This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

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