The Tribune is of the editorial opinion yesterday and today (February 28/March l, 2006) that the Bahamas should ignore its 10-year-old agreement to return to Cuba illegal immigrants who find their way into the Bahamas. In this case, the illegal are two Cuban dentists who have been in detention here for many months since they were turned over to Bahamian authorities by the US Coast Guard.
Contrary to this agreement; a memorandum of understanding signed in 1996, The Tribune thinks the dentists should be allowed to travel on to the United States because of extenuating circumstances. The main circumstance is that both refugees have close family living in the US, spouses and children, and reuniting families should override any other consideration.
In this, the editorial is disingenuous. The families can be reunited at once in Cuba, if reunification were the only issue. It is not. The issue is that the families want to be reunited in The United States.
The editorial goes on to recount the story of what the Cuban Government promised the two dentists and how they have been ill done by time and again. All of those statements may be true, but it is inconceivable that the Bahamian Government should set itself up to rule on the truth or falsity of such statements, which are none of its business, and then make a determination to release the illegals to the United States. In the final analysis, this is a legal issue and it should be adjudicated by a court of proper standing, perhaps by the International Court of Justice that sits in The Hague, or by another court mutually agreed upon.
The newspaper could argue that families should be allowed to be reunited wherever they wish, a laudable but inconsistent stand. Would The Tribune extend the same courtesy to all Haitiansﾄ Chinese, Mexican, Indian, Canadian, etc. who seek residency in The Bahamas because they have family living here? Reunite these to their relatives in our midst and the population trebles overnight.
The newspaper also argues that the agreement in question is merely a memo of understanding, not a formal treaty. In fact, a memo of understanding between sovereign nations has the same weight in international law as a treaty.
In fact, the course of action recommended by The Tribune is based soley on the notion, undoubtedly true, that the Bahamas has more to gain by being friendly with the United States than it does by being friendly with Cuba. But in that case would The Tribune please explain what in the world its magnificent motto, "Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri," really means? It certainly no longer means "being bound to swear to the dogmas of no master." The editorial "we" at The Tribune always puts difficult international issues involving the United States to a costbenefit analysis, with the result that it always recommends doing what our great friend prefers us to do, right or wrong.
By going back on commitments to the least of our friends, in order to appease the wishes of our greatest friends; The Tribune would have the Bahamas declare before the world that we will abide by solemn international undertakings only when it suits our purpose, only when we can derive a benefit. Otherwise, we will renege. If the Bahamian Government heeds The Tribune's ill-considered suggestions, China and India, among other emerging powers on the world stage, will take careful note of our sychopantic foreign policy actions.
View the Tribune Editor's response to this letter
By: AR – Nassau, Bahamas
