The Tribune

If you mention The Bahamas to people in Britain, there is likely to be a positive reaction because the country is seen as a most desirable tourist destination. Such is the country’s fine reputation, it is no exaggeration to say the name itself seems to carry a certain aura. Last week, however, it hit the headlines for the wrong reasons.

As widely reported in the UK press, it was announced in London that Belgium, The Bahamas and Andorra had been added to Britain’s coronavirus quarantine list because of reported surges in the numbers of COVID-19 cases in those countries. This means that all travellers from them will be forced to self-isolate for 14 days on arrival in the UK. For travellers in the other direction the new advice by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to avoid all but essential trips.

This news is another blow to the Bahamian tourism industry that is such an important part of the nation’s economy and which is already suffering - with the latest Ministry of Tourism official figures showing an overall 99 percent year-over-year arrivals drop for June 2020 despite opening up to private air and sea visitors half-way through the period. The development also points again to the pressing need to keep the local economy going after it was so badly affected by the original lockdown in March.

From what I have heard, people are now questioning more vigorously the government’s latest handling of the coronavirus crisis and the need for another lockdown and curfew after the recent easing of restrictions. As everybody is now so well aware, a prolonged lockdown can be seriously damaging to society across-the-board but the business community, in particular, has been reacting negatively.

The Prime Minister and his colleagues responded promptly and effectively in the early stages of the crisis by shutting down the airport, imposing restrictions on movement and introducing social distancing measures. The result was an extremely low infection rate and a small number of deaths. But this all changed when they took the decision to re-open the airport on July 1. Ministers were under heavy pressure to allow air travel again. But, with the benefit of hindsight, it was obviously a mistake. Many people ignored the official advice not to travel to Florida unless absolutely necessary - for example, for medical reasons - and brought the virus back with them which seems to account for the spike in cases here. But, if that is indeed the case, some comfort can perhaps be taken that earlier the virus at home had been largely contained.

So, despite this increase, as long as those newly infected go into isolation and are carefully monitored, more and more people are now questioning the reasoning behind the new lockdown. As has been said so frequently, the key for the government is to find a balance between the science, health and safety and the economy.

No one doubts the seriousness and potentially deadly effects of COVID-19, as well as the potentially damaging effects experienced by those who recover, as Dr Minnis explained in his addresses to the nation on Emancipation Day and on Sunday. Detailed information about the new infections has not been made public and, without having the full picture, one hesitates to comment. But, even if the total is now approaching 900 and the death toll has risen to 15, the latest figures show only 35 have been hospitalised.

Presumably, some testing positive may only have a mild dose or may be asymptomatic. So, it is reasonable to wonder whether, in reality, the threat to others might be less serious than suggested - given that those infected should be compelled to self-isolate. In such circumstances, people ask if it is still necessary to plunge the whole country into another lockdown even more severe than the first?

Moreover, some people have been asking whether the Prime Minister is listening to those in a position to know just how seriously the economy is being damaged. So it was encouraging to hear him say in his address on Sunday that a strategy for economic recovery was being finalised and that he would speak about it soon. Many will hope that, in particular, he will have something to say about small businesses which have been hit hard by the lockdown.

It is interesting that a body like the Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce has warned that for many businessmen the new lockdown is like being “handed a death sentence” and that, reportedly, Robert Myers, the Organisation for Responsible Governance’s (ORG) principal, has suggested the government should take a more strategic and selective approach by only closing down those parts of the economy considered to be at particular risk in relation to the spread of the virus. This is significant because, rather than being home grown, the uptick in cases has been linked to those travellers returning from Florida. It is also instructive that the latest advice by the World Health Organisation is that ‘localised’ measures should be used to stem COVID-19, rather than national lockdowns, due to the health, social and economic repercussions.

It has now become clear we have to learn to live with the risks of coronavirus until a vaccine is developed. No one knows how long that will be. But, although the threat exists, there is a danger of being held hostage to fear. The evidence suggests that except for the elderly and vulnerable the risk is relatively low and it is important that individuals take responsibility for their own well-being by adopting a healthy lifestyle. In such a crisis everybody ought to exercise discipline, show restraint and cooperate over social distancing and the wearing of masks in the interests of national unity.

Meanwhile, perhaps policy-makers should now focus more on the bigger picture and take greater account of wider social and economic needs. In a small country, it ought to be possible to develop a more comprehensive and effective testing and tracing procedure to ensure that all those testing positive are quarantined to prevent transmission of the virus to others. Thus, it is heartening to hear about a new contact tracing command centre based at the Melia hotel on Cable Beach.

It seems we have reached the point when the current cure may be worse than the problem. Where there is an alternative of a more flexible and pragmatic approach, it does not make sense to risk destroying the whole country by stifling all activity. But, although he offered little sign of a relief from lockdown - apart from some Family Islands - people may have been partially reassured by the Prime Minister’s address to the nation on Sunday that at least the government has a grip on the situation.

Remembering when the guns fell silent in 1945

This year is a sobering milestone in relation to the Second World War. It marks the 75th anniversary of its ending – VE-Day on May 8, 1945, which was the cessation of hostilities in Europe, followed by VJ-Day on August 15 when Japan surrendered to the Allies, the war in the Pacific was finally over and the Second World War was brought to a close.

There will be ceremonies in the coming days to commemorate Japan’s surrender. But these have been preceded by sad and dignified events last week to mark the 75th anniversary of the dropping by the US of atom bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - on, respectively, August 6 and 9, 1945 - in which an estimated 200,000 people died.

During the 1930s, Japan’s imperialist expansion and the rise to power of its military helped to create a rift with the US as a rival power in the Pacific. In 1940, Japan signed a Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy and attacked Indo China, having already invaded China in 1937. This was quickly followed by a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union, thus removing the latter as an obstacle to further Japanese expansion in Asia. At the time, America was largely isolationist though there were those who considered that an Axis victory (Germany, Italy and Japan) would place the world in grave peril so that assisting the Allies would be important to the US’s own security.

In 1941, Japan regarded US sanctions – including the freezing by the US of its assets and an oil embargo - as a serious threat. Its infamous attack on Pearl Harbor followed on December 7 the same year, thus bringing the US in to the war. To Winston Churchill, Britain’s wartime leader, there could be no doubt that once the sleeping giant was aroused there could only be one ending to the war, however long it took.

The rest is history. However, President Truman’s decision to use the atom bomb to force Japan to surrender remains controversial to this day on ethical, moral and even military grounds. The Allies were already mounting conventional bombing raids on the mainland of Japan after winkling them out of islands in the Pacific - with severe fighting and heavy casualties on both sides in, among many others, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. But the Japanese refused to surrender.

Truman’s justification for using the atom bomb was to avoid the massive casualties that would result from an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The Allies had earlier warned, through the Potsdam Declaration which outlined the necessary terms of a surrender, that Japan’s failure to do so immediately would result in ‘prompt and utter destruction’. They calculated that to force a surrender it would be necessary to demonstrate their overwhelming destructive capacity and that ultimately this would save lives and further suffering.

Critics maintain that Hiroshima and Nagasaki amounted to a war crime because, instead of bombing citizens which was morally indefensible, a naval blockade should have been imposed and military targets chosen. Nonetheless, the use of atomic bombs was widely welcomed by Americans at the time as deserved retribution against ‘a barbarian enemy’, though in more recent years people have been questioning its justification. But to the US serviceman on the ground who had already seen action in the Pacific, the end of the world conflict was a blessed relief because it meant he would stay alive and return home - and, in the famous words of one, ‘that ended the moral concern’.

An unsettling image on the streets of London

I wonder whether other readers of the UK press were as alarmed as I was to see photos of a masked group in paramilitary uniforms marching through the streets of Brixton in south London.

According to reports, the group is a mysterious new organisation, formed as recently as last month, called Forever Family. As a protest group, its declared aim is ‘to battle against racism, inequality and injustice’ and it appears to have been spawned by Black Lives Matter.

The march in Brixton, which is home to large numbers of Jamaicans, was in connection with a so-called Africa emancipation day at the beginning of August to mark the anniversary of the date in 1834 when Britain’s abolition of slavery legislation came in to force and to campaign for Britain to pay reparations for its role in the Atlantic slave trade. But already this organisation appears to be a far-Left protest group with wider political aims.

It is the case, of course, that in democratic Britain people are able to express themselves freely and, if necessary, gather together to do so. That is key to a free society as long as such activity is peaceful and within the constraints of the law. The march in Brixton was indeed largely peaceful though, reportedly, the threat of violence was lurking just beneath surface. Modern historians say this marching in the streets in paramilitary gear is frighteningly reminiscent of Oswald Mosley’s brand of fascists in the lead-up to the Second World War. In the 1930s, his ‘Blackshirts’ marched through - in particular - working class neighbourhoods of London, echoing the rise of fascism in Europe.

To ordinary people today, the march in Brixton was both intimidating and divisive. The Family Forever group is being compared with the Black Panthers in America which campaigned against police brutality in the 1960s. If it turns in to a violent extremist group, members of the public will surely demand strong action by the police before it develops further.