In case flag-waving, patriotic to the gill Bahamians take it upon themselves to train their “Tar and feathers” canons at United States Ambassador J. Richard Blankenship, concerning his latest statements, he, she or they should be urged to think again.
While our Minister of Foreign Affairs had no alternative but to re-group (adjourned important bi-lateral meetings for the present) it is a sure bet that Minister Mitchell understands that the United States Ambassador’s statements were a clear warning across the bow of H.M.B.S. The New Progressive Liberal Party Administration.
It must be understood that The Bahamas is poised to enter the big league of regional and hemispheric affairs; therefore. Important nations of this region and hemisphere will seek to engage it (Bahamas) in a host of meaningful and co-operative endeavours.
This means also, that institutions that serve to initiate and execute Bahamas Government policies must become efficient, reliable, professional, and as far as is, possible, above reproach.
Not only must the above be presumed but also manifested.
If one knows anything about American Government Agencies, then one should be cognizant of the fact that they are thorough and maintain information banks with dossiers relative to any person of influence in areas where it (United States) has important or strategic interests. Of course, this is not if recent origins; since the efforts of Bahamians for Majority Rule, the United States were concerned with developments in The Bahamas. The old mercantile government tried to get the United States to believe that the fervour for Majority Rule was communist inspired, in the hope that the United States cold war strategy would snuff it out.
The United States did not buy that scenario, and its own assessment was that it and the subsequent independence movement were nothing more sinister than a peoples’ nationalism, which posed no political threat to its political interest.
And, when former Premier then Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling stated that his Progressive Liberal Party Government would follow the course of a “Conservative Government with a social conscience,” it followed; to the United States, that it (Bahamas) posed no economic-doctrine threat either.
However, it (United States) kept relevant information on persons and events of national influence, and continued to expand collection and storage of data.
Recently, because of some of Prime Minister Christie’s personnel appointments, which be has the power and authority to do and must live with their national and international consequences; but the larger question is, could The Bahamas? The United States Government’s concerns are probably based on information gathered by its agencies and lodged in their files.
Simply put, should the United States Government perceives that persons it regards as risky at best, because of its own data-base, can influence the Progressive Liberal Party or its New Progressive Liberal Party’s Administration and frustrate United States’ specific interest programmes, then that would explain the Ambassador’s warning-shot across the New Progressive Liberal Party Prime Minister Christie-led Administration’ bow.
It would have clearly said: ‘-We (the United States) will not allow a return to the days of the old Progressive Liberal Party of shucking and jiving on matters that concern us greatly— some departures from the old ways and personnel are suggested.
To some it would seem that there is too much iron in the words of Ambassador Blankenship, and that the United States is pushing us (The Bahamas) with a degree of force to become more circumspect and proficient over a host of initiatives of mutual concerns.
If this is indeed the case, then that is the price we pay for being, though small also very inefficient and hence vulnerable territory. Now, where does the Bahamian Public/Electorate assign culpability?
Yours, etc.,
Harry W. Hall
