The Tribune

“THE story appearing in The Nassau Guardian under the headline ‘China in $2 bil. deal proposal – Govt eyes agri-fishery plan with Chinese in Andros – Project calls for lease of 10,000 acres of crown land’ is utterly false.

“The Government is not considering the grant of crown land nor any other matter as set out in the article.”

This was the hurried statement sent out yesterday from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as Bahamian tempers grew at the thought that our country was being sold out to China.

But how could such a rumour start if someone behind the scenes was not promoting it as a good idea – or perhaps even a done deal?

No newspaper makes up a story without there being facts to back it up. And this article was not speculative, it had facts. It presented a well thought out plan as to how the project was to be operated, who was to share in it – “two Bahamian companies will come together in a 50-50 ownership structure to incorporate, and equally own, yet another company that will “participate” in the proposed China-Bahama Agriculture and Fisheries Initiative.” It was so filled with facts that one was led to believe that the only detail left to complete it was an official signature, stamped with the country’s coat of arms.

As alarm bells rang throughout the community – even a short note from retired school teacher Patrick Bethel of Marsh Harbour, Abaco —at the fast pace that Beijing appeared to be acquiring our country, Tribune reporters started to dig for the culprit who apparently did the “deal”. The Christie government has wrapped the security blanket so tightly around all the dealings with the Chinese that Bahamians are rightly suspicious. We hear that only Prime Minister Christie and the Attorney General are dealing with the Chow Tai Fook Enterprises offer to purchase Baha Mar. There is a report that some of this company’s casino licences have been rejected by certain countries in the free world. Bahamians want to know if this is true.

And if true, the reason for the rejection.

As we read the temperature of the town, Bahamians are no longer prepared to wait for the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act to find out.

Playing around with this Act for almost five years does not reflect well either on government’s ability or intention to deliver.

Bahamians are not only agitated, they are quite frankly at the end of their tether.

Time for secrecy is over. This country belongs to all of us - regardless of colour or race.

It has been built by generations of Bahamians, whose descendents came to these shores from all over the world. It is not solely the patrimony of the PLP. We have a right to know. And we want to know now.

Yesterday Agriculture and Fisheries Minister V Alfred Gray told our reporter that he thought such an agricultural proposal would be a good thing for the Bahamas because of Bahamians’ general “lack of interest” in the agriculture industry.

He went so far as to admit that he encouraged Paul Gomez, the Bahamas’ newly appointed Ambassador to China, to discuss such a proposal with “interested investors.”

According to the Guardian report on Tuesday, the Bahamas government gave its embassy in Beijing the “green light” to further pursue a partnership.

If this is true, it supports our conclusion during the first Christie administration that his government is composed of a cabinet of mini-states taking off in separate directions each on its own mission.

One minister claims he encouraged the newly appointed ambassador to Beijing — who obviously did a brilliant job of persuasion as he has returned with a detailed plan — only for Deputy Prime Minister “Brave” Davis to inform us that “no such matter is with government for consideration.”

Marvin Coleby, a Bahamian law student at McGill University’s Faculty of Law, has written an insightful piece on the effect “of unregulated Chinese investment projects” in the Caribbean, including the Bahamas. “Their concerns hardly extend beyond their political terms and the short-term economic gain. Chinese investment throughout the region is dominated by state owned enterprises owned by the Chinese government,” he writes. “Caribbean resources are increasingly owned by the Chinese state, and not, as they have historically been, simply by private investors. For this reason, among others, our leaders’ irresponsibility is detrimental to the long-term sustainability and independence of the region. Chinese state-owned enterprises own over $690 billion in investments abroad. Our region is but a small fraction of that staggering number.”

Mr Coleby points out the failure of a screening process in our region —unlike that in Canada where a screening procedure exists, “whereby investments over a certain amount must be reviewed by the appropriate industry minister and must undergo a test to determine how beneficial they are to Canada. Caribbean governments should consider such a useful tool. Without such a process our countries are exposed to significant foreign ownership of domestic economic industries. Even more worrisome are the international legal mechanisms that protect such foreign ownership and that can facilitate a type of control that limits domestic and regional sovereignty.”

He gives as an example of what could go wrong :

“For example,” he writes, “imagine that countries A and B negotiate a BIT and that an investor from country A invests in a hotel project in country B. Further imagine that a labour union in the hotel industry in country B initiates a strike and that country B legislates changes to the industry.

“This change accommodates the demands of the labour union but in some way causes harm to country A’s investor’s profits in the hotel project.

“The investor now has grounds to sue country B in an international tribunal court whose judgment can be confidential, expensive to country B and result in a judgment against the state that will be borne by country B’s taxpayers.”

He gives several other examples of how one country’s control could destroy a defenseless little country such as the Bahamas.

“In The Bahamas alone,” he writes, “state-owned Chinese enterprises finance a multi-billion dollar hotel, own a major hotel, are in talks to purchase the country’s national airline, proposed to reconstruct its downtown core and proposed to finance the Bahamas Electricity Corporation, the state’s only electricity company.

“In other words, Chinese investment in The Bahamas targets the country’s tourism industry, which accounts for over 60 per cent of its GDP and for even more jobs.

“Bahamian leaders continue to irresponsibly accept Chinese investment projects with no proper screening procedure and no real evaluation of the societal effects of an industry’s foreign ownership on their citizens’ jobs.

“On these bare facts, this is particularly worrisome not just for Bahamian policymakers but also for employees in the hotel industry.

“The Bahamas is particularly vulnerable to Chinese investment due to ISDS provisions in its negotiated BIT with China.

“When The Bahamas’ BIT with China, signed in 2010, enters into force Chinese investors will be able to directly sue the country for any changes in the tourism industry that affect their investments.”

Mr Coleby’s article is worth reading in its entirety, particularly by members of this government, who think these investments are such a great idea.

His article can be found at –

http://www.caribbean360.com/business/challenge-or-opportunity-state-owned-chinese-investment-in-the-caribbean-marvin-coleby