New information reaching the public suggests that the furor at the Bahamas Agricultural and Industrial Cooperation has been tamed. It is being reported that Trade and Industry minister, the Hon. Leslie O. Miller and BAIC executive chairman, Mr. Sydney Stubbs have signed on to a brokered truce.
While this is wonderful news for any number of Bahamians who were revolted by what was allegedly happening at the corporation, the public is still owed a more thorough explanation concerning the substance of the allegations made against Mr. Stubbs.
Minister Miller and Mr. Stubbs should not be allowed to get by and avoid answering the demands of an attentive public. This is seriously important not only for their reputations, but also for the integrity of our systems of law and governance.
Sadly, most of the matters relevant to BAIC and the Ministry of Trade and Industry were played out as if they were, at their foundation, matters of style and personality. While interpersonal chemistry plays its part in facilitating social intercourse, the fact remains that it is ultimately of minimal importance in the grand scheme of things.
So, even though we were aware of allegations concerning ‘bad blood’ between these two men, we made little of the matter. Things changed when allegations were raised concerning accusations of financial wrongdoing, with words being exchanged to the effect that public funds had been misappropriated and turned to private use.
The conclusion we reach is that the ‘truce’ between Minister Miller and Mr. Sidney Stubbs cannot be considered real until the charges made against Mr. Stubbs are either withdrawn or substantiated.
In a scenario where the changes are shown to be baseless, those people who have defamed Mr. Stubbs should be called upon to account for their behaviour. Contrariwise, if the charges are grounded, the so-called truce would be of no real value. At this juncture, then, Minister Miller has to do the right thing, one way or the other.
World And Public Opinion
Our colleague Max J. Castro takes note of what he describes as the entry of a new political actor onto the world stage…world public opinion. Mr. Castro argues that, “September 11 changed the world, and everyone on the planet knows it. Feb. 15 may have changed the world, too, and perhaps in a more enduring way. Many in the world took notice especially outside the United States.
“On that day, in London and New York, in Sidney and Madrid, in Berlin and Rome, millions of people took to the streets to protest a possible war in Iraq. The size of the protests, bigger than any in memory for many cities, is a reason that observers have used terms like “watershed” and “turning point” to describe the significance of the events. This is a good reason, but not the only – or major – one.
“February 15th witnessed the entry of a new political actor onto the world stage. A new superpower has emerged: world public opinion, read a recent headline in a newspaper here.
Indeed. Until February 15, “globalisation” meant multinational corporations, the Internet, media and instant communications. “Now, in part through the medium of the Internet, something like a global civil society has been born.
“Political leaders like President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair may minimize the importance of the protests. But in a world in which the legitimate nature of a political system rests on democratic rules, elected politicians cannot ignore the strongly expressed views of their constituents for very long. The distaste for a war in Iraq, expressed simultaneously in so many nations, has a synergistic, multiplier effect: Can so many people in so many different countries be wrong?
“Globalisation and the Internet, of course, are not the only reasons for massive worldwide opposition to an Iraq war. Nor is anti-Americanism. What is remarkable is the extent to which the opposition to a war with Iraq is not confined to the usual suspects: the left or critics of the United States, whether thoughtful or knee-jerk.
“On this issue, perhaps as never before, the United States is almost as isolated from many of its friends as from its enemies.
“Two-thirds of people who support the party led by the president of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar – who with Blair is the most enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration Iraq policy – oppose the war. Mario Vargas Llosa, a leading Latin American novelist, former political candidate and fierce critic of anti-Americanism, spoke of his opposition to an Iraq war in an interview published in the conservative daily ABC.
“When the arguments made by Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice have not convinced someone as sympathetic to the United States as Vargas Llosa, then the United States has lost the battle for world public opinion and will have to live with the consequences if it invades Iraq.
“There are many manifestations of the Vargas Llosa syndrome in Europe and the rest of the world.
“One of the most poignant is an article by the Italian novelist and intellectual Umberto Eco. In it, Eco tells of his joy, as a 13-year-old, when American soldiers liberated his town, then concludes: “You can love the United State, as tradition, people, culture, and with the respect for one who has earned by effort the title of most powerful country in the world; you can be stricken most deeply by what it suffered more than a year ago; without for that reason refraining from warning its government that it is taking the wrong decision…Otherwise, what we would be violating would be the right to disagree.
And that would be precisely the opposite of what…the liberation of 1945 taught us.””
What is interesting about the thesis being put by Mr. Castro is that it locates and grounds a debate which is taking place around the world. It is one which involves Bahamians as they reflect upon and respond to the words, actions and threats coming from U.S. Ambassador to the Bahamas, His Excellency J. Richard Blankenship.
Editorial, The Bahama Journal
