(We think that many will, guess who “AR” is. Although he has not signed his name, we have had too much experience with his writing over the years for him to hide behind “AR”. But now to the issue.
(We are fully aware that a Memorandum of Understanding has the same weight in international law as a treaty – as a matter of fact we indicated as much in one of our articles.
(Yes, we agree that if a Haitian, Chinese, Indian, Canadian or whatever nationality has legal status in the Bahamas, their wives and children should be allowed to live with them. We believe strongly in the family unit.
(The whole tone and background of the 10-year agreement with Cuba was to help the Bahamas out of a difficult situation. After the US entered into an accord with Cuba in 1994 to regulate the flow of Cubans into that country, the door was automatically closed to the easy movement of Cubans from the Bahamas to the US.
(The Bahamas found itself in the embarrassing position of having about 400 Cubans at the Detention Centre with no place to send them. The Bahamas had no choice but to broker an agreement with Cuba to get it to accept the return of its own citizens:who, on their way to the US, were stranded in the Bahamas. Up to this point, if a Cuban walked out on his country, there was no walking back. Mrs Janet Bostwick, then Foreign Affairs Minister in an FNM government, negotiated away this bar to re-entry. After the signing of the January 12, 1996 Memorandum, the Bahamas was “at liberty to repatriate them forthwith to Cuba either by private or commercial airline depending upon the number of such persons.”
(Although it is true that the Cuban government did not like the idea of selective repatriation – all or nothing was their theme – the Ingraham government sought the help of the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and made case by case decisions. That government did not follow a hard and fast ` rule. It was the decision of the ļ¾ Bahamas – not the Cuban government – as to who went back ‘ to Cuba or who was allowed to find asylum elsewhere.
(For example, in 1998 two baseball players and five friends defected from Cuba. They were headed for the US, but were picked up by the US Coast Guard off Anguilla Cay. The United States granted humanitarian visas to the two players – Cuban national team star Orlando “El Duque” Hernandez, and catcher Alberto Hernandez Perez – but rejected their five friends. The friends faced deportation back to Cuba unless asylum could be found for them in another country. The baseball players refused to leave their friends behind.
(“Baseball,” said “El Duque”, “is important, but friends are for life and they came here with me and they are going to leave with me.” To “El Duque” it was a matter of principle and morals, “that’s just who I am,” he said.
(Negotiations continued on their behalf. Costa Rica granted them indefinite visas to stay in Costa Rica until they could move on. The two baseball players and their friends were in high spirits as they flew out together to Costa Rica. Decisions were made quickly and in a matter of two weeks the matter was settled and the problem was gone. The decision was that of the Bahamas’ government – not Cuba – operating under the same Memorandum of Understanding that the Christie government now wants to blindly follow, regardless of the outcome.
(Pride, as Shakespeare wrote, “comes before a fall”, so does a foolish conception of sovereignty.
(This letter writer – “AR” – does not want to be seen to be bending to the will of the United States, because that would be seen as being pushed around by Big Brother. That’s fine. However, the same thing could be said about opting to go with Cuba. This will be seen as bending the knee to a communist overlord, and using the same Memorandum that the FNM government used in the best interest of the Bahamian people as an excuse to do so. Really the Bahamas is on a cleft stick. They will be damned if they do, or damned if they don’t. Either way someone will be said that we have been dictated to.
(If we were Mr. Christie we would prefer to be on the side of a country that stands for freedom, than to be sitting on the same fence as a ruthless dictator.
(And the letter writer needn’t fear. The Tribune’s motto in these hands – “being bound to swear to the dogmas of no master” – is very secure. But in applying it we do not permit ourselves to be foolishly led down blind alleys. We think things through, and do not follow everything that man writes on paper. We would prefer to be counted with the forces of freedom, than be found in the camp of tyranny – and we believe, so would the Bahamian people. We recommend this to Prime Minister Christie.
(And as for what the world thinks of the Bahamas – the free world is already noting the camps that this country is favouring. The late Dame Eugenia Charles, a brilliant lawyer, had a practical respect for soveriegnty. She often reminded us that sovereigny was not something that one could put in a pot to boil for supper. Her first concern was to feed her people, and if sovereignty got in the way of that she knew how to handle it. So do we. We follow no dictum blindly, we always relate its principles to the case before us. – Ed).
Response from The Editor of The Tribune to a letter by AR.
