The Tribune

INEVITABLY, news of President Biden’s surprise first visit to Ukraine yesterday has dominated the headlines. During his dramatic brief stay in Kyiv he is reported to have reassured President Zelensky directly about the unprecedented continuing military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine by a “coalition of nations”, and he is now on a three-day trip to Poland shortly before the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion.

 The purpose of the trip to Poland at a critical moment in Russia’s war with Ukraine seems to be to reiterate the US commitment to transatlantic security and to strengthen relations with countries in eastern Europe that are becoming a real force in the region. This is against the background of last week’s Munich Security Conference which until now had been topping the international news agenda. As well as a look at this today, it might be interesting to comment on the thorny issue of the Northern Ireland Protocol which is also much in the news at present because it is the key issue in determining the province’s political future. It has also become a bone of contention between the UK and the US.

The annual Munich gathering of heads of state and government - as well as others - is said to be the world’s leading forum for debating international security policy and key current foreign and security challenges. It is the largest meeting of its kind and has existed for more than half a century. This year, of course, it has been all about Western solidarity and common purpose in supporting Ukraine and, more broadly, an opportunity to take stock of countries’ commitment to the rules-based international order. While world leaders called for long-term support for Ukraine, British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, spoke of the need to “double down” on supply of military equipment. The large American delegation, which included some 50 lawmakers, underscored the US Congress’s bipartisan support for assisting Ukraine.

 What hit the headlines at Munich was Vice President Kamala Harris’ declaration that the US had “formally determined” that Russia had committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine. The UN defines such crimes as “widespread or systemic criminal acts” committed against a particular civilian population. The International Criminal Court in The Hague prosecutes those accused of such crimes. But the Court has no powers of arrest and can only exercise jurisdiction within countries which have signed the international agreement that set it up. Russia withdrew from the ICC in 2016.

Even though the emphasis of this year’s Munich conference was on opposing rather than appeasing an aggressor nation, for historians it seems to have carried echoes of 1938 when the Bavarian capital hosted a conference that resulted in the infamous Munich Agreement in which European powers ceded the Sudetenland – then part of the border area of Czechoslovakia – to Nazi Germany in a mistaken effort to preserve peace.

Notwithstanding the inherent importance of the Munich gathering, what has been of considerable interest to people in Britain is the meeting in its margins between the British prime minister and the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen.

Reportedly, this was to try to resolve the differences between the EU and Britain over the Northern Ireland Protocol agreed to by the two sides when Britain left the bloc three years ago.

 The protocol related to trading arrangements and it has for long been a contentious issue. The UK maintains it is not working and the way it is being implemented has caused difficulties.

It therefore needs to be changed.

 With this in mind, there has been speculation recently in the UK press that a deal with the EU to enable a revision of the protocol was close. Last week, Sunak held a round of meetings in Belfast with Northern Ireland’s main political parties and, apparently, told them of progress that had been made on a new deal to ease post-Brexit trade and customs rules. Then, while in Munich the next day, the PM said in a question and answer session with the press that he had had a useful discussion with the European Commission president and that there had been “very good progress” in finding solutions to the remaining differences. Sunak also reassured those present that Britain wanted to have a positive relationship with the EU – “The UK may have left the bloc, he said, but “It didn’t leave Europe. We are a European nation”.

 Despite the Prime Minister’s optimism, doubts persist about bridging the gap between the two sides; for example, the fundamental issue of trade disputes continuing to come within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

But it is hoped that real progress will be made this week.

The main test for the Democratic Unionist Party is that there should be no new checks on goods being traded between Great Britain and Northern Ireland because to do so would weaken Northern Ireland’s status as being part of the UK.

 The purpose of the protocol was to avoid, after Brexit, having to impose a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as an EU member. In such circumstances, and given that Britain had just left the EU, it was recognised that special arrangements would be needed for goods entering Northern Ireland from mainland Britain, in particular goods destined for the ROI.

 The DUP’s support for any new deal is crucial because, if the protocol remains in force in its present form, the party will continue to refuse to take part in the power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland that was an essential part of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, known colloquially as the Good Friday Agreement.

The result has been that the province has been left without a devolved power-sharing executive since early last year.

 This is a complex issue requiring further explanation, not least about the way in which the UK and US are at odds over it. But, if the PM’s optimism turns out to be justified and there is progress in the negotiations this week the situation may soon become clearer.

Press freedom in news again

How often has it been said that a free, independent and strong media is an essential part of democratic societies. But, after last week’s incidents in Nassau involving a police officer seizing a cell phone belonging to a Tribune reporter and then another RBPF member threatening a separate staff member with arrest for taking photographs, perhaps it needs to be repeated – yet again.

 In the Western world, watchdog journalism plays an essential role in holding those in positions of power to account for their actions – and it is reasonable to think that most people agree that those who are rightly and properly engaged in journalism should never be interfered with or harassed by officialdom in a free society like The Bahamas.

 In the view of some, last week’s actions were hardly “a big deal”. But, at the very least, they were symbolically significant. Many believe the perpetrators should be held to account for illegally interfering with the legitimate work of a journalist even though, in this case, it may only have been the actions of overzealous police officers on the spur of the moment. But perhaps the “broken window” theory should apply on the basis that petty wrongdoing, if not challenged, only leads to more serious misbehaviour.

To my eye, The Tribune in its editorial of February 16 – and Human Rights Bahamas in a separate article – described well the concerns the public should have about this abuse of power by law enforcement. What is more, a little research shows that as recently as April, 2021 a senior officer of the RBPF said officially in a media interview that recording interactions with the RBPF is not against the law and that officers can only seize a mobile phone when they have reasonable grounds to believe that it contains evidence in relation to an offence that is under investigation.

 Freedom of speech is the basic feature of democracy which allows people to express their opinions, convictions and beliefs without fear of persecution, harassment or punishment by those in authority. In a democracy, governments exist with the consent of the people and are subject to dismissal by them at regular intervals at the ballot box. However, to ensure peace and good order in the efficient running of a country, governments must be able to exercise certain powers in relation to national security which restrict free speech and curb the rights of individuals. What matters is the exercise of sound judgment in dealing with individual cases. Freedom of speech and journalistic reporting are also restricted by laws covering, for example, defamation, sedition, obscenity and incitement to violence not to mention matters like unauthorized publication of classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets and right to privacy. So journalists already operate under considerable constraints.

 Judging from the evidence revealed by a Google search, there seems to be a growing view that press freedom around the world is under increasing pressure as authoritarianism and illiberalism are on the rise. Tyrants and dictators arbitrarily restrict press freedom since they will not accept any form of challenge to their power. From personal experience of a military coup in Africa, I know that the first step for coup plotters is to take over radio and TV stations and seek to limit or control the press for they understand the power of the written and spoken word.

In a democracy, press freedom protects the interests of the people. Those involved in action – however limited that might be - against journalists that hinders their ability to pursue their legitimate work should be brought to book.

Gathering of UK and Caribbean chiefs of defence

It was good to receive recently information about a high-level meeting this month in Barbados of UK and Caribbean Regional Chiefs of Defence Staff. This conference was attended by Defence Chiefs from ten countries across the Caribbean, including The Bahamas.

Among a number of issues, the focus of the conference was on joint regional priorities including action against Serious and Organised Crime.

The UK re-affirmed its commitment to the Caribbean as a reliable partner and stressed the importance of regional co-operation among countries with shared values and interests and the need for specialised training for the region’s armed forces. In the words of the Chief of the UK Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, regional security has developed into global security so that co-operation is also required on a broader front in areas like illegal narcotics, people trafficking and response to disasters. He also emphasized that the strength of regional co-operation was critical if Caribbean countries were to continue to respond effectively to natural disasters.

 It is the case, of course, that there is already a continual flow of people from the Caribbean attending training at institutions in Britain like the Royal College of Defence Studies and the UK Defence Academy as well as training courses in their own region. But, against this background of existing close links, many in the Caribbean will also surely now welcome news of this conference in Barbados as additional evidence of the renewed commitment by Britain to build on the long-standing relationship with the region concerning defence matters. Long may such co-operation flourish.