It is considered the unqualified right of the governing
party in our still-young political system – a version of the Westminster system
tweaked to suit our culture in some respects, but not in others – to place in
the diplomatic corps what are called ‘political appointments.’ In this regard,
it is also considered the unqualified right of the governing party to appoint
whomever the prime minister chooses to appoint, with no requirement other than
the signature of the prime minister. Whether this is in fact the case – that
nothing is required beyond the signature of the PM – is irrelevant, since that
is the very point: there is nothing transparent about how diplomatic officers
called ‘political appointments’ are chosen, or placed in office, in The
Commonwealth of The Bahamas.
Let us examine recent events in the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, which has become increasingly opaque over the years.
If we take the assertion that there is no transparency in diplomatic appointments or placement of Foreign Affairs offices overseas as true – and to this point,
there is little evidence to the contrary – there are a number of reasons this
might be so.
Firstly, the posturing of generations of politicians in
The Bahamas during the annual budget debate has marked the foreign affairs ‘diplomatic’
budget as frivolous: Opposition politician after Opposition politician (both
PLP and FNM) have blasted the governing party for allocating
what they dubbed inappropriate sums as “champagne and caviar money.” This is so
because politicians in The Bahamas suffer from a short-sightedness that is as chronic
as it is dangerous. Recently, The Bahamas’ former Ambassador to the United
States, H.E. Cornelius A. Smith, was heard to lament while in office the
charges he himself leveled as a member of the Official Opposition in his day
that the diplomatic budget was “champagne and caviar” money. Faced as an ambassador with the financial constraints engendered by the crash of 2008, he recognized that this was not, in fact, so.
The repeated categorization of these funds as money used
by the government to fete its cronies, to fund what are in effect paid
retirements and to stash political rejects with aspirations of running in
general elections has had as a side effect the gradual – and at this stage, the
nearly complete – disinterest of the Bahamian electorate in how these funds are
spent.
So – using the figures published by the government at www.bahamas.gov.bs, let us look at the
funds in question[1]:
·
In 2010, the government spent an estimated $21.7
million on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration.
·
In 2011, that estimated figure was $22.1
million.
·
In 2012, $25.4 million.
·
In 2013, the projected estimate is $24.9
million.
Recall that the Department of Immigration has its own
budget head. Since 2010, therefore, the Government of The Bahamas has spent nearly
$100 million on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration. Not a trifling
amount of money. However, as we shall see, there is some question about how
these figures are calculated and accounted for in the budget document,
particularly when it comes to salaries for Foreign Affairs staff, both “permanent
and pensionable” (P&P) and contractual.
Let us look in more detail at these figures, to ensure
that we are fairly estimating the expenses on Foreign Affairs, and not simply lumping
Immigration expenses in with that. The budget estimates an annual recurrent
expenditure of about $6.8 million on allowances, travel and a category of
expenditure called “Grants, Fixed Charges & Special Financial Transactions”
under which The Bahamas maintains its obligations to various international
bodies like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the United Nations. This
figure does not include salaries.
The salary question is a little more complicated. The
monthly bill – monthly – for salaries in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
including both P&P and contractual workers, is $7,171,818. That is to say –
again, using the government’s published figures – that every year, the
government of The Bahamas spends an estimated $86,061,816 on salaries. More
than $86 million dollars every year[2].
On salaries alone. Spent without even the slightest bit of concern or interest
by the Bahamian populace. (I have included a link below for the curious reader
to see the government’s published figures and do her or his own calculation.)
The Bahamas maintains a number of diplomatic or overseas missions[3].
The US:
·
Washington, DC (US Embassy/Permanent Mission to
the OAS)
·
New York City (Consulate General/Permanent
Mission to the UN)
·
Atlanta, GA (Consulate General)
·
Miami, FL (Consulate General)
The UK, Europe, Asia and Canada
·
London (UK High Commission)
·
Ottawa (High Commission)
·
China (Embassy)
·
Switzerland (Permanent Mission)
The Caribbean:
·
Cuba (Embassy)
·
Haiti (Embassy)
Given the large amount of money spent on these missions,
what happens in them ought to be a matter of paramount concern to those budget
hawks who claim to scrutinize the government’s expenditure. What do we as a
people get in exchange for these tens of millions of dollars? $86 million a
year on salaries plus another $6.8 million on allowances and other expenses
directly tied to diplomatic or overseas expenses does not seem like “champagne
and caviar money.”
A second and perhaps more disturbing reason for a lack of
transparency – again, presuming there is a lack of transparency – is that there
is no demand for accountability emanating from the electorate. The government
does not give an account of these matters because the people do not demand one.
Thirdly, it is perhaps also a question of capacity. It is
not clear that the government mechanism is capable of informing the people
about what happens in the foreign service, or what it means. And given the
demonstrated lack of interest from the public, there is little incentive for
the private sector media outlets to engage the issue themselves unless there is
a scandal.
Take as a prime example the fact that the Christie
Administration has appointed – as of September 2013 – Randy Rolle as The
Bahamas’ Consul General in Atlanta, GA (see here). What newspaper article informed The
Bahamian people about this appointment? Where was the fanfare? Atlanta is The
Bahamas’ second most important diplomatic post, right behind Washington DC, and
the newest CG in post was placed in office in what amounted to almost total
secrecy.
This lack of transparency in the operations of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, particularly in regards to The Bahamas’ overseas
missions, leads inevitably to a lack of accountability. For example, what is it
about Mr. Rolle that makes him the ideal choice to represent Mr. Christie in
Atlanta? Or The Bahamas, if you take it that a Consul General is to represent
the country, not the leader who appoints her or him? Why him? Why not someone
else?
There is nothing anywhere on the record that shows the
government of The Bahamas ever sought to make this argument to the Bahamian
people, and the result is that the people of The Bahamas are represented in
Atlanta by an individual about whom they had no say.
Atlanta – a major business, cultural and education centre
for the southeastern United States, where Delta has its hub – was chosen for
clear strategic reasons as a location for a Bahamian consulate. During the
opening of the office in August of 2009, Hubert Ingraham noted that although tourism is today and
is likely to remain into the future The Bahamas’ principal business, “we are
also home to one of the deepest harbours in our region, one of the most modern,
efficient container transshipment ports, and a major ship care and repair
facility capable of working on the largest ocean-going vessels afloat
today.”
This signaled ripe opportunities for exploration of
expanded trade and investment with Atlanta and the Southeastern US. The office
is also intended to facilitate efforts to improve relations between Atlanta
area businesses and The Bahamas and provide better opportunities for US
businesses to have access to information about either investing or doing
business in The Bahamas, and at the same time provide better access for
Bahamian businesses to the southeastern US market.
What in Mr. Rolle’s history signals his suitability to
oversee these efforts? It may well turn out that Mr. Rolle would have received
the complete approbation of the Bahamian people, but they were not given the
chance to express their views on the matter.
In addition to the new Consul General, Atlanta now boasts
a Student Relations officer. When was this decision made? Why? And what qualifies
the person who now holds this office for his posting?
Salaries, benefits, perks and whatnot altogether for a
senior diplomatic officer usually add up to somewhere between $80,000 and
$100,000, maybe more. So, in the case of the Consulate General in Atlanta,
which has a new Consul General and a new Student Relations and Cultural Affairs
Officer, we have added nearly $200,000 a year to the bill. Without much at all
in the way of public scrutiny or accountability.
Consider also the fact that Dr. Eugene Newry, who was
moved from New York to Washington, DC, and installed as the Ambassador to the United
States and the Permanent Representative to the OAS, has already presented his
credentials to US President Barack Obama, while Dr. Elliston Rahming’s
presentation of credentials to the US had dragged on interminably, and never in
fact occurred. Is there a reason Dr. Newry was able to have his credentials
accepted so swiftly and Dr. Rahming was not? The government has not been
questioned on the matter, and as a result, there is no definite answer to that
question, which leads to other questions about Dr. Rahming’s suitability to
serve this nation at the very top levels of the diplomatic corps.
For the record, I am not questioning Dr. Rahming’s
suitability. I am saying that the government’s lack of transparency and
accountability has left his suitability open to question. It has also left open
the question of what – if anything – lays between The Bahamas and the United
States that might have caused Dr. Rahming to be unpalatable to the US as the
Bahamian Ambassador.
Consider as well the fact that The Bahamas’ Embassy to
the US, which has been staffed at times by as many as five or six diplomatic
officers, is now limping along with only a single diplomatic officer and the
new Ambassador in the person of Dr. Newry.
That is to say that in addition to responsibility for managing The
Bahamas’ diplomatic relations with the United States – our largest trading
partners, the source of the vast majority of our tourists and our most potent
line of national defense – this single individual must also oversee The Bahamas’
interactions with the OAS committees, commissions and other bodies in which we
play a role (budgetary, development, telecommunications, juridical and
political affairs, women’s issues and more). This officer has been alone is the
struggle for months! What, despite the individual’s best and most Herculean
efforts, may have fallen through the cracks? What decisions have been made that
will affect The Bahamas that will catch this nation not fully briefed or
prepared because we were not at the table during the discussions or debates
leading up to mandates being issued?
Consider that The Bahamas’ newest mission, the Permanent
Mission to the UN Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva, has a
Permanent Representative in the person of the redoubtable H.E. Rhoda M.
Jackson, but little else in the way of staff. Given the fact of The Bahamas’
accession to the WTO, and our continued signing of TIEAs (Tax Information
Exchange Agreements) with European nations as well as the other diplomatic
duties required by our national interests, how long will it take for that
office to be properly populated and staffed by competent persons to assist Ms.
Jackson in fulfilling her duties?
There are a number of possible reasons for the opaque
operations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, some of which have been listed
above. Yet another reason is that once the people of The Bahamas are no longer
paying attention, cronyism and political favouritism may go unchecked. It is
only when the glare of the light of scrutiny is shone on these activities that
they cease.
The truth is, Bahamians are woefully ignorant of the
goings on in this ministry, especially given the fact that The Bahamas must
live with the agreements negotiated by a government advised by the people in
these offices. These are the experts who provide information about what is
happening in the international arena, and once the government has made a
policy decision, advise on whether we should sign onto – and if so, how we
should go about implementing – agreements or treaties like the World Trade
Organization, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) and other international agreements that necessitate changes in
our laws and even in some cases our Constitution. They do not make policy. The
government does that. They do, however, advise and in some cases recommend
courses of action to enact that policy in accordance with international norms
and laws. We should know who they are, and what qualifies them to advise the
government on our behalf. That is why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot be
allowed to continue this trend of opacity.
[1]
http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/portal/public/national%20budget/budget%20documents/national%20budget/!ut/p/b1/
No comments:
Post a Comment