How the Bahamas government came to be quite so cosy with Cuba's communist rulers is a matter now exercising the minds of many discerning voters. They wonder why it happened and what it means.
Such close ties with Havana were not part of the PLP's pre-election manifesto. And no mandate was given by the Bahamian people for such a snug alignment with the ideology of Fidel Castro.
Yet, in recent months, the government has been involved in several incidents which have indicated a distinct leftward lurch. And it's causing lots of people to feel uneasy.
First, there was its failure to act when a Defence Force officer heat up an exiled Cuban-American journalist outside Carmichael Road Detention Centre.
This incident was caught on videotape and, from a legal standpoint, appeared to be beyond dispute. Yet it would seem that Perry Christie's government failed to take action against the officer, who gashed the newsman's face with a baton. So far there has been no explanation as to why.
While Castro's enforcers would no doubt applaud such an approach, and the official silence that followed, Bahamians living in a modern democracy have a right to expect explanations. To this day, none has been forthcoming.
Next came the government's vote in favour of Cuba's membership of the UN Human Rights Council. Not only was this decision inexplicable (unless the government truly thinks Castro has something positive to offer in the field of human rights) it was also reached in secrecy. Only under pressure from The Tribune did the PLP admit how it voted.
Over the last few weeks, the Bahiamas has also opened an embassy in Havana, a move which can be explained to some extent by growing numbers of Bahamians flying to Cuba for medical treatment, higher education and recreation. But it also signals much closer diplomatic ties with Cuba than has ever been contemplated in the past.
Add to all this the government's indecision in keeping two Cuban dentists incarcerated at Carmichael Road Detention Centre for nearly a year for fear of upsetting the fading Fidel and a disturbing pattern begins to emerge.
There is now real disquiet that the Bahamas is being manoeuvered into Latin America's left-wing, anti-US axis with no reference to the people and no apparent consideration for the possible consequences.
Maintaining friendly ties with near neighbours, whatever their ideological bent, is not in itself a bad thing. In fact, harmony of any kind is to be applauded in the turbulent modern world. But when a democratic government begins to take on some of the less savoury characteristics of Castro's failed revolution, at the expense of the local populace, true democrats among the citizenry have a right to feel uncomfortable.
The free speech debate still raging in the Bahamas press and on various websites is vitally significant, especially when judged in the context of the Cuban detente. So is the government's marked reluctance to comment on any matter which causes them unease, a tactic to be expected from totalitarian regimes but not an old-established parliamentary democracy.
Fidel Castro disapproves of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of movement and freedom of association. He takes the view that his people have no right to know anything except carefully processed propaganda from the government's "thought control" authorities.
In fact, he is so determined to keep his people in the dark that, even as he lies frail and weak on what could be his deathbed, his regime has imposed an automatic three-year prison term on anyone watching American TV or listening to US radio for fear they should pick up counter-revolutionary ideas.
For nearly 50 years Castro has been a monolithic presence under which the Cuban people have been obliged to live in a depressing atmosphere of dereliction and deprivation. He is an intimidating force, a man whose uncompromising rule has blighted the lives of two generations of his countrymen, in spite of the undoubted strides he has made in the fields of medicine and education.
What, then, can a thriving modern democracy like the Bahamas have to gain from associating so closely with a country in which liberty is an alien concept? It's a question intelligent Bahamians are asking in growing numbers; especially in light of the US's open disquiet over the "downward trend" in US-Bahamian relations.
Recent verbal assaults on the Bahamas press, the victimisation and free speech problem in Nassau and the government's marked reluctance to admit it voted for Cuba at the UN are moves to warm the cockles of Fidel's heart. All, in their different ways, are moves aimed at quelling dissent and are therefore extremely unhealthy developments in what is supposed to be a free society. But for the Cuban dictator, such tactics are merely business as usual.
When US ambassador John Rood spoke last week of the US and Bahamas moving towards "a trend of disagreement" on the diplomatic front, there is little doubt that Cuba headed the list of issues he had in mind.
"It simply should not be," he said, "that such good friends, who share so many of the same values, cannot find common ground in addressing human rights violations, seeking peace in the Middle East, and promoting global prosperity."
He cited the vote for Cuba issue among "examples of increasingly divergent views on diplomatic matters" and said friendship between the two countries was not always reflected in "common approaches to major international challenges." Mr Rood's discomfort was echoed in a blog by Bahamian Dr Sidney Sweeting, who said: "When we have a government that is afraid of criticism and they are getting cosy with dictators like Chavez and Castro, we should all be making our voices heard.
"Too many Bahamians take the attitude that unless government passes a law prohibiting freedom of speech then we can presume that all is well. No, a country does not become autocratic overnight, their moves are subtle at first, then not so subtle, until they can finally become so bold that we become the typical "frightened society", afraid to speak because big brother might be listening."
Dr Sweeting added: "Today it is The Tribune and Mr Marquis. If there is no-one objecting, then tomorrow it will be someone else. If there is still no-one objecting, it will continue, Finally, it will be you and there will be no-one left to cry out for you."
In fact, the anti-press onslaught by certain PLP factions has now descended to Stalin-style character assassination through a website which – though not officially sanctioned by the government party – is apparently connived at as a propaganda tool.
No fewer than three press commentators have been savagely libelled in recent weeks – their professional and personal reputations shredded in an attempt to undermine their credibility. Again, Uncle Joe and fiery Fidel would relish such tactics. They are very much the communist way of doing things. If you don't like the messenger; shoot him or destroy his name.
How, though, did the Bahamas descend to this level? Why has the country taken such a leftward lurch and who was the guiding force?
The answers to those questions, according to political observers, point to a major flawline in the Christie administration – a lack of control at the top, and the unusually freeranging role of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
According to diplomatic sources, the leftward drift towards Cuba is not a carefully formulated government policy. No-one, so far as is known, has consciously discussed in Cabinet the advisability of the Bahamas moving into the ideological orbit of Castro, Chavez and the Bolivian president Evo Morales. It has simply evolved from the personal inclinations of Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell; who has been allowed to get on with the job, seemingly with little or no accountability.
Though Mr Mitchell is seen primarily as a political opportunist with no recognisable ideological stance – "Fred Mitcheli's ideology is Fred Mitchell," said one source – he is viewed by colleagues as solidly pro-Caribbean, mainly, they claim, because of his anti-US and anti-colonial instincts.
Fact
In fact, it is Mr Mitchell's focus on the islands to the south, and especially his relations with Cuba, which have been a factor in the drift away from the United States, the sources say. Ever since the PLP government came to power, Bahamas-US relations have been less than harmonious and, during the ambassadorship of Richard Blankenship, actually became quite fraught.
Mr Blankenship, you will recall, was the envoy The Trihune dubbed "The Bush Man of the Bahamas", a reference prompted in part by his strong Republican leanings, but also by his pretty basic diplomatic style.
Mr Blankenship was, in truth, a straight-shooter trying to function in a society where straight-shooting is not necessarily seen as a virtue. He was brash, candid and sometimes a touch caustic. No surprise, then, that he didn't last long.
It's fair to say, though, that he – like his successor, Mr Rood – will not be looking favourably on recent trends, as the Bahamas and Cuba bed down together in what is beginning to look more and more like a leftist menage with Venezuela and Bolivia making up the foursome.
INSIGHT was told by diplomatic sources that Mr Mitchell has almost single-handedly driven the pro-Castro agenda. This, they say, has been intended primarily to emphasise this country's sovereignty and independence from outside forces. "Mr Mitchell is instinctively anti-colonial, and he sees the Bahamas' dependence on the US as just another version of colonialism," said one source. "This is his way of thumbing his nose at the big boys."
If the Bahamas possessed its own army, navy and air force, this might be a realistic if inadvisable tack. As a country entirely dependent on the United States economically, militarily and strategically, such a posture is ludicrous.
However, these developments become much clearer when considered alongside the minister's possible long-term personal objectives. In the past, Mr Mitchell has seen himself as a future prime minister of the Bahamas. However, his standing has been so badly eroded in recent times that such an ambition now seems hopelessly unrealistic. A highranking diplomatic position might become more appealing as this realisation sinks in. But even here he has to face up to his limitations.
"Let's face it," an international source told INSIGHT, "Fred is never going to be president of the UN General Council. He might one day be president of CARICOM, but he may as well reconcile himself to the fact that some day he is going to be practising law again."
That grim spectre – of actually having to go back to trawling the courts as a small town attorney — is said by associates to be the main motivator as Mr Mitchell strives for a place in the upper diplomatic echelons should his political career nosedive, as is widely expected.
Meanwhile, he is viewed by many as having been a less than constructive presence on the international scene. In trying to pump up the Bahamas' importance beyond its pressure load, he has exposed his own, and the country's, shortcomings in the diplomatic hierarchy.
"Not only has he been pretty useless as foreign minister, in my opinion he has been very damaging," said the source. "He's like a guy who plays the last ten games of the season in the big league. He might be a hotshot among the lower leagues, but against the big boys he is nowhere. That is the best kind of analogy I can give."
So when John Rood talks about the deteriorating state of the "commonality" between the US and the Bahamas, he is probably talking about one man's leftward lurch, which is more likely to have been propelled by personal ambition than any consideration of the national good. It's a point the Bahamian public needs to take very seriously as they contemplate their nation's future.
As INSIGHT pointed out some months ago, the Castro regime is now "in its dotage", a view reinforced by recent news of Fidel's intestinal problems and his slide into frailty. Regimes founded on the personas of maximum leaders rarely last long after their demise. Oliver Cromwell's son Richard survived less than a year as England's Lord Protector after his father's death in 1658, mainly because he lacked his charisma and inner strength. Similarly, Raul Castro cannot be expected to exercise for long the same level of control enjoyed by his brother.
Whether the Cuban revolution will disintegrate quickly after Fidel passes on is uncertain, but there seems little doubt that it will fade with time as his people exercise their demands for greater freedom and the undoubted appeal of an open society asserts itself.
As Dr Sweeting said in his blog, a society cannot advance if it abuses freedom of speech or advocates baseless attacks against individuals. At this pivotal time in Bahamian and Cuban history, he added: "We need to all be able to say that we took a stand and spoke out for freedom and democracy so that when the day of testing comes we can hold our heads high or be satisfied with our dismal failures of non-commitment."
In post-Castro Cuba, there is likely to be a significant force striking out for freedom when the communist tyranny is final ly dissolved. After half a century of talking behind hands, watching out for neighbourhood spies, and being thrown into prison on the most spurious of pretexts, they will welcome the fresh winds of liberty.
Instead of aligning itself with Castro-style repression, the Bahamas should therefore be readying itself to set the pace for a new kind of Cuba, one free of communist constraints and prepared to take its place ļ¾ among democratic nations of the western world.
In light of that, the Bahamas' current position is even more difficult to explain. Communism as an ideology died when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet empire crumbled. It was declared unworkable.
Apart from China, where it is quickly being re-drafted to accommodate that country's burgeoning wealth and dramatic moves towards capitalism, there are few outposts where Marxist thinking has any kind of foothold. Extreme leftwing ideology is now largely irrelevant, with Castro its most significant surviving proponent. When he goes, the Cuban revolution will almost certainly lose whatever fizz it has left, and international communism will have lost its last, true champion.
For the Bahamas to risk its close ties with the US in exchange for alignment with a communist regime now seemingly in its final spasms is poor foreign policy. It makes no sense and could ultimately cost the country dear.
Dr Dexter Johnson, leader of the Bahamian National Party, made this point last week when he blamed successive PLP governments for loosening US ties with their socialist philosophy. Several recent votes against the US are "further proof of this deeply anti-US stance," he said.
Dr Johnson said Bahamians had allowed themselves to be pushed into a position which is considered "confrontational" by the US and its allies. He referred to it as "a major foreign policy blunder."
There's no doubt that he's right, and his point will strike home with even greater force if and when Cuba becomes an open, democratic society with a booming tourism industry of its own founded on the extremely lucrative North American market.
For then, the Bahamas could find itself at odds with the new Cuba, for having offered sustenance to a dying tyrant and a repressive regime; AND the United States, for turning its back when support was needed on some of the most pressing issues of the day.
Foreign policy is not, a subject to be taken lightly. Its long-term implications can be critical to this country's future.
Perhaps Prime Minister Perry Christie should step in now, take over the foreign portfolio and make it into a more accurate reflection of what the Bahamas really stands for.
By: John Marquis, The Tribune
