The Bahamas Needs an Embassy in Cuba

by Andrew Allen

Nobody expects absolute sincerity from an opposition when it attacks government policy. It is one of the many flaws of this system of government that constant, often disingenuous attempts to interfere with a governing party’s orderly governance of the country are portrayed as a mark of ‘loyalty’, and a contributor to the strength of the country.

However, even within that dubious context it is hard to be forgiving of some of Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham’s comments last week on Bahamian / Cuban relations under the present administration.

The opposition leader took the opportunity afforded him by the government’s secretive UN vote to castigate it for seeking to develop a more comprehensive relationship with Cuba. Specifically, he threatened that, if elected, he would downgrade our recently opened embassy in Havana to a consular office.

This is irresponsible politics of the highest order, in that it potentially undermines the country’s diplomatic position in one of the most sensitive areas. While Mr. Ingraham (like any other politician) can be forgiven for engaging in disingenuous political talk when such talk has no victims, this statement, if it is sincere, gives Bahamians cause for serious concern.

Cuba is country to which thousands of Bahamians (rich and poor) flock in order to escape the inadequacies of a ‘free market’ health care system which, while it produces plenty of millionaire doctors, has not brought this country’s infant mortality rate anywhere close to Cuba’s 6 per 10,000 live births.

It is also a place where a large and increasing number of Bahamian students are currently enrolled in higher education - excellent education, on far better terms than is available either in the US or Europe.

Additionally, Cuba, like other Southern neighbours of ours, is a place of abundant opportunity for Bahamian businessmen. Many such opportunities are right now being exploited vigorously by Spaniards, Italians and many other friends of the United States, who are heavily invested in Cuba.

And some Bahamian businessmen, despite the small-mindedness of some of our political leaders, who see South Florida as the sole focus of our present and future, have already benefited quite well from the abundance of skills, supplies and raw materials in Cuba.

To insist that these myriad Bahamian interests deserve representation above the consular level, and that the practical demands of such mass interaction as already exists between the two countries make an embassy necessary would, in any normal place, be a most uncontroversial policy position. But this is not a normal country where regional geopolitics is concerned.

This, indeed, is a land besieged by pro-western cold warriors, who would hold it to a different standard from every other place on earth when it comes to matters of Cuba and US official policy. Incredibly, it seems that they have managed to frighten and bamboozle an assortment of local politicians into their service.

That far off Britain could have long had the fullest diplomatic relationship with Cuba is seen by them as uncontroversial, since, presumably, the old Mother Country can be trusted not to turn such a relationship into an instrument of betrayal against the old order. Besides, the thinking goes, Britain is a real country, not just an extension of Monroe County. As such, it deserves to make its own independent decisions on behalf of its people.

But we Bahamians, separated from Cuba by 15 miles of sea, at one with it in the fight against regional crime and increasing users of its educational and medical institutions, must close our diplomatic eyes and pretend that it does not exist unless and until instructed otherwise by the US government. We dare not exploit its economic opportunities, as all and sundry are free to exploit our own.

To disagree with the manner of government’s handling of the UN vote is one thing. So the opposition’s attacks on the lack of ‘transparency’ in UN votes (of which it was also guilty when in office) could be put down to a simple case of harmless political tomfoolery.

But to suggest publicly that this country’s obvious interests in having an embassy in Cuba should be subordinated to the demands of either US politicians or little island cold warriors is quite another thing. That is where tomfoolery begins to sound like Uncle Tommery.

IS CUBA A HUMAN RIGHTS MODEL?

Bahamians and others who are tempted to weigh in against Cuba on the question of its human rights history should be mindful of two fundamental truths.

The first, and most obvious, is that being lectured about human rights by the current US administration is like being lectured about hygiene by an E. Coli bacillus.

How can a government presently engaged in the years-long detention of unconvicted people in Cuba (of all places) have the gumption to throw stones at Cuba, or anyone, about human rights? Surely, before being dragged into the argument at the behest of defenders of US policy, we have an obligation to look at the originators of that policy before we commit ourselves.

And we do not have to look very far before we are forced to question the credibility of Cuba’s most committed critic.

Take, for instance, the case of Luis Posada Carriles, a man who in all likelihood blew up a passenger jet in peaceful, inoffensive Barbados in order to hurt Cuba’s government. For Mr. Carriles, if not for the 73 people killed by him, the US has lived up to its moniker “land of the free”. This notoriously bloody-handed terrorist and assassin now lives free in exile in the United States, a beneficiary of its outrageously one-sided take on ‘human rights’ issues where Cuba is involved.

If none of this adds up to a credible prosecution team, then that is in part because, when states involve themselves in holier-than-thou campaigns against their rivals or enemies, the real motivation is usually political rather than moral. In fairness to the US, the same can be said of those many states that use it as a convenient scapegoat for their own purposes, including, at times, Cuba.

And Cuba does indeed make a curious poster boy for human rights. So, of course does the US. But it does not help either local interests or international diplomacy to emphasise either of these facts when you are a small, happy country smack between the two of them. That is why the PLP’s quiet, neutral stance is so right and the FNM’s descent into Cuba-bashing is so wrong.

The second thing to remember in this Cuba vs. US fracas is that, whatever the rhetoric on either side, nobody knows for sure just how Cuba would treat its citizens if it were not subjected to an ongoing campaign of US intimidation, destabilization, attempted invasion and blockade. It has simply never had an opportunity to show its real character.

As the US (which interned Japanese-Americans during World War Two and which now systematically circumvents the Geneva Convention on account of September 11th) well knows, countries under threat of foreign attack or subversion usually respond by restricting their own citizens’ ordinary freedoms.

Given the US’ own record of responses to foreign threats, it is simply ludicrous to expect a poor country of ten million people to permit an ordinary democratic environment to flourish while it is under continued threat from a superpower which has continually demonstrated a readiness to use internal dissent and ‘opposition’ in order to overthrow its government.

So thanks to US policy, we cannot judge Cuba on Human rights. But if we judge it by its massive commitment to education, healthcare, anti-colonialism and such ethical issues as its opposition to apartheid (maybe the biggest human rights issue of the last century, and one in which the US was on the wrong side, solidly opposing sanctions against the racist thugs) then the attitude of Nelson Mandela toward the Cuba-US fracas becomes most understandable.

While he has long extended a hand of genuine friendship to the US and its allies, the sage of Robben Island knew well where to draw the line. When nudged by the Clinton administration to join the pack of sycophants denouncing Dr. Castro, the sage of Robben Island cordially invited his new-found American friend

Comments

[Rick Lowe]

Andrew:
I regret to say that this column is ridiculous. Comparing the treatment of criminals of war by the US to Castro's treatment of Cuban citizens and suggesting that Castro is justified is a farce.
You have let your anti-US sentiment override your ability to debate this issue reasonably.
This column is so misguided I almost feel sorry for you.
But maybe it's just your sense of humour getting the best of you?
See my blog at http://www.weblogbahamas.com about this.
Rick.

[andrew allen]

criminals of war?????????

according to whom are the detainees at guantanamo "criminals" of war? A court of law, or the US government?

the presumption of innocence appears to be something that can be dispensed with once GWB decides that "these are bad people".

In fact, Rick, the US has unilaterally created a whole new fictitious category in which to place those it kidnaps in pursuance of its "war on terror".

They are not prisoners of war, since this would require the geneva convention to be invoked, and they are not regular criminals, since this would require a national court to try them. It simply conjured it a new category called "enemy combatants" in order to usurp the role of a court in deciding which afghan or arab can be detained indefinitely.

I am saddened that you do not seem to view with due scepticism the cynical propaganda Uncle Sam now brings to its relationship with Cuba, a country it has harassed since it revolted against its colonial status.

As for the sincerity of my views in that column, I can only state that I have been moderate to a fault.

[Rick Lowe]

Okay Andrew, let's agree they are not war criminals and the US fabricated the term for the sake of this discussion.
Can you now explain why Castro should keep the Cuban people enslaved because America keeps their silly embargo in place?
It just does not wash in my view.
Sorry.

[bahamianworldcitizen]

Consulate v. Embassy
An Embassy operates with a political mandate. A Consulate operates primarily to assist Bahamians in another State.

The PLP's decision to open an Embassy was guided in the spirit of diplomatic reciprocity. And the Embassy has only opened 'in spirit' to date. No functioning office, no clear political mandate and no public education campaign on bilateral relations.

Whether we like it or not, the Bahamas is a long-time ally of the United States and is a country supposedly founded on democratic principals. As it stands the Bahamas has established Embassies in two un-democratic countries (Cuba and the People's Republic of China). Unless our bilateral relations are clearly defined and publicised, even China and Cuba may question Bahamian political motives.

With whom do we have the most bilateral aid initiatives? Who has voted for us at the UN? Who has criticised our human rights record? Which states have sought to have us blacklisted? Will we be able to encourage trade and investment with certain states? These are the kind of questions that should be asked before opening any political overseas mission.

Choosing to engage with Castro, or indeed Bush, doesn’t necessary mean that you condone the politics of their administrations. One last comment, a quote from your friend Andrew, the sage of Robben island: ‘A Man who takes away another man’s freedom is a prisoner of hatred.’ Politics aside, South Africa uses constructive engagement, based on economic and cultural ties, with several countries including Cuba, PR China and many South and South East Asian countries.