consulting arrangement with Davis & Co., which represented BPC among many other clients, had expired.  Thus, I am not currently advising BPC in any manner,” said the statement.

Christie’s admission last week has been the subject of several attacks from Ingraham and the Free National Movement.

On Wednesday night, Ingraham labeled Christie an oil lobbyist and said the PLP leader’s ability to lead the country is now compromised because of his relationship with BPC.

Yesterday, members of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) demonstrated outside the Office of the Leader of the Opposition on Parliament Street and demanded his resignation over the matter.

Last night, Christie said the criticism was politically motivated and added that his ethics are above reproach.

“They are losing, we are winning, and they are inventing new charges and distractions,” he said.

Christie added that when permits for oil exploration were granted by his administration he ensured that stringent environmental restrictions were imposed.

He said the Ingraham administration did not adhere to the same strict policies when it granted oil exploration licenses.

“The current prime minister had a different approach, issuing oil exploration permits with no serious environmental conditions whatsoever,” Christie said.

Christie also said if the PLP wins the next election oil drilling would only be considered once there is a full regulatory system to ensure that stringent safety and environmental protection systems are in place and after there is a national consensus on the issue.

Christie said his party would put the issue to a national referendum if necessary.

Apr 27, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International