By Peter Young

As a former diplomat, I shy away from writing in this column about domestic political issues. However, the controversy last week following the recent meeting in Jamaica of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has a broader international dimension which it might be interesting to examine.

In considering the treatment of migrants in The Bahamas and other human rights issues, the IACHR has reportedly claimed it can compel this country to amend its citizenship laws and other related legislation. FNM government ministers have correctly dismissed any notion of the IACHR interfering in such a way as unacceptable. While it is reasonable that alleged excesses of any government worldwide can be called into question as appropriate, the claim about changing Bahamian law seems to be mere rhetoric because, according to its own website, the IACHR can only issue reports and make recommendations to a foreign government.

Nonetheless, such a claim brings into question important issues of international law, in particular the extent to which international organisations and bodies can impose on nation-states an agenda which may affect their day-to-day activities and which may not be to the liking of their own elected legislatures.

Defined as the body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilised states in their relations with one another, international law has for hundreds of years consisted mainly of treaties between states and the way they interacted. But the ‘new world order’ proclaimed by President Bush in 1990 led to a proliferation of institutions at international level seeking to impose regulations in the form of international codes on individual states over a wide range of activity.

Already, of course, states were parties to specialised agencies of the United Nations like the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation which are responsible for measures to improve safety and security, and they impose obligations on member states. There is some ceding of sovereignty involved, but this is technical and practical co-operation on a global scale and is in the interests of all the parties concerned because it is essential, for example, to regulate aviation and shipping to enable it to operate safely and properly worldwide. But that is different from international bodies seeking to interfere with domestic governance issues.

The ideal of world government goes back a long time as a means of organising human affairs in such a way as to abolish the threat of war. But it is also regarded as impracticable. The UN was not designed as a world governing body but more as a vehicle to foster co-operation among existing independent nations in areas like international security, economic development, human rights and social progress and to provide a forum for discussion.

Overriding all this, however, is the doctrine of national sovereignty. A sovereign state has a responsibility and right to govern itself and run its own affairs as it sees fit without being dictated to by outside bodies, and it has the power to do so. Nevertheless, most commentators do not regard globalisation and sovereignty as being mutually exclusive since independent nations can both govern themselves and co-operate with others, to the benefit bilaterally of each or on the world stage through multilateral institutions.

Some say all this is largely academic and what matters is dealing with issues as they arise. It can be argued the only way to bring about change is to apply constant and unrelenting pressure on those concerned, depending on the circumstances. But the key is surely consultation, constructive dialogue and negotiation rather than confrontation.

In the current case of the IACHR and The Bahamas, since the government holds the power it surely makes sense to seek improvement in protecting human rights across-the-board through such dialogue and co-operation. This applies, of course, to both sides. So in such a situation it is incumbent on government - in seeking to comply with its international obligations - to engage in a meaningful way with representatives of civil society.

It has always puzzled me that in a country like The Bahamas – with, deservedly, such a positive international reputation as a desirable tourist destination and a splendid place to live, which my wife and I can attest to after 20 happy years here – some human rights abuses may be tolerated despite the efforts of human rights activists. The existence of such institutions as the former Fox Hill prison, with its harsh and inhumane high security section, and the poor conditions of the Carmichael Road Detention Centre – both of which I have seen for myself – are hardly consistent with the nation’s favourable world image. It is difficult to believe such places in their present state exist in what is such a wonderful and blessed country in so many respects.

Be that as it may, the forthcoming visit to The Bahamas of IACHR commissioners as a step towards improved co-operation between the parties concerned seems to me to be a helpful development.

England's soccer success has us dreaming of 1966

Sports fans the world over will have taken note of the unprecedented achievement of leading team English soccer team Manchester City in winning an historic domestic treble. By doing so, after already enjoying considerable success in recent years, it has overtaken its world famous rival Manchester United.

On Saturday, Manchester City won the FA Cup Final at Wembley by a record six goals to nil (the highest margin in more than a century) and thus became the first club in English history to complete the treble, having already topped this season’s English Premier League and won the League Cup.

With four of its clubs contesting the Europa League final and the Champions League final, England’s football is riding high. Cricket is the national sport, but football is now considered to be the most popular team sport in the country. After a summer break of two months, the next season starts in August and millions of fans will look forward to that with eager anticipation and the hope that what has been called the ‘beautiful game’ will go from strength to strength.

Perhaps England can now win another World Cup. To older followers, in particular, who were present when England last gained the world trophy as long ago as 1966 after a famous triumph over Germany in the final, another such victory at the FIFA World Cup in Qatar in 2022 would truly be the icing on the cake.

Why do politicians put themselves through all this scrutiny?

While watching, in the midst of the continuing political turmoil in Britain, the gradual ousting of Prime Minister Theresa May, one cannot help reflecting on why politicians put themselves through the agony of it all. In recent months, she has faced criticism from all quarters because of her failure to deliver Brexit on the due date of March 29. She has been pilloried, harried and hassled endlessly to the point that her own colleagues are now asking her to set a timetable for the ending of her premiership – and, if not, she will be forced out.

According to all reports, Mrs May’s time at the top is coming to an end because of a loss of confidence in her by her own MPs as well as by the Tory constituency associations. Sadly for her and her supporters, she has become a lame duck leader with her authority now diminished if not destroyed. One telling sign was last week’s ‘Prime Minister’s Questions’ at which she normally performs well. It seemed to lack all atmosphere in a far-from-crowded House of Commons chamber with too many MPs not even bothering to turn up. As one last throw of the dice, she will put her EU Withdrawal Agreement – apparently with some new amendments – to the vote once more after this week’s European Parliament elections even though MPs have already rejected it three times. If that fails, the indications are she will be forced to step down immediately.

It was the Conservative politician and former government minister, Enoch Powell – infamous for his anti-immigration ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968 that caused a political storm and led to his dismissal – who memorably said all political careers end in failure because that is the nature of politics. So what motivates people to put themselves through the wringer of public scrutiny leading all too often to the pain and indignity of rejection and humiliation?

MPs at Westminster are paid fairly well and can claim various expenses on top of their salary. So some may do it partly for the money - particularly as their status as an MP often leads to remunerative directorships - while those who become ministers may become seduced by the trappings and benefits of high office.

Some are ideologues with strong principles and political ambition who genuinely believe they have a duty to serve and make a difference to public life. Others may be purely interested in exercising power. One of Winston Churchill’s biographers spoke of the great man’s love of power that motivated him while Abraham Lincoln was described as a person of great ambition who from an early age wanted to be US president. But one of the oldest adages is that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that can be applied to recent leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, to name just two examples. Moreover, it is said good people are put off from participating in politics by the scrutiny they are likely to suffer. Who among us has led a life without blemish and who does not have the odd proverbial skeleton in the cupboard that they would prefer remained there?

In Britain, the coming weeks could produce a brutal political backlash against the main parties. But the leader of the new Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, is now himself under unprecedented scrutiny. His childhood, medical history, business and personal life - including his drinking habits since he is known to enjoy going to the pub - will all be under the microscope. So who knows what that might reveal?

• Peter Young is a retired career diplomat and former British High Commissioner to The Bahamas where he is now a permanent resident.