A Response to David Jessop, Managing Director of the London-based Caribbean Council ...on Bahamian Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell’s handling of the allegations ...of beating of Cuban detainees ...at the Carmichael Detention Centre in The Bahamas

 How Not To Damage A Country's Reputation

Tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas



“WHAT stands out as a lesson to other governments is how reaction, if not thought through, can actually exacerbate a situation and, turning it into a matter unlikely to be forgotten and which in this case, may, in time, come to affect Bahamas-US relations.”

 

So wrote syndicated columnist David Jessop, Managing Director of the London-based Caribbean Council, in commenting on Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell’s handling of the allegations of beating of Cuban detainees at the Carmichael Detention Centre several months ago. The investigation has retreated behind closed doors, although even the accused marines’ defence attorney has urged that the trial be open to the public.

 

According to Mr Mitchell, there will be no fall-out from this unhappy affair on our tourist industry. “The universal experience,” he said, “has been that of a destination which looms large in the popular imagination as a place for fun and relaxation.”

 

However, Tourism Minister Obie Wilchcombe, closer to our tourism industry than Mr Mitchell, had other views. In his opinion, the Bahamas will, in the end, suffer from the Cuban-American boycotts in Miami in retaliation for the treatment of their fellow Cubans in our detention centre here. In Mr Wilchcombe’s opinion, “the impact of this on our economy will not be good”.

 

And although National Security Minister Dr Bernard Nottage was confident that the matter would be satisfactorily resolved, he too saw that it was a incident that could not be brushed aside. “We cannot ignore it because cumulatively, if the matter is not resolved in a matter consistent with good relations, then we will suffer the results of it,” he said.

 

Nor did Mr Jessop think that the issue would easily evaporate without leaving a stain. He used the Bahamas’ mishandling of the Cuban affair as a lesson on what a country should not do in the delicate arena of foreign relations. Mishandling, as in the case of the Bahamas, can do untold damage to a “nation’s image and reputation.” he said

 

And wrote Mr Jessop, in a cautionary note to the rest of the Caribbean: “Throughout, the issue has not been helped by the response of The Bahamas government which went from denial, to seeming misinformation, to anger, to announcing a public enquiry, to returning the detainees who might have given evidence, to unfortunately voiced exasperation on the part of government about what to do next: all against a background of representations from the US Government, the deepening involvement of human-rights NGOs, and opposition criticism then support.”

 

In Miami, a group of anti-Cuban, Cuban-American activists had organised a boycott outside the Bahamas consulate, at the airport and docks from which tourists leave for the Bahamas. They have presently called off the boycotts as they tentatively await the outcome of the promised investigation of the accused defence force officers.

 

Mr Jessop warned the Caribbean: “News and comments are now instant and global, and social media, 24-hour rolling news channels, and the Internet, have enabled cross-border citizen activism.

 

“For the most part,” he continued, “Caribbean governments seem transfixed by this, unable to respond in real time, or to recognise that opinions and news items on YouTube or Twitter can go viral in hours, and that their traditional and often pedestrian response, let alone an entrenched desire to brush aside bad news, is no longer adequate.”

 

This was Mr Mitchell’s pitfall.

 

From the moment it was determined that the “fake” tape of the beatings went viral from Miami, Mr Mitchell clutched to the “fake” tape straw, refusing to accept that the video was actually a recreation of what was meant to have taken place in the detention centre on that fateful night. Mr Mitchell insisted that the tape was not recorded at the centre. As it turned out, the re-enactment was filmed at the centre with one of the Cuban actors wearing a uniform loaned him by one of the Bahamian guards. But to the bitter end, Mr Mitchell clung to his broken reed and the statement that a friendly Bahamian government never beat anyone — as if the government were ever accused.

 

In the end, he was sucked down in the quagmire of his own oft contradictory words railing against treasonous Bahamians and enemies of the country. His pathetic show torpedoed the country’s cause. Let’s hope that he will now leave the conclusion of this matter to safer hands.

 

It is probably too early to estimate what damage, ­if any, this long drawn-out fiasco has had on our tourist figures. However, we understand that there has been a critical fall-off in tourist arrivals, both by air and by sea.

 

It has been a long time since these figures have been published. It is now time for reporters to start asking questions. Bahamians have a right to know the state of our tourist industry.

 

In case our readers missed Mr Jessop’s column commenting on the Cuban situation in the Bahamas, it was published in The Tribune on Monday, October 7, in the Insight column under the heading “Reputational Damage.”

 

October 10, 2013

 

Tribune 242

 

Bahamas Blog International

 

David Jessop, Managing Director of the London-based Caribbean Council ...on Bahamian Foreign Affairs Minister, Fred Mitchell’s handling of the allegations ...of beating of Cuban detainees ...at the Carmichael Detention Centre in The Bahamas

Reputational Damage

By DAVID JESSOP

Managing Director of Caribbean Council:

 

ALL Caribbean nations have well-developed contingency plans in the event of a natural disaster. However, few have established procedures to address the issue of the damage caused to a nation’s image and reputation.

 

Yet, that is just what is required if the Caribbean is not to experience long-term economic and political damage from the type of campaign that is under way against The Bahamas over the alleged mistreatment of detainees.

 

What follows is not to seek to minimise the ill treatment of anyone; or to question the importance of freedom to comment; or to avoid suggesting that nations in the region need to get their houses in order and observe international norms. Rather, it is to make clear that the need for reputational management has changed absolutely and governments need to consider how politically, and better, they should react.

 

News and comments are now instant and global, and social media, 24-hour rolling news channels, and the Internet, have enabled cross-border citizen activism.

 

For the most part Caribbean governments seem transfixed by this, unable to respond in real time, or to recognise that opinions and news items on YouTube or Twitter can go viral in hours, and that their traditional and often pedestrian response, let alone an entrenched desire to brush aside bad news, is no longer adequate.

 

Neither do those in the region who seek to manipulate situations for domestic political advantage appear to recognise that in some cases what may appear usefully self-serving in relation to sensitive domestic issues such as the probity of the police service or matters relating to migrants, also have an external dimension that may have wider political and economic consequences.

 

The case of The Bahamas is informative. In March of this year, protests began in Miami about the need for better treatment of a group of Cuban women being held in a detention centre previously the subject of concern and investigation by Amnesty International. Later, in June, the protests escalated after a video circulated in Miami showed, it was alleged, Cuban detainees being beaten by guards at the same detention centre.

 

In response, a group of anti-Cuban, Cuban-American activists, the Democracy Movement, began to organise demonstrations outside The Bahamas consulate in Miami and began to take other actions to obtain publicity. Their cause was supported by Cuban-American politicians, who not only have significant influence in the US Congress, but include in their number a future US presidential candidate. More recently, their protests have escalated to include representations to the cruise-ship companies and demonstrations in front of departing cruise-ship passengers.

 

Throughout, the issue has not been helped by the response of The Bahamas government which went from denial, to seeming misinformation, to anger, to announcing a public enquiry, to returning the detainees who might have given evidence, to unfortunately voiced exasperation on the part of government about what to do next: all against a background of representations from the US Government, the deepening involvement of human-rights NGOs, and opposition criticism then support.

 

While hopefully an enquiry commissioned by The Bahamas government will be thorough and honest, the allegations, as Amnesty International’s involvement indicates, are serious and, irrespective of the political complexities surrounding the nationality of those involved, should be answered sooner rather than later.

 

What stands out as a lesson to other governments is how reaction, if not thought through, can actually exacerbate a situation and far from closing down an issue, can add fuel to the fire, turning it into a matter unlikely to be forgotten and which in this case, may, in time, come to affect Bahamas-US relations.

 

In its own way, the event is a tip of an iceberg of potential damage that the Caribbean has the capacity to self-inflict, unaware that the world is watching or that, whether the region likes it or not, tourism and the tourism industry are its Achilles heel; one that will become subject to constant external attack if the region fails in meeting international norms in everything from human rights to health and safety.

 

At the heart of the issue is a failure to understand what tourism, brand creation and reputation now mean in a world in which perhaps unfortunately, perception has come to matter more than reality.

 

Tourist boards, governments and the industry across the world spend millions of dollars to create a positive picture of “The Caribbean Experience”: a sense that all is well in a country and that a destination and a vacation will be a happy and memorable experience.

 

But recently, damaging coverage about the unfortunate reality of crime, sexual assault, and the behaviour of some police and immigration officers has led pressure groups and the media in key feeder markets to begin to question safety, disseminating messages that cannot be controlled and, if inaccurate, are hard to refute.

 

Incidents apart, one element of the problem lies in the fact that increasing numbers of visitors are coming to expect the politics, the judicial system, personal safety, and the rule of law to be equivalent to where they reside, and for their government or embassy to afford them the same protection and treatment as they might receive at home.

 

This is particularly the case when it comes to North American and European travellers who, in a sometimes oversimplistic manner, travel the world expecting the same behaviour, basic rights, responses, norms and safety to match what they have in the wealthy developed nations from which they have come.

 

But beyond this, and more alarmingly for a tourism-dependent region, has been the appearance of the first social media campaigns mounted by NGOs that actively aim to turn visitors against specific countries. For example, in the case of the Maldives, there is a global campaign which has near to two million supporters, including Sir Richard Branson, proposing a tourism boycott, and raising funds to develop an advertising campaign which, it says, will aim to “threaten the islands’ reputation”.

 

The point here is not to suggest that governments should hide or find ways to exonerate themselves from the consequence of their responsibilities; it is to indicate that apart from ensuring that abuses do not occur, that only a well-considered, fair, rapid, appropriate and measured response will avoid such situations becoming potent and damaging.

 

(David Jessop, Managing Director of the Caribbean Council, writes a weekly column providing a European perspective on Caribbean events).

 

October 07, 2013

 

***A Response to David Jessop, Managing Director of the London-based Caribbean Council ...on Bahamian Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell’s handling of the allegations ...of beating of Cuban detainees ...at the Carmichael Detention Centre in The Bahamas***

 

Tribune 242

 

Bahamas Blog International

 

The brisk, rude utterances by Fred Mitchell, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the recent allegations of abuse of Cuban nationals detained at Carmichael Road Detention Centre in The Bahamas ...suggests that he does not have ...or is ignoring the advice on the matter from professional diplomats

Opinion: The Cowboy Diplomat

 

Tribune 242 Guest Commentary by Kirkland Turner
Nassau, The Bahamas

THERE is a humorous catchphrase about diplomacy – it’s the “art of telling someone to go to hell and having them look forward to the journey”. In a nutshell, diplomacy is not about who carries the biggest stick, who shouts the loudest or who proves to be the rudest in international exchanges. The international landscape is not a school yard where poorly behaved boys scrimmage to prove “who’s the man”.

The dictionary describes diplomacy as the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations. Successful diplomacy is polite, well-mannered, respectful and gracious even when it requires the delivery of difficult messages and positions.

With reference to international diplomacy, it describes the conduct of relations between two or more countries through the mediation or negotiation of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, culture, economics, and trade. International agreements are typically negotiated by professional diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians.

The Bahamas-US Relationship is the singularly most important relationship for our country. So, our self-interest dictates that this relationship is tendered by seasoned, experienced individuals with a good understanding of the myriad issues that make-up our relationship. Regrettably, today, it appears that those now in charge of Bahamian diplomacy, particularly as regards our relationship with the United States, have not got a clue.

The Consequences of Cowboy Diplomacy

One important area of discussion between The Bahamas and the United States of America, and on a larger plain with the international human rights establishment, has been the treatment of undocumented persons detected, arrested and detained by Bahamian authorities.

The brisk, rude utterances by Fred Mitchell, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the recent allegations of abuse of Cuban nationals detained in The Bahamas suggests that he does not have or is ignoring the advice on the matter from professional diplomats.

This begs the question of who is advising the Minister. It seems that this Christie-led administration has removed or sidelined its professional diplomatic corps in favour of a cadre of political friends and associates to the detriment of the interests of our country.

For more than a year, we were alone in the Caribbean having no resident Ambassador in the US capital, Washington, DC. Today, 20th August, on the eve of Mr Christie’s 70th birthday and following months of agitation for comment on the matter from the Opposition, the Government sheepishly announced what has long been rumoured – that the Bahamian Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN), septuagenarian Dr Eugene Newry, is to switch positions with Elliston Rahming, becoming the Bahamian Ambassador E&P to Washington. The terse announcement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that Mr Rahming will continue to serve as Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington, DC, and assume the Permanent Representative Post at the UN in New York. This compromise is an expensive undertaking. If Mr Rahming is to properly fulfil his obligations before both the United Nations and the OAS, it will require weekly travel between the two cities and often enough require overnight stays.

The Bahamas also continues to be alone in the English-speaking Caribbean in having no American Ambassador resident in Nassau.

This state of affairs cannot be good for our relationship.

Recently, Obie Wilchcombe, the Minister of Tourism, and not the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fred Mitchell, met with US Government representatives in Florida to discuss the most recent allegations about the treatment of Cuban nationals in The Bahamas.

More recently still, we have had the most startlingly irresponsible verbal insults thrown at US Congressional Representatives by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr Mitchell has opined that US Congressional Representatives do not reflect the views or opinions of the US Administration. In his view, presumably what these individuals had to say on US-Bahamas relations is irrelevant. Mr Mitchell is American-educated; he either knows better or ought to know better. If he is not listening to the concerns of Senators Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio and US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, he should know that the US Administration – the same Obama-led Administration that refused to recognise Mr Elliston Rahming as Bahamas Ambassador to the US and who has not bothered to appoint a US Ambassador to The Bahamas – listens to the views and opinions of American Senators and Congressmen! And, Mrs Ros-Lehtinen is the Chairperson of the powerful US House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr Mitchell has similarly been rudely dismissive of overtures from the Government of Panama regarding the possible interests of that country to offer residence to certain Cuban nationals detained in New Providence. While the Panamanian offer may not be practical given agreements in place between The Bahamas and the Republic of Cuba, there is no reason for the boorish behaviour of the Minister in discussing a proposal commented upon by the Panamanian Honorary Consul in The Bahamas, Mr David McGrath. Mr McGrath is a long time resident of The Bahamas and the McGrath family has long been considered “true friends” of The Bahamas.

That said, The Bahamas has been challenged by the inflow of undocumented persons or illegal immigrants for more than half a century. While people of many nationalities have been arrested, detained and repatriated from The Bahamas over many decades, people from Haiti and Cuba have posed the most difficult to deal with.

Challenges Presented by Undocumented Economic Migrants

Until the first FNM Government came to office in 1992, illegal immigrants found in The Bahamas were detained at Her Majesty’s Prison at Fox Hill together with persons detained for numerous other offences, some violent. This ran contrary to all international agreements and treaties concerned with the treatment of refugees or undocumented persons. Notwithstanding that only a small number of persons entering The Bahamas illegally actually meet the standard of an internationally recognised “political refugee”, the first FNM Government of The Bahamas took early steps to remove immigration violators from the prison and relocated them to more humane accommodation at an Immigration Detention Centre it created at Carmichael Road.

The Detention Centre has had a difficult history not least of all because of the added financial burden its creation, staffing, maintenance and upkeep have created for The Bahamas.

Most Cuban nationals ending up in The Bahamas have come because their intended travel to the United States has been interrupted – by bad weather, shoddy sailing vessels, etc. During the early 1990s, most of those with relatives in the United States were quickly able to arrange a transfer to Florida which kept their numbers in The Bahamas down.

However, with the adoption of the “US wet foot, dry foot” policy during the Clinton Administration, Cuban nationals leaving their home island and being stranded in The Bahamas discovered that they were no longer welcomed in the United States.

The new US policy admitted that most Cubans seeking to depart their home country were economic and not political refugees. The US also agreed that it would accept such Cuban economic immigrants who were successful in landing on US territory; eg “dry foot”. Those immigrants detained at sea “wet foot” would be returned to Cuba. The US Government also agreed to cooperate with The Bahamas in intercepting “refugee-laden vessels” – whether from Haiti or Cuba – when detected in international waters or in Bahamian waters so that the immigrants could be expeditiously and safely returned to their countries of origin.

Reluctant to return to their home island, Cuban nationals successfully landing In The Bahamas and aware of the new US policy which would not permit their easy transfer to that country have sought refugee status in The Bahamas. Most among this group continue to harbour hopes of eventually relocating to the United States.

Enter the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

The small Bahamian economy cannot absorb large numbers of economic immigrants. Moreover, were we to agree to extend economic refugee status to Cuban migrants, we would be forced to adopt a similar position toward requests from large numbers of economic refugees from many other countries, notably Haiti and other near-neighbour Caribbean countries.

Faced with the dilemma, The Bahamas, during the 1990s, engaged the assistance of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees in dealing with the growing numbers of undocumented persons arriving in The Bahamas and seeking to remain here. With the assistance of the UNHCR, The Bahamas was able to develop a protocol for interviewing new arrivals, separating out political from economic migrants and arranging for the timely, humane repatriation of economic migrants to their country of origin.

The success of this programme of repatriation has been dependent on The Bahamas also reaching agreement with the Governments of the Republic of Haiti and the Republic of Cuba, to accept their undocumented nationals being repatriated from The Bahamas. It should be recognised that having entered into such agreements with Cuba and Haiti The Bahamas cannot arbitrarily renege on the terms of the agreements and approve select number of economic migrants who may arbitrarily be facilitated in relocating to a third country if and when such offers might materialise. This would not augur well for orderly relations between The Bahamas and the governments of Haiti or Cuba.

Arrests, detention and repatriation exercises of primarily Haitian and Cuban nationals have been continuous over the past 15 to 20 years. They have been costly for The Bahamas, a small developing country with limited financial resources. No foreign country and no international agency, that we are aware of, has ever made financial assistance available to The Bahamas Government to defray these costs. Further, no country has ever agreed to offer undocumented economic migrants arriving in The Bahamas safe passage and residence in their country.

The costs of detaining, housing and repatriating undocumented nationals have been aggravated by the sometimes violent protests against confinement by immigration detainees. Apart from damage to furniture and supplies, these protests have resulted in serious damage to portions of the Detention Centre, including destruction of a dormitory by fire.

Protesting Cuban Detainees

Protests at the Carmichael Road Detention Centre have been almost exclusively carried out by Cuban nationals, sometimes with the vociferous support and financial backing of some Cuban nationals’ resident in either The Bahamas or in the United States of America.

In the most recent staged protest against their confinement in The Bahamas, Cuban nationals have released a staged video in which it is alleged that Cuban detainees at the Carmichael Detention Centre are subject to abuse by their Bahamian minders. The video is universally believed to be a fake by Bahamians of all political persuasions. However, there is a growing unease among some Bahamians that notwithstanding the bogus video, some allegations of abuse made against some Bahamian Immigration or Defence Force Officers posted at the Carmichael Road Immigration Detention Centre may have elements of truth.

After vehemently denying the authenticity of the staged video, the Government maintained a period of silence on any allegation of abuse at the Detention Centre. As leaks of reports of Cuban nationals being treated at the Princess Margaret Hospital for wounds possibly sustained during a break-out from the Detention Centre, the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed that investigations of allegations of abuse or use of excessive force in the recapture of escapees from the Detention Centre were underway.

Bahamian human rights activists have long campaigned against allegations of abuse against police and prison officers. And reports of human rights abuse have long been attached to tactics employed by immigration officers conducting immigration raids at the residences or in neighbourhoods frequented by undocumented migrants. It is not too far-fetched then for some to believe that some Immigration Officers might, in their exercise of their duties, exceed acceptable and sanctioned “use of force” when dealing with escaping immigration detainees.

Minister Mitchell has said that it is not Bahamian Government policy to abuse detainees. Of course, he is correct on that score. But that does not mean that abuse does not happen. Allegations of abuse must be investigated, vigorously and expeditiously. It is not good enough to say that allegations are being looked into and then carry on with “business as usual”.

The Minister has also engaged in juvenile bully diplomacy suggesting that Bahamian nationals adopt a “my country right or wrong” attitude in the face of allegations of abuse from Cuban Americans and threaten a Bahamian boycott of South Florida businesses.

Mr Mitchell’s suggestion of a Bahamian boycott is so immature and childish as to provoke laughter. Mr Mitchell must have some new secret market for Bahamian tourism and a more convenient source for the importation of so many of the essentials to life in The Bahamas now obtained from and through South Florida.

Certainly, the Minister has forgotten that tourism is the mainstay of our economy; that 90 plus per cent of our tourists come from the United States and that fully half of those originate from or transit South Florida on their way to our shores! Mr Mitchell has clearly forgotten that the money which Bahamians spend in South Florida is money made from American investments and American visitors to our country.

This is not child’s play. It is now urgent for the Minister of Foreign Affairs who also holds responsibility for Immigration, to bring the investigation into the alleged abuse of Cuban nationals to a speedy conclusion.

The results of that investigation should be made public and if it is determined that any officers or group of officers inflicted unnecessary harm on escaping detainees, they should be disciplined up to and including having criminal charges laid where warranted.

Fire Mitchell

A casual attitude toward physical violence in law enforcement circles cannot be tolerated by a democratic government which maintains its respect for the human rights of all individuals living or resident in our country and which, as a member of the United Nations, has affirmed its commitment to respect and observe the international human rights conventions.

And, The Bahamas Government must do the necessary to restore Bahamian-US Relations to the warm and mutually advantageous footing. This can only bode well for the progress of both our peoples. That requires Prime Minister Christie placing responsibility for the conduct of the foreign affairs of our country in the hands of a new foreign minister, one capable of making appropriate recommendations for senior diplomatic and consular posts that would not cause embarrassment to the country, one not given to wasting scarce dollars pretending to open a Consulate General in Washington, DC, where a full Bahamas Embassy exists, one who will not needlessly rent extravagant accommodation for the high commissioner in London and one who will not undertake at public expense questionable travel around the globe unaccompanied by professional officers.

August 21, 2013

Tribune242 

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: Fred Mitchell, opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) spokesman on foreign affairs questions the 'ethical standards' of The Nassau Guardian newspaper over Wikileaks reports on Bahamian political affairs

MP questions 'ethical standards' of newspaper over Wikileaks reports

tribune242
Nassau, Bahamas


FRED Mitchell, opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, questioned the "ethical standards" of The Nassau Guardian in its reporting of confidential US embassy cables on Bahamian political affairs.

During his presentation in the House of Assembly yesterday, Mr Mitchell said a Guardian reporter failed to declare her personal interests with respect to one of the subjects of the Wikileaks investigation. Mr Mitchell featured prominently this week in a Wikileak disclosure.

"I always envied my colleague the Member for North Andros that former lady friend of his who shall remain nameless who works at the Guardian and wrote that whole section about me this morning. As the song writer says: 'That Gal look good!' said Mr Mitchell.

"My only point is that journalism, the kind that the Nassau Guardian, The Tribune and the Bahama Journal are to practice carries with it certain ethical standards and it is unethical to write a story about one subject of which you had a close personal relationship as if you are a disinterested party. It can be seen as malicious. But neither she nor her employers seem to get the point," said Mr Mitchell.

He said ethical standards were important because the public relies on the media to "tell the Bahamian story; to tell it accurately, and without fear or favour."

Mr Mitchell said it "may be necessary" for the Embassy to disassociate itself from the attributed statements in the Wikileaks cables, so "they are not taken as an official view of events."

"It strains credibility to me that US professional diplomats, a person so high as a deputy chief of mission who was actually sitting in the seat of the ambassador, would accept and adopt uncritically propaganda lines from the Free National Movement. That is simply not a professional report," he said.

There is both "fascination and revulsion" at the disclosures, said Mr Mitchell. Revulsion that public officials "would be so open and callous" with information they share with "American diplomats." Mr Mitchell said Bahamians questioning whether Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham would "so loosely and callously spill all his guts to junior US officials."

"I can tell you also in connection with the public service, that the police commissioner was reeling yesterday. Again, that someone who this country trusted for our national security, a former Commissioner of Police could be quoted as spilling his guts out to junior U.S. officials. Again I say allegedly. We have to hope it is allegedly because no self-respecting Commissioner of Police would do any such thing. Perhaps we will see if the former Commissioner Mr. Ferguson will sue because most certainly he could not have sold his country out like that," said Mr Mitchell.

Putting the disclosures in perspective, Mr Mitchell said the country should understand the role of "public diplomacy and private diplomacy" in international affairs, said Mr Mitchell.

"There are many private ruminations and events which we know about US diplomats and their private activities in this country. But how would that serve the Bahamian interests for me to expose that. And that is what I admire about American diplomacy and about that country as a nation, it always pursues its interests," he said.

Describing his interaction with embassy officials during his tenure in government, Mr Mitchel said of the Wikileaks disclosures, "They are saying that I stood up for my country. I put Bahamians first."

He described a message sent by one of his former colleagues: "When I read the two page story about 'What the Americans Really Thought' of you in the Guardian, my chest swelled with pride, for the intended exposé turned out to be a public testimony to your diplomacy, tact and wisdom and to the fact that (unlike others of your colleagues) you are not in the least bit intimidated or in awe of any 'superpower'.

"The worst that could be said of you was that you are a Bahamian and a Black nationalist, whom they often times found to be aloof, close-mouthed and uncommunicative. If only that could have been said of Samson."

June 01, 2011

tribune242