|
INTERVENTION
BY THE HON. FRED MITCHELL MP
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Wednesday 17th May 2006
ON THE VOTE FOR
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on
the table of this House the advice which was offered to the Government
with regard to the vote for the Human Rights Council of the United
Nations on Tuesday 9th May 2006. The government saw no
reason to interfere with the advice offered and the votes cast on
Tuesday 9th May were consistent with the advice given and
consistent with historic patterns of voting by all previous
administrations.
The ballot was a secret ballot.
Contrary to what has been said from a political platform by the Leader
of the side opposite there was no prohibition or prescription from
releasing the information with regard to the vote. We have not announced
them in the past and until the side opposite sought to make this a
political football the issue did not arise. The concern of the side
opposite appears to be the vote for one country, and there seems a
refusal of the side opposite to deal with the Bahamian people with the
level of respect for their intelligence that they deserve.
I am concerned about the tenor
and tone of the remarks coming from the side opposite about a country
that sits on our western border, and who the last time I checked was
considered at peace with us and a friend to our country. The exact
words quoted from the Leader of the Opposition were “If we were in
office, Cuba would not have the nerve or the gumption to ask us to vote
for them to be on a Human Rights Commission. That’s an unthinkable
event”.
The language is contrary to the
spirit of comity between the two countries. Each year some 20,000
Bahamian visits take place in that country. The level of tourism, trade
in healthcare and general business is increasing. Yet the side opposite
continues to put its head in the sand, still not accepting that this is
beautiful Bahamaland not some other land. I would remind their leader
of the words: deep our emotion, profound our devotion and strong our
love for you Bahamaland. The position of the Government as it relates
to Cuba is no different from that of our citizens who, as the Leader of
Opposition has pointed out, are free to travel where they wish. The
Government must protect their interests. As we speak, hundreds of
Bahamians are in Cuba
today, many of them his supporters. Each month many of his supporters
seek the intervention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to facilitate
the passage of their Cuban friends into The Bahamas.
This country seeks to act in its
own best interests as it judges those interests on the best available
advice to the Government.
Normally, foreign affairs
matters are the united face of the country to the world but this is one
of several, too numerous occasions where the side opposite has broken
this convention and given the impression that we are not united as a
country to the outside world. Perhaps the fact that general elections
are coming may be the driving force behind the comments hoping that this
will promote their political fortunes. It is not for us to advise them
politically. We only seek today to give the unvarnished facts. The
Bahamian people can judge for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of
being united at the border because before accepting the advice of our
officials, we wanted to be sure that The Bahamas position at the U.N. on
the 9th May was not inconsistent with previous positions with
regard to Cuba that had been taken by The Bahamas.
We have extensively reviewed all
the records. I now lay on the table a copy of the record of the votes
taken by The Bahamas on the embargo imposed by the United States against
Cuba. The record actually predates the administration of the now Leader
of the Opposition but since he has sought to separate himself from us on
the issue, we go only as far back as 1992. You will note Mr. Speaker
that on each occasion save twice in 1992 The Bahamas voted with the vast
majority of members of the General Assembly against the embargo imposed
by the United States. Even in 1992, the previous administration did not
vote with the United
States but abstained. If
the Cuban government and people were so odious then why did he not
change The Bahamas position when it was his time?
Further, Mr. Speaker the record
will show that it was under the administration of the now Leader of the
Opposition that the decision was taken in 2001 to allow for the
Government of Cuba to establish a consulate general’s office here in
Nassau. Again, we ask if the Cuban government and people were so odious
why did he not refuse to allow the Cubans to open their office here?
It is interesting to note that
at a public forum last week, Sir Arthur Foulkes, former Ambassador to
Cuba during the former administration, openly expressed his support for
this Government’s decision to open an Embassy in Cuba and even looks
forward to Cuba’s involvement in the region.
Further Mr. Speaker, there were
country specific resolutions to condemn Cuba for its human rights
conduct on seven occasions during the time the now Leader of the
Opposition was Prime Minister. On every one of those votes, The Bahamas
Embassy at the United Nations was instructed to vote not to condemn Cuba
but to abstain. Again, it is the same Cuban government that governed
Cuba when he was in office, so we ask the question, if the Cuban
government and people were so odious why did he not instruct his
Ambassador to vote to condemn Cuba?
He did not do so presumably
because it was not in the national interest of The Bahamas to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the record will
also show that in 1996 and in 1998, under the Prime Ministership of the
Leader of the Opposition the following statement was submitted to the
Secretary General of the United Nations: “The Commonwealth of The
Bahamas enjoys normal diplomatic and trade relations with the
Republic
of Cuba. The Bahamas has not promulgated or applied laws or measures
against Cuba
that would prohibit economic, commercial or financial relations between
The Bahamas and the Republic of Cuba”.
I have also checked the records
of when The Bahamas was a member of the United Nations Economic and
Social Council called ECOSOC. This was from the period 1993 to 1995.
During that time Cuba was a member of the old Human Rights Commission
which was replaced by the present Human Rights Council. The record
clearly shows that the instructions given to the U.N. delegation by the
side opposite in 1994 were to support Cuba’s membership of the
Commission on Human Rights. Again, I ask if Cuba and the Cuban people
were so odious, why did he not instruct his delegation to vote against
Cuba?
The Prime Minister of The
Bahamas met the President of the United States George Bush in August
2004. The Prime Minister of The Bahamas met with the Secretary of State
of the United States here in Nassau in March 2006. On both occasions,
he went to some lengths to indicate with great frankness that we were
friends of both the United States and of Cuba. That at the table we
could speak frankly to both and it was in our view in the interest of
both that we were at the table with both and in the interest of both
that we could speak frankly to both.
You will remember when the
Secretary of State was here she indicated that The Bahamas relationship
with Cuba was a sovereign decision but her role and the United States'
concern was to strengthen ties between the United States and The
Bahamas. Let me say that which is trite and obvious: our best, greatest
and closest relationship is with the United States of America and there
is not a possible chance that this Bahamian government would do anything
to jeopardize that relationship. The interventions by the Leader of the
side opposite with regard to the Human Rights Council are political
mischief making and cheap political and shameless opportunism at its
worst.
Cheap political opportunism is
one thing but responsible state craft is quite another.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall
when I spoke at the time of the issue of Cuban dentists’ migrant issue
in February of this year. At the time, I recounted the history of the
political, diplomatic and trade relationships with Cuba. This is a
country that sits as close as 15 miles away from our western
border. We are still in the middle of discussions on delimiting our
maritime boundaries with them. We have a treaty with them on
migration. We have been provided significant assistance in health care
and education. No other country, unsolicited, has offered the level of
assistance to this country, assistance that is not of direct benefit to
the country offering the assistance.
On 10th May 1980,
when the Royal Bahamas Defence Force was just six weeks old, the HMBS
Flamingo was on patrol in waters off
Ragged
Island. It was a Sunday and MIG jets scrambled by the Cuban government
that thought its fishermen were being kidnapped by pirates shot the ship
until it sank and four marines died. This was a tragic mistake. Four
young Bahamian men lost their lives. The Cuban government later
apologized and paid compensation for the loss. That was the beginning
of the realization by the Government of The Bahamas that it could not
stand aside from contact with its neighbour. It was not in the national
interest to do so. There had to be some point of contact so that if
there were any misunderstanding we were talking to one another. I
thought that the Leader of the Opposition understood that this was what
was best for The Bahamas, but I am very concerned about the harsh,
injudicious and intemperate language used recently to describe a country
that despite our differences on their political system, has displayed no
ill intention toward this country and has done every thing to assist
this country, most recently with the Cuban dentists issue. The language
creates division where none is necessary.
I asked myself how can a man
who, Lord forbid, wants to become the Prime Minister of this country
speak in such language when presumably if he takes office he will have
to speak to the very same people that he now condemns when he says that
the Cubans would not dare come to him and ask him to vote for them for
the Human Rights Council.
Why not? As I said to a
previous U.S. Ambassador to The Bahamas, any country can ask me anything
they like on behalf of their country. Our policy is to talk to everyone
who wants to talk to us. We treat everyone with respect. We are at war
with no one, at peace with everyone. We do not have to agree but our
view is that it is better to talk than not to talk. It is better to
talk than to fight.
Further, in so far as we can, it
is better for us to stay out of the disagreements of neighbours. That
is not in our interest to get involved in disputes which have nothing to
do with us.
And Mr. Speaker it has nothing
to do with being afraid to speak up for our fundamental values when it
is appropriate to do so. When in 2003, the Cuban Government in our view
summarily tried and executed two individuals who were seeking to leave
Cuba and had been returned by the United States Government to
Cuba,
The Bahamas joined the Caricom consensus criticizing
Cuba
for what they did. It was not a happy moment in our relations. The
Cuban Foreign Minister paid a visit to The Bahamas and formally
complained. It was something that we felt we needed to do and was
completely in line with our principles on these matters: that we ought
to be able to and we do speak frankly to our friends. I wish to lay the
Statement by Caricom on the table of the House.
Mr. Speaker, any country that
seeks to join the Council must also agree to subject themselves to peer
review of their human rights record. This peer review will help to
level the playing field and defend the important issue of human rights
by subjecting all member states to the same process which sets the new
Human Rights Council apart from the Commission on Human Rights,
hopefully making the new body more effective and even handed. This
element was amongst the factors that led us not to interfere with the
advice given by our Permanent Mission..
I need to add Mr. Speaker that
the United States did not stand for election to the Human Rights
Council.
Mr. Speaker, Opposition Leaders
have a rare privilege. They can say any irresponsible thing they wish
without consequences. A government on the other hand has to act
responsibly. This is a matter over which we need not divide. There are
other issues of more fundamental importance than this over which we can
have real and honest debate.
- End -
|
