PARLIAMENT DEBATES CUBAN DETAINEES: PM SAYS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NASSAU 000357

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR WHA/CAR WBENT, WHA/CCA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/01/2016
TAGS: PREL SMIG PREF PHUM CU BF
SUBJECT: PARLIAMENT DEBATES CUBAN DETAINEES: PM SAYS
DECISION MADE, BUT ANNOUNCES NOTHING

REF: NASSAU 308

Classified By: CDA D.Brent Hardt for Reasons 1.4(b) and (d)


1. (C) SUMMARY: Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham in a
bruising March 1 parliamentary session questioned the
government's handling of two Cuban dentists held at the
Carmichael Road Detention Center for the past 10 months
(reftel). The ensuing debate on the issue divided strictly
on party lines, with the opposition FNM indirectly advocating
release of the detainees to the U.S. and the ruling PLP
arguing the need to respect the Cuban Migration Accord and
international agreements. END SUMMARY


2. (C) During the regular weekly sitting of parliament,
Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham took the government to task
for its handling of the Cuban detainee issue -- his first
public comments on the matter. Ingraham began by
acknowledging that the government had a difficult decision to
make, but said it should make it in accord with the law and
the interest of the Bahamas and move on.


3. (C) In response to Ingraham, who delights in painting
the PM as indecisive, the ruling PLP, led by Prime Minister
Perry Christie and Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell, stuck
closely to the official Government position as represented in
the Foreign Ministry's public statements of February 15 and
February 28: The Bahamas respects its international
agreements and is committed to the Cuban Migration Accord,
grants political asylum where appropriate, and will always
act in the best interests of Bahamians. Christie told
Ingraham, "You can advocate for other (the implication being
U.S.) interests, but you go back and tell them we will be
very exact in consideration of international treaties and
international agreements, and will consider humanitarian
issues, but we will not . . .give away The Bahamas."
Christie then indicated that he had resolved the issue,
stating that "I have resolved this in a way that protects the
integrity of the Commonwealth." He did not, however,
indicate how he had chosen to resolve the matter.


4. (C) Ingraham argued vigorously that the government had
mishandled the issue, misunderstanding the legal parameters
and jeopardizing Bahamian interests in the U.S. He pointed
out that in a discussion over the merits of relations with
the U.S. and Cuba, the U.S. has more to offer than Cuba.
Furthermore, he asserted that the agreement with Cuba gives
The Bahamas the discretion to determine the legal status of
the migrants. Ingraham, who was Prime Minister when the
Cuban accord was negotiated in 1996, said he knew the intent
of the agreement and understood that it gave the Government
leeway to act in favor of the U.S. He repeatedly attacked
the PLP government's refusal to grant asylum in a single case
since it came to power in 2002. In what will certainly be a
theme in his coming bid to return as Prime Minister, Ingraham
also attacked the Prime Minister's indecisiveness that
allowed this issue to become an international problem.


5. (C) The debate comes on the heels of stepped up press
coverage and increasingly partisan editorial opinions on the
issue. The Government's lack of action for the past 10
months has generated close scrutiny among commentators, who
link it to what even Christie's cabinet members acknowledge
is his near incapacity to make a decision without complete
cabinet unity on an issue. The FNM foreshadowed today's
debate with a strong attack of PM Christie in the pro-FNM
Tribune, a leading local daily. The pro-PLP Bahama Journal
and the Foreign Minster's own former news outlet, Bahamas
Uncensored, presented Foreign Minister Mitchell's
counterpoint, claiming that "the Migration Accord between The
Bahamas and Cuba, signed in 1996 and amended in 1998, does
not allow for exceptions to repatriation."


6. (C) COMMENT: While the debate left some room that the
Government would make a practical determination based upon
Bahamian interests in the U.S. relationship, the Prime
Minister's comments did not appear to indicate that he was
ready to release the migrants to the U.S. The Prime Minister
has a reputation for punching wildly when attacked, and his
comments about the need to follow the MOU with Cuba could
simply reflect his unwillingness to give ground in debate to
his opponent. He also needed to justify his 10-month delay
and perhaps wanted to signal to Cuba that it values the
agreement, even if it in the end releases the detainees.
Following the debate, the MFA contacted the Charge to request
written confirmation -- which we provided -- that the U.S.
would admit the two dentists without delay if and when they
are released. The conflicting signals speak volumes about a
confused Christie Government struggling to extricate itself
from a problem it could have quietly resolved many months
ago. END COMMENT.

HARDT