by Larry Smith
Eleven years ago the human rights advocacy group, Amnesty International, visited the Carmichael Road immigrant detention centre and the Fox Hill prison on New Providence. The delegation included an expert in prison management, and they published a 70-page report online.
At that time, there were 212 detainees at Carmichael Road, including several children. More recent reports have put the number as high as 375, although there are only two serviceable dormitories with a capacity for 50 beds each. The detention centre was established in the mid-1990s as an alternative to imprisoning undocumented migrants at Fox Hill.
Remember, these are mostly ordinary folks seeking a better life. They are not terrorists or gangsters.
In its 2003 report, Amnesty called on the government to codify the United Nations refugee convention and other human rights standards into law, avoid arbitrary detention of asylum seekers, improve conditions for detainees, and be more accountable for alleged mistreatment.
Amnesty reported that detainees were often beaten by Defence Force guards, were denied access to adequate food, water and medical care, and prevented from filing asylum claims. In fact, their report called attention to the recent death of a Polish man at the detention centre after he was refused medical care.
And a 2012 US State Department report noted the death of a Trinidadian male detainee at the centre.
In successive reviews, Amnesty, the UN and the US have criticised ill-treatment and harsh conditions at the detention centre. They have also pointed out that the results of official investigations (we know of at least three in 2004, 2006 and 2009) are never made public, assuming they actually took place.
These longstanding complaints are essentially the same charges that have been levelled against the current government over the past six months by Cuban-American activists in Miami.
The story began in March, when protestors called for better treatment of a group of Cuban women who had been detained for overstaying their time in the Bahamas. Later, a group of Cuban men became the focus of the demonstrators.
In June the protests escalated after a video circulated in Miami purporting to show Cuban detainees being beaten by guards at the detection centre. It was obviously staged (or as some would say, re-enacted), but the well-known Cuban exile group, Democracy Movement, organised noisy demonstrations outside the Bahamas consulate in Miami while its leader, Ramon Sanchez, went on a public hunger strike.
Amid calls for a tourism boycott of the Bahamas, the protests drew predictable support from influential Cuban-American politicians, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a prospective presidential candidate; Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs a House foreign affairs subcommittee; Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart and Miami Mayor Tomás Regalado.
In response to this harassment by a rightwing fringe group that has a long history of such actions, Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell grew increasingly testy. Rather than sticking to diplomatic language and making constructive interventions when necessary, he began using the issue as a soapbox to show off his nationalist credentials.
In March he pointed out that the Cuban women did not qualify as refugees and gave a long lecture on the asylum process. He talked about consulting with his Cuban and American counterparts on the possible causes of an "incursion" of Cubans into Bahamian waters. We have had no word since then on the results of these consultations.
In June he labelled the beating video "an outrageous concoction" and stated unequivocally that “The Bahamas government does not beat those in its custody. All detainees are treated with respect and in accordance with all applicable conventions and with human dignity and courtesy."
In July he urged the country to "stiffen its spine" and "push back" in the face of unwarranted criticism. “Some things you just have to do for your country…We do not mistreat detainees...We happen to find ourselves geographically fixed between two countries who don’t get along."
By August Mitchell was thoroughly "fed up" with the protests. "It is reprehensible that The Bahamas is being attacked in this way, apparently with official sanction. It is simply outrageous." Dismissing the concerns of American interlocutors, he implied that Bahamians should boycott Florida and stand "unflinching" in the face of "evil and defamatory" criticism.
Although the US Embassy here has remained largely silent on this matter over the past six months, there have obviously been behind-the-scenes contacts. A senior State Department official (responsible for migration issues) was in Nassau recently, and a visit to the detention centre was on his itinerary.
Then, on August 17, Mitchell said specific allegations of abuse were under investigation. And it was later announced that this internal investigation into the treatment of detainees would be augmented by a formal inquiry headed by a judge and a clergyman. "We will review the report and act accordingly," Mitchell said.
Prime Minister Perry Christie was even more conciliatory: “Cuban Americans have been led to believe that we treated Cubans in the detention centre cruelly. I am hoping that we arrive very quickly at the final results of an investigation so they can see that we are a country of laws and justice. They will see when justice is done."
But we have heard all this before. A Miami television reporter was detained and beaten by a Defence Force guard at the detention centre in 2006 while covering a story about seven Cubans rescued from Elbow Cay. An investigation was promised but no results were ever published (despite many requests to both PLP and FNM administrations), and it is not known what, if any, action was taken.
So there are really two parts to this long-running story - the treatment of detainees and the processing of undocumented migrants. The Bahamas has full and sole control over the former, but limited and shared responsibility for the latter.
In the late 1990s the government signed an agreement with Cuba to provide for the repatriation of Cuban citizens deemed illegal entrants within 15 days of the government of Cuba having been notified of their apprehension. The notification had to take place within a 72-hour timeframe. A similar treaty exists between the Bahamas and Haiti.
However, the Bahamas is also obligated - under a 1951 United Nations convention - to determine whether migrants detained in Bahamian territory are political refugees who would qualify for asylum. This process can take an undefined length of time.
Traditionally, little consideration has been given to the political status of Haitian migrants in the Bahamas, and they are usually repatriated within days. But detainees from other countries are expected to finance their repatriation and often stay at the detention centre much longer than is desirable. The situation with Cuban migrants is also complicated by pressure from hardline exile groups in the United States.
Back in 2006 Mitchell (who was also foreign minister then) said the government was in the process of reforming the system that applied to Cuban migrants so that the parties involved in the determination of refugee status could complete their investigations within the 72-hour timeframe. It is not known what these reforms were or whether they were implemented.
Mitchell's comments in 2006 were sparked by a huge controversy over the 10-month detention of two Cuban dentists at Carmichael Road. The pair had US visas, but were denied permission to emigrate by the Cuban government. After leaving clandestinely by boat they were picked up by the US Coast Guard in Bahamian waters.
That case also involved months of escalating rhetoric, until the dentists were eventually sent to Jamaica, from where they made their way to the US.
Despite numerous behind-the-scenes attempts by American interlocutors to free the dentists, Mitchell simply stonewalled the matter. So the family went public and the case became a cause celebre in Florida. At the time, Tough Call had this to say about that: "No competent foreign minister would have allowed this situation inadvertantly to mushroom to such alarming proportions."
We seem to be repeating that history today.
Cuba and the United States have been engaged in a Cold War standoff ever since the 1959 revolution which brought Fidel Castro to power. This vendetta has been encouraged and maintained by hardline Cuban exiles who influence a powerful voting bloc in the electoral swing state of Florida. As Castro tightened his grip in the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled to the US, where they were accepted as political refugees.
In the 1990s this blanket policy was changed. Current American policy is to admit only those Cuban migrants who make it to US territory. Those intercepted at sea are either sent home or to a third country. The Bahamas, as Mitchell rightly said, is smack in the middle of two countries that don't get along.
It is also true that we are ill-equipped to deal with another influx of migrants from another poor country. Thousands of undocumented Haitians are detained and repatriated every year at considerable cost to the Bahamian taxpayer. And policymakers fear that the Haitians will be joined by thousands of Cubans seeking to eventually get into the United States.
According to the 2003 Amnesty report, ""It would seem that the Bahamian authorities wish to deter future illegal migration by maintaining miserable conditions at the (detention centre)...The delegation was repeatedly told by detainees, particularly those from Jamaica and Cuba, that their situation was so distressing that they wanted to go home."
The report added that arbitrary detention of undocumented migrants, including asylum-seekers, "is a violation of human rights and can inflict great physical and mental suffering on detainees. Long-term, prolonged detention, without recourse to any judicial procedures and with limited or no access to visitors, appears to be the norm."
Mitchell is now on his second tour of duty as foreign minister, so you would expect him to have a better grasp on these matters. Making belligerent statements, accusing critics of treason, issuing threats and hurling personal invective at all and sundry are classic defensive behaviours, but they are not the kind of psychologies that should be put on display by our chief diplomat.
One commentator recently described him as a "cowboy". And it is hard to believe he does not know what he is doing. If his actions are calculated (rather than merely incompetent) then he is deliberately damaging the country's reputation and interests for his own personal aggrandisement.
It is totally unnecessary to engage in this kind of aggressive behaviour, since most reasonable people who think about these issues appreciate the complications involved and are generally supportive of the Bahamian position.
The question of the mistreatment of detainees (of whatever nationality) is another matter entirely. In this case, all allegations should be handled transparently and efficiently. And the results of any investigations should be published and then acted upon publicly.
It is government in the darkness that creates problems. If you have nothing to hide, accountability resolves problems. It really is as simple as that.
These longstanding complaints are essentially the same charges that have been levelled against the current government over the past six months by Cuban-American activists in Miami.
The story began in March, when protestors called for better treatment of a group of Cuban women who had been detained for overstaying their time in the Bahamas. Later, a group of Cuban men became the focus of the demonstrators.
In June the protests escalated after a video circulated in Miami purporting to show Cuban detainees being beaten by guards at the detection centre. It was obviously staged (or as some would say, re-enacted), but the well-known Cuban exile group, Democracy Movement, organised noisy demonstrations outside the Bahamas consulate in Miami while its leader, Ramon Sanchez, went on a public hunger strike.
Amid calls for a tourism boycott of the Bahamas, the protests drew predictable support from influential Cuban-American politicians, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a prospective presidential candidate; Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs a House foreign affairs subcommittee; Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart and Miami Mayor Tomás Regalado.
In response to this harassment by a rightwing fringe group that has a long history of such actions, Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell grew increasingly testy. Rather than sticking to diplomatic language and making constructive interventions when necessary, he began using the issue as a soapbox to show off his nationalist credentials.
In March he pointed out that the Cuban women did not qualify as refugees and gave a long lecture on the asylum process. He talked about consulting with his Cuban and American counterparts on the possible causes of an "incursion" of Cubans into Bahamian waters. We have had no word since then on the results of these consultations.
In June he labelled the beating video "an outrageous concoction" and stated unequivocally that “The Bahamas government does not beat those in its custody. All detainees are treated with respect and in accordance with all applicable conventions and with human dignity and courtesy."
In July he urged the country to "stiffen its spine" and "push back" in the face of unwarranted criticism. “Some things you just have to do for your country…We do not mistreat detainees...We happen to find ourselves geographically fixed between two countries who don’t get along."
By August Mitchell was thoroughly "fed up" with the protests. "It is reprehensible that The Bahamas is being attacked in this way, apparently with official sanction. It is simply outrageous." Dismissing the concerns of American interlocutors, he implied that Bahamians should boycott Florida and stand "unflinching" in the face of "evil and defamatory" criticism.
Although the US Embassy here has remained largely silent on this matter over the past six months, there have obviously been behind-the-scenes contacts. A senior State Department official (responsible for migration issues) was in Nassau recently, and a visit to the detention centre was on his itinerary.
Then, on August 17, Mitchell said specific allegations of abuse were under investigation. And it was later announced that this internal investigation into the treatment of detainees would be augmented by a formal inquiry headed by a judge and a clergyman. "We will review the report and act accordingly," Mitchell said.
Prime Minister Perry Christie was even more conciliatory: “Cuban Americans have been led to believe that we treated Cubans in the detention centre cruelly. I am hoping that we arrive very quickly at the final results of an investigation so they can see that we are a country of laws and justice. They will see when justice is done."
But we have heard all this before. A Miami television reporter was detained and beaten by a Defence Force guard at the detention centre in 2006 while covering a story about seven Cubans rescued from Elbow Cay. An investigation was promised but no results were ever published (despite many requests to both PLP and FNM administrations), and it is not known what, if any, action was taken.
So there are really two parts to this long-running story - the treatment of detainees and the processing of undocumented migrants. The Bahamas has full and sole control over the former, but limited and shared responsibility for the latter.
In the late 1990s the government signed an agreement with Cuba to provide for the repatriation of Cuban citizens deemed illegal entrants within 15 days of the government of Cuba having been notified of their apprehension. The notification had to take place within a 72-hour timeframe. A similar treaty exists between the Bahamas and Haiti.
However, the Bahamas is also obligated - under a 1951 United Nations convention - to determine whether migrants detained in Bahamian territory are political refugees who would qualify for asylum. This process can take an undefined length of time.
Traditionally, little consideration has been given to the political status of Haitian migrants in the Bahamas, and they are usually repatriated within days. But detainees from other countries are expected to finance their repatriation and often stay at the detention centre much longer than is desirable. The situation with Cuban migrants is also complicated by pressure from hardline exile groups in the United States.
Back in 2006 Mitchell (who was also foreign minister then) said the government was in the process of reforming the system that applied to Cuban migrants so that the parties involved in the determination of refugee status could complete their investigations within the 72-hour timeframe. It is not known what these reforms were or whether they were implemented.
Mitchell's comments in 2006 were sparked by a huge controversy over the 10-month detention of two Cuban dentists at Carmichael Road. The pair had US visas, but were denied permission to emigrate by the Cuban government. After leaving clandestinely by boat they were picked up by the US Coast Guard in Bahamian waters.
That case also involved months of escalating rhetoric, until the dentists were eventually sent to Jamaica, from where they made their way to the US.
Despite numerous behind-the-scenes attempts by American interlocutors to free the dentists, Mitchell simply stonewalled the matter. So the family went public and the case became a cause celebre in Florida. At the time, Tough Call had this to say about that: "No competent foreign minister would have allowed this situation inadvertantly to mushroom to such alarming proportions."
We seem to be repeating that history today.
Cuba and the United States have been engaged in a Cold War standoff ever since the 1959 revolution which brought Fidel Castro to power. This vendetta has been encouraged and maintained by hardline Cuban exiles who influence a powerful voting bloc in the electoral swing state of Florida. As Castro tightened his grip in the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled to the US, where they were accepted as political refugees.
In the 1990s this blanket policy was changed. Current American policy is to admit only those Cuban migrants who make it to US territory. Those intercepted at sea are either sent home or to a third country. The Bahamas, as Mitchell rightly said, is smack in the middle of two countries that don't get along.
It is also true that we are ill-equipped to deal with another influx of migrants from another poor country. Thousands of undocumented Haitians are detained and repatriated every year at considerable cost to the Bahamian taxpayer. And policymakers fear that the Haitians will be joined by thousands of Cubans seeking to eventually get into the United States.
According to the 2003 Amnesty report, ""It would seem that the Bahamian authorities wish to deter future illegal migration by maintaining miserable conditions at the (detention centre)...The delegation was repeatedly told by detainees, particularly those from Jamaica and Cuba, that their situation was so distressing that they wanted to go home."
The report added that arbitrary detention of undocumented migrants, including asylum-seekers, "is a violation of human rights and can inflict great physical and mental suffering on detainees. Long-term, prolonged detention, without recourse to any judicial procedures and with limited or no access to visitors, appears to be the norm."
Mitchell is now on his second tour of duty as foreign minister, so you would expect him to have a better grasp on these matters. Making belligerent statements, accusing critics of treason, issuing threats and hurling personal invective at all and sundry are classic defensive behaviours, but they are not the kind of psychologies that should be put on display by our chief diplomat.
One commentator recently described him as a "cowboy". And it is hard to believe he does not know what he is doing. If his actions are calculated (rather than merely incompetent) then he is deliberately damaging the country's reputation and interests for his own personal aggrandisement.
It is totally unnecessary to engage in this kind of aggressive behaviour, since most reasonable people who think about these issues appreciate the complications involved and are generally supportive of the Bahamian position.
The question of the mistreatment of detainees (of whatever nationality) is another matter entirely. In this case, all allegations should be handled transparently and efficiently. And the results of any investigations should be published and then acted upon publicly.
It is government in the darkness that creates problems. If you have nothing to hide, accountability resolves problems. It really is as simple as that.
From a Cuban-Bahamian: The Bacardi family, at the beginning, used to put the Cubans in another place which was not guarded. Then they agreed with the government to remodel the now Detention Center, which was a school. They fixed the bathrooms and placed beds and furniture for the Cubans. The government eventually decided to place Haitians, Jamaicans and Chinese along with the Cubans who were illegally here, and that is when the changeover took place and the Bacardis decided to hand it over completely.
Posted by: larry smith | August 28, 2013 at 07:50 PM