The Tribune

SIR RONALD Sanders, who demands accuracy, made a statement in his weekly column in The Tribune on February 24 listing the Bahamas as one of the 18 signatories to the Hugo Chavez cheap oil deal, better known as PetroCaribe.

In this column in the same edition of The Tribune, Leslie Miller, who in 2005 was the PLP government’s Trade and Industry Minister, and in fact did sign onto the Petro

Caribe oil agreement in Venezuela on July 10, 2005, admitted to the signing, but denied that the Bahamas was now — or ever was – one of the 18 PetroCaribe members.

In fact, Sir Ronald is correct. In an article written about the thin thread on which the PetroCaribe oil deal now hangs, the Bahamas is still listed as a signatory to the deal — in fact its name appears in alphabetical order as the second on the list. The latest article that we have seen, which included the Bahamas, was published ten short days ago.

However, The Tribune was also correct in saying that the Bahamas is not a participant – and never was– in the PetroCaribe deal. Today, that ill-conceived contract is sending shivers down the spines of every Caribbean finance minister whose nation not only signed, but participated in the pipe-dream.

In 2005, Leslie Miller – who as today’s chairman of BEC is still anxious to bring down electricity costs – was determined in 2005 to bring the price of oil down, also with the object of reducing the price of electricity. He blamed our high rates on money-grubbing oil companies – the evil “middlemen” – and wanted them banished from the island. He seemed to forget, of course, that the government was another “middle man” whose own tariff on the imported oil added to its high cost. Hugo Chavez’s cheap oil seemed an answer to his dreams. Mr Miller was determined to pull off the miracle.

The Tribune was among the protestors, who saw the Chavez deal as a cheap political move.

In a radio talk show in 2005, Mr Miller claimed the Chavez’s PetroCaribe energy co-operative agreement was a simple commercial contract — nothing to do with politics, he said.

“Obviously,” The Tribune replied in this column, “Mr Miller is reading from a different hymn sheet than we are. The one in our possession looks more political than economic, unless Mr Miller can explain how “colonialism” and “imperialism” fits into a contract that he says is intended only to buy and sell oil.

“Regardless of what Mr Miller would have one believe,” the editorial continued, “this document is designed as a political instrument to take a stab at the free market and US President George Bush. And in this little venture, the Bahamas and 13 Caribbean islands are to be taken along as Chavez and Fidel Castro’s accomplices.”

This article was published on October 18, 2005. Mr Miller had signed the Venezuela document three months earlier. Since that date four more Caribbean islands had signed on. Chavez is now dead, and politically Venezuela is in turmoil. PetroCaribe’s oil prices have risen and it is questionable whether that troubled nation can continue to supply oil to the Caribbean on the same terms – or even at all.

In an article published in Guyana last month – where the Bahamas is again listed as a PetroCaribe member – American Economics Professor, C Fred Bergsten, is quoted as saying that the turmoil in Venezuela “could negatively trickle down to Caribbean countries that have become dependent on cheaper oil in the short-term for long-term low-interest repayment.” The article continues: “If PetroCaribe supplies are suspended or cancelled altogether, he warned that could spell doom for the virtually empty coffers of many tourism-dependent island nations.”

Like The Tribune in 2005, Mr Bergsten, who was a senior US Treasury and foreign policy official, “thought that the (late President Hugo) Chavez’s economic concessions were driven wholly by very short-term foreign policy motivations and personal gradiosities and, therefore, they were inherently temporary.” According to some analysts, the article continues, “Venezuela’s oil diplomacy was aimed at wooing Latin American support for its brand of socialism and opposition to the United States.” Unwittingly, Mr Miller was sucked into the dream. And so, he signed on the dotted line in Venezuela. And there his signature remains on behalf of the Bahamas – misleading current writers like Sir Ronald.

It is understood that Mr Miller’s signing in Venezuela was done without Cabinet approval. Then came the second signing. This time in Jamaica. On this trip, he was accompanied by Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell and Works Minister Bradley Roberts. He was confident that with them by his side, Cabinet would quickly approve the deal. Today, Mr Miller maintains that the Jamaica signing was the document that was meant to seal the deal. He signed nothing in Jamaica. However, researchers maintain that the Venezuela signature was in fact the one that committed the Bahamas to PetroCaribe.

“The two ministers were undoubtedly there to better understand the terms of the agreement, but we suspect they were also there to make certain that an overly enthusiastic Leslie Miller did not return to Nassau with his signature appended to the document,” The Tribune wrote on the trios return from Jamaica.

The Cabinet as usual dragged its feet for so long that PetroCaribe slipped off the calendar. We presume that in the end Cabinet did not approve. Today, the Bahamas is still tied to an oil “middle man.” Shell West in Barbados is the Bahamas’ current supplier.

Sir Ronald, whose column does not appear as usual in today’s Tribune because of illness, writes: “It is clear that the Bahamas did sign the PetroCaribe Agreement in 2005 contrary to the headline of The Tribune story of 24 February which itself admits the signing. Further, the PetroCaribe website lists the Bahamas as one of the signatory countries. (Sir Ronald listed the web sites where this can be found).

“Further,” says Sir Ronald, “since there has been no information to the contrary academics, researchers, commentators and others have continued to list the Bahamas as a member of PetroCaribe. (Again he listed several websites as proof, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

And, he suggests: “It may therefore be appropriate for The Tribune to seek clarity from the government of the Bahamas about whether or not it remains a signatory to the PetroCaribe agreement and, if it does not, consider advising the authorities at PetroCaribe to remove the misleading information about the Bahamas.”

Before we wrote the February 24 article, we had already done our due diligence in a talk with Mr Miller, who flatly denied that the Bahamas has participated in any way with PetroCaribe. Now it is up to the Bahamas government to do what it should have done nine years ago – remove the Bahamas’ name from a failed contract.

As finance minister, the late Sir Stafford Sands, used to say: “Paper will stay still and let you write anything on it.”

In Mr Miller’s case, it stayed still long enough for him to leave his signature on behalf of the Bahamas government. It is now the duty of this government to quickly have it erased.

“In the event,” said Sir Ronald concludes, “it is good to know that matters affecting PetroCaribe will not have an adverse affect on the Bahamas.”