Dear Sir

Re: Release of Cuban detainees

I write this letter in my capacity as a concerned citizen of The Bahamas who has some professional knowledge of international relations. And I trust you will appreciate that, for a variety of reasons, this is the most suitable means available for me to deliver it.

Anthony L. Hall is a descendant of the Turks & Caicos Islands, international lawyer and political consultant - headquartered in Washington DC - who publishes his own Internet Weblog at www.theipinionsjournal.com offering commentaries on current events from a Caribbean perspective

In my most recent weekly column, dated 14 March, I expressed incredulity that our government allowed its detention of two Cuban illegal migrants to develop into an international conflict (and political cause célèbre). I lamented that the (mis)handling of this incident caused our national interest to be caught, unnecessarily, in the crosshairs of the 50-year internecine feud between Cuba and its Cuban-American émigrés in the United States. But I also suggested diplomatic and public relations steps we could take to extricate ourselves from this untenable position.

As fate would have it, however, at the very time that column was being published, Bahamian authorities were reportedly rustling the Cuban detainees from their sleep to inform them that their 11-month nightmare had come to an end. Unfortunately, the circumstances under which they were released may have actually trapped The Bahamas in a diplomatic vice.

Here’s why:

You said - in your 15 March Communication to The House of Assembly - that when the U.S. Coast Guard interdicted these Cubans in Bahamian waters last April, “they were turned over to The Bahamas in accordance with the protocols governing relations with the United States on these matters.” Although I suspect you are aware that Miami-based Cuban Americans (and their political enablers) have complained for years that Coast Guard patrols routinely repatriate Cubans they interdict in Bahamian waters. More to the point, however, you admit that our government automatically assumed responsibility for these migrants, even though they “appeared to have the right to travel to the United States were in possession of visas for that country.”

I submit to you Sir that, given this admission, it was a critical mistake for Bahamian authorities to take custody of the Cubans, instead of insisting that the Coast Guard either take them to safe harbour in the United States or repatriate them to Cuba. After all, the Coast Guard has no authority to arbitrarily turn immigrants seeking lawful entry to the U.S. into illegal migrants seeking asylum in The Bahamas. Of course, you are quite right in asserting that once we took custody, “in law the United States had no standing in the matter.”

Ay, there’s the rub...

Because at this point, what to do with these Cubans was governed by a statutory immigration protocol between Cuba and The Bahamas. And this protocol requires The Bahamas to notify Cuba within 72 hours of its citizens entering our country illegally and for all such migrants to be repatriated within 15 days. Therefore, I hope you understand why the vast majority of our people are so nonplussed that it took our government 11 months to resolve this matter; especially since you concede that the terms of this protocol “admit no exception.”

More importantly, however, I trust you recognise that the “resolution” of this matter raises a number of troubling questions, inter alia:

If the protocol required the Cubans to be repatriated within 15 days, then why did it take our government 2 months (until “June 2005), instead of 2 weeks, to complete the procedures for screening these particular migrants for repatriation?

You assert that, as soon as Bahamian authorities notified Cuba (presumably within 72 hours) that they were preparing to repatriate the Cubans, U.S. officials requested - on behalf of their Miami-based family members - that they be “paroled out on humanitarian grounds to the United States” instead. But, despite the diplomatic challenge this request presented, why did it take our government 11 months to decide whether to abrogate its (protocol) obligations to Cuba or to honor this dubious request from by U.S.?

And, with all due respect Minister, this decision did not present the Damoclean dilemma you would have the Bahamian people think it did – as shall become manifest below...

Are you aware that the egregious political pressure Florida politicians imposed on The Bahamas renders specious, if not disingenuous, your claim that being “sensitive to the humanitarian concerns but acting in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement” led our government to finally release the detainees to the U.S.?

Because, Sir, this is circular reasoning that cannot be squared with the open and notorious facts of this case. After all, if our government harboured any such concerns, it would not have detained the Cubans for almost a year in a detention centre that these impudent politicians (and their FOX News propagandists) kept telling the world was a filthy cesspool - where not only the detainees but also reporters covering their plight were being mistreated. If our government harboured any such concerns, it would not have orchestrated their escape from The Bahamas by sending these Cubans on an onerous 6-hour odyssey to Miami via Jamaica in a craven attempt to assert plausible deniability. Indeed, if releasing the detainees to the U.S. instead of Cuba was the proper thing to do, why did we need our “big brother” Jamaicans to give us cover to do so?

Surely you must know that informed observers of this unfortunate conflict have good reason to believe that our government was simply Crumbled Small by idle threats from third-rate congressmen pandering to their Miami-based Cuban constituents. Therefore, can you appreciate how it insults the intelligence of some - and abuses the naiveté of most - Bahamians for you to insist otherwise?

In addition to other state representatives, you claim to have even consulted “private sector friends... in South Florida” to help resolve this matter. However, this was a very public sector matter involving conflicts of interest amongst three sovereign nations; not one concerning economic trade between The Bahamas and South Florida. Therefore, I am constrained to question the diplomatic initiatives you took in this regard:

Throughout this ordeal, did it occur to you that it would have been more appropriate and productive for you to be negotiating our national interests with U.S. Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice instead of these state representatives (especially since all of them, including Governor Jeb Bush, were clearly beholden to the relatively insignificant, though certifiably hysterical, cabal of Miami-based Cubans)?

Moreover, did it occur to you to advise our Prime Minister to seek clarification directly from the White House on whether Ambassador John Rood’s endorsement of the demands being issued and threats being hurled by these Florida politicians represent official U.S. policy and intent towards The Bahamas?

After all, I can assure you Sir, that if either the Secretary of State or the White House rebuffed any such overtures by you or our Prime Minister, there are politicians (Republicans and Democrats) in Washington, with real foreign relations power, who would welcome being briefed to make this rebuff (not the Cuban detainees) the real issue in this international conflict. Because, frankly, the prevailing perception in America is that we were bullied. And many seasoned politicians – who have no love lost for the Miami-based Cubans – would have welcomed the opportunity to knock their political enforcers, Jeb Bush & Co, back down to size.

But are we, in fact, so diplomatically isolated that you could not call on any politician of national stature in America who was willing to not only condemn the strong-arm tactics of these Floridians, but also assure the anxious people of our country that they had nothing to fear if our government honoured its protocol obligations by returning these migrants to Cuba?

After all, every politician is mindful that the return of Elian Gonzalez to Castro stands as a glaring example of the extraordinary lengths to which the U.S. will go to avoid abrogating its protocols with Cuba. And, clearly, if it were ever appropriate for a nation to allow humanitarian concerns to compel it to abrogate its agreements with Cuba, the U.S. would never have returned Elian to Cuba.

By your own admission, the “Government of Cuba has honoured all of its agreements with The Bahamas.” Therefore, is it not naïve for you to assert that “[t]he integrity of our country is intact”, after we have disrespected Cuba in a way that not even its arch enemy dared to?

Because asserting that does not make it so. Moreover, I doubt the Cubans have much regard for our national integrity today. And I suspect that, in moments of candor, many of our other Caribbean friends would take issue with your assertion – even if some of them did so with barely restrained schadenfreude.

Indeed, apropos integrity, do you think our government showed comity towards Cuba by having you declare that “one concern was what if an abrogation led to an exodus of people from Cuba... the possible pool of such migrants is said to number some half a million people, almost twice the population of the entire Bahamas”?

Do you appreciate that your suggestion that Castro might flood our country with illegal migrants out of spite is even more fatuous and irresponsible than Connie Mack suggesting that he could cripple our economy if our government did not do his bidding?

Forgive me, but I think these questions should suffice...

In closing, however, I feel obliged to disclose that I have a great deal of respect for your professional credentials. And I fully appreciate the circumscribed and deferential nature of your duties and responsibilities as our Foreign Minister. Therefore, I am loath for anyone to get the impression that this letter is intended to impugn your character in any way.

Nevertheless, I wish to express how profoundly disappointed I am that you deployed your formidable rhetorical skills to suggest that Bahamians who criticize our government’s handling of this case are unpatriotic, if not traitors. Indeed, Sir, it is utterly unacceptable for you to invoke the jingoistic maxim - “my country right or wrong” - to silence your critics. Because this reeks of craven demagoguery and offends our unassailable right not only to criticize our government but also demand answers (as I’ve done here) when we think it is wrong: A right, I’m constrained to note, which no Bahamian has exercised with more unencumbered relish than you did in criticizing our FNM government when you were a member of our loyal Opposition.

Respectfully,
Anthony L. Hall