Managing Bahamian Relations with the US

by Sir Arthur Foulkes

Last week John Rood published a brief overview of his first two years as United States Ambassador to The Bahamas, and the reaction was almost immediate.

One view is that in the first place Ambassador Rood should not speak directly to the Bahamian people about the particulars of relations between the two countries, at least not controversial aspects of those relations.

Presumably, Mr. Rood has said nothing publicly that he has not communicated to the Government of The Bahamas and so there is nothing wrong with that.

The Bahamas Ambassador to the United States also has the right to speak publicly in the US about the relationship, and both of them have the right to speak privately or publicly to individual citizens and groups in the two democratic countries to which they are accredited.

Both ambassadors are expected to use their best judgment with regard to the venue and timing of their public comments and the way those comments are couched.

Unlike his clumsy predecessor, Ambassador Rood is not afflicted with foot-in-mouth disease. He has conducted himself with distinction since he has been here and he has worked hard to cement the friendly relationship between the two countries.

But, like every other ambassador, he speaks for his government and promotes the policies and interests of the US.

Bahamians have a friendly attitude towards Americans and we are fully aware that our destiny is tied to theirs. But that does not mean, as some people seem to think, that we should accept as gospel whatever the US Government says and that we should do whatever it asks of us.

That would take us back to colonial status. There is a powerful minority in America – and a few Bahamians -- who would like that, but most Americans understand that people who have suffered under imperialism are unwilling to go back.

The Bahamas and the US should continue to do for each other what good friends do and should continue to behave towards each other the way good friends behave, especially since it is in their mutual interest.

Mr. Rood acknowledges that bilateral relations between The Bahamas and the US are good, second to none, he says. Except for one or two unfortunate lapses, that has always been the case going back to the days when we were still a colony of Great Britain.

One lapse in this otherwise constant friendship was in 1967 when the Americans insisted on dumping canisters of nerve gas in Bahamian waters. That was a callous and unfriendly act on the part of our neighbour.

The other was in the 1970s and 1980s when the old PLP Government allowed the Colombian cocaine criminals to establish bases in The Bahamas so they could get their poisonous product onto the American market. That was also and unfriendly thing to do, and for us suicidal as well.

Today every law-abiding Bahamian wants to know that the Government of The Bahamas is fully cooperating with the US in a common battle against all criminals – drug and gun runners, money launderers, environmental vandals, slavers and terrorists.

While our bilateral relations are good, says the ambassador, the same cannot be said about our collaboration at the international level, particularly at the United Nations where he sees a downward “trend in the commonality of our perceptions on important international issues”.

The Bahamas Government should inform the Bahamian people about how we vote at the UN as well as the rationale when that is called for. There may be extraordinary occasions when it may not be in our interest to say why we voted in a certain way, but they should be rare.

In the absence of such information and an analysis of our voting record vis-à-vis the United States, it is difficult to comment sensibly. But there are some general comments to be made in response to Mr. Rood’s observations.

Many of America’s allies and friends have long been unhappy with some of the things the US has been doing in the world. Today, many more of them are adamantly opposed to the foreign policy initiatives of the current administration.

This is not because they have suddenly started to hate Americans, it is not because they no longer share the noble aspirations of democracy and freedom espoused by America, and it is not because they do not wish America well.

It is simply because the initiatives are wrong, in some cases disastrously so. It is because they have difficulty reconciling what America says with what America does. It is because the double standards (of which most nations are sometimes guilty) seem to be so pronounced in the case of America today.

When the administration of US President George Bush was about to launch its misconceived adventure in Iraq, many of America’s allies and friends warned against it and refused to participate. Some, especially the French, were threatened and ridiculed.

But the French were right. They were right not to participate and they were right to tell their American friends not to invade Iraq. That is what friends do when they see friends going down the wrong path.

Now, after tens of thousands of Iraqis (some say as many as 100,000) and nearly 3,000 young Americans have lost their lives, and many thousands more have been maimed for life, and while the bloodletting continues, it is clear to all but the most stubborn ideologues that Shock and Awe was an obscenity, an unmitigated disaster.

Then there is Lebanon where America’s ally, Israel, was given the green light to do its own shock and awe, bombing cities and villages and destroying the infrastructure of a country that was just on the way to recovery after years of civil war and occupation. There were those who warned against that as well.

One of them was Patrick Buchanan, a syndicated conservative columnist and one-time US presidential hopeful. Mr. Buchanan says in a recent column that “we who questioned the wisdom and morality of what Israel was doing were denounced as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.”

Now, Mr. Buchanan declares, the losers in that adventure were Lebanon, Israel and America. And he worries about what he calls the War Party and the neocons who are advocating that the US now take down Iran.

“If the president is still listening to these people,” Mr. Buchanan says, “Lord help the Republic.”

So should not America’s friends tell America when they think it is going wrong? Or should they lie and pander and out of fear agree to look at wrong and call it right?

What should America’s friends at the UN do so as not to be accused of double standards? Should they abstain from voting to condemn any nation for human rights abuses? Or should they vote to condemn all who violate human rights, not just Sudan but Israel too?

Should they support America’s unfair unilateral isolation of Cuba? The American president refuses to talk with President Fidel Castro of Cuba because he is left-wing dictator, but he holds hands – literally – with a prince of Saudi Arabia, one of the most backward and repressive regimes in the world.

Ambassador Rood and the government he represents should appreciate that America presents its friends around the world with many dilemmas. They are trying to cope with it all while at the same time trying to maintain their integrity, honesty and self-respect. In the end that is the kind of friend America really needs.

Comments

[ed'resha stuart]

the bahamas is off the chain

[Beverly]

I visit the Bahamas (Paradise Island) every year. I find the Bahamians to be the nicest and friendliest people on the entire earth. I love all of them!!!!!!