FOREIGN AFFAIRS Minister Fred Mitchell’s statement in the House of Assembly yesterday is enough to give every serious-thinking Bahamian nightmares.

Apparently Mr Mitchell is out to make himself a martyr for his “capital starved” country. Noted for his frequent foreign trips, underwritten by our cash-strapped Treasury, Mr Mitchell plans to pick up his begging bowl and head to the Middle East and Asia to find a new pot of gold to keep this country functioning.

Obviously, peeved that “our traditional friends” are no longer willing to lend us money, he says his Ministry has been given a mandate to find new capital for the Bahamas as traditional sources are winding down on lending.

Mr Mitchell should not put on such an air of surprise when this nation has had ample warning that if we did not seriously start getting our fiscal house in order, we would no longer be able to borrow. Also, if we did find a lender, the interest rates would be crushing — in other words unaffordable.

The PLP gave all the wrong signals when it arrived on the scene last year as the new government. It was unable to fulfil impossible election promises, but willing to go through the motions of seeming to try.

First it was the promise to negotiate themselves into majority ownership of Bahamas Telecommunications. The former government had sold the majority of BTC’s shares to Cable and Wireless (C&W). The Christie government wanted to reverse the position of control by buying back two per cent from C&W. Mr Christie must have known it was impossible, but he had to go through the political charade to make his supporters think he was serious and at least trying. In the end untold harm was done to this country’s reputation among investors as to whether the Bahamas was still a stable place in which to do business. Loss of investor confidence certainly will cripple an urgent need to create jobs for the 10,000 unemployed Bahamians who were promised immediate employment under a PLP government.

Then there was the costly gambling referendum. Bungled from beginning to end and still in dispute. For a “capital starved” country it was a costly and unnecessary venture.

And, of course, the still unaccounted for spending on Urban Renewal 2, which detractors claim was a costly “thank-you” for political supporters.

For a country in need of revenue, the reckless spending and support of the largest cabinet in our history, is in our opinion the height of irresponsibility.

No wonder Mr Mitchell has to go to the other side of the world where this government’s reputation is not known.

Mr Mitchell said that “the Prime Minister did not commit this country to any specific borrowing but if there is to be development and there is cheap money available why not? Particularly when our traditional friends are telling us that they are not supporting lending us money anymore.

“To find and search for new sources of funding for this country, new sources of investment, it is critical that we do so as the traditional markets and sources appear to be challenged. This does not mean abandoning our traditional friends but at a time when our country is capital starved and there is excess capital in areas of the world outside our normal sphere of influence it would be foolhardy not for us to search,” said Mr Mitchell.

Mr Mitchell must remember that borrowing — particularly if it comes at very low interest rates, or no interest at all — in the end exacts a very high price. There will be times when loyalties will be tried — particularly when it’s voting time in the United Nations. When that test comes this nation might find itself on the wrong side of the political divide. What then? Remember no matter what happens we are geographically anchored to this hemisphere, and to a democratic way of life not understood — or even accepted — by the troubled peoples of the Middle East. Are they to become our new tourists? Who knows what terrorist might be lurking under those flowing robes.

We must never forget that the majority of our visitors are drawn from the United States, people not particularly popular with those of the Middle East.

According to Mr Mitchell, the United States does not oppose this country’s debt relationship with China. Does Mr Mitchell think that the United States would openly interfere with the decision of a sovereign nation? However, the United States has a subtle way of showing displeasure. Only time will give Mr Mitchell the true answer.

“It is critical to whether we win this next election and I will be depending on the mechanisms I put in place to support my work while engaged in the foreign affairs work that I have been assigned to do,” Mr Mitchell told the House. “It is not without considerable risk for me politically, but I believe it is for the better good.”

Mr Mitchell is starting to sound like a foreign agent. However, the martyr complex does not suit him. We do not think that anyone will be concerned about his political risk.

However, the most important consideration is that this country and its people are not put in harms way.