Dwyer Astaphan Criticizes Christophe Harbour Sale, Demands Transparency from Drew Administration

The recent sale of the Christophe Harbour marina in St. Kitts has ignited a firestorm of controversy, fueled by accusations of government secrecy, foreign favoritism, and a blatant disregard for the economic well-being of the local population. Dwyer Astaphan, a respected social commentator and former government minister, has publicly denounced the transaction, characterizing it as a missed opportunity of colossal proportions and a stark betrayal of the Kittitian and Nevisian people. He argues that the government, both past and present, failed to leverage its power to renegotiate the deeply flawed 2007 master agreement that essentially ceded control of a significant portion of the island to foreign developers, crippling local economic development and compromising national sovereignty. This agreement, Astaphan contends, created a “foreign principality” on Kittitian soil, allowing developers to operate with impunity while local interests were marginalized.

Astaphan’s critique centers on the perceived lack of transparency surrounding the sale to Safe Harbor Marinas, a U.S. company backed by the financial behemoth Blackstone Infrastructure. He questions the government’s absence from the closing table, raising concerns about whether local creditors, including the St. Kitts Electricity Company (SKELEC), the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF), and the National Bank, were repaid from the sale proceeds. Furthermore, he challenges the government to disclose whether any provisions were made for environmental restoration and local redevelopment, crucial considerations given the extensive development within Christophe Harbour. The overarching question remains: did the sale benefit the people of St. Kitts and Nevis, or did it merely enrich foreign investors while leaving locals with empty promises?

The former minister paints a picture of a development project riddled with broken promises and unfulfilled potential. He accuses the developers of dragging their feet for over a decade, transforming a vast expanse of land into an “investment graveyard” while simultaneously accumulating substantial debts from local institutions. He highlights the glaring disparity between the developers’ financial struggles and their ability to secure further investment, suggesting a pattern of exploitation enabled by a complacent government. This narrative of foreign entities profiting while local communities bear the brunt of economic stagnation resonates deeply with many Kittitians and Nevisians who feel excluded from the benefits of development within their own country.

Astaphan’s condemnation extends beyond the immediate financial implications of the sale. He argues that the original 2007 agreement was fundamentally flawed, representing a blatant disregard for national interests. He questions the legality and ethical implications of allowing foreign law firms to dominate the legal proceedings surrounding the sale, effectively sidelining Kittitian and Nevisian professionals. This, he suggests, is symptomatic of a broader pattern of prioritizing foreign interests over local expertise and capacity building. He calls for a complete overhaul of the management of Christophe Harbour, advocating for the involvement of world-class investors who are committed to the project’s success and the economic empowerment of the local community.

The crux of Astaphan’s argument is that the Christophe Harbour saga represents a missed opportunity for transformative economic development. He asserts that the sale should have been a catalyst for local empowerment, creating jobs, fostering entrepreneurial opportunities, and generating revenue for crucial public services. Instead, he fears it has become another example of foreign exploitation, perpetuating a cycle of economic dependency and reinforcing the perception that locals are treated as “second-class citizens in their own land.” He calls for immediate action, demanding answers from the Drew administration and urging the government to prioritize the needs of its people over the interests of foreign investors.

Astaphan’s outspoken critique has resonated deeply within the community, tapping into a wellspring of frustration and disillusionment. His call for transparency and accountability has amplified the public’s demand for answers regarding the terms of the sale, the allocation of proceeds, and the government’s long-term vision for Christophe Harbour. The silence from the Drew administration only serves to fuel speculation and deepen the sense of mistrust. The future of Christophe Harbour, and indeed the economic trajectory of St. Kitts and Nevis, hangs in the balance, awaiting a decisive response from the government that addresses the legitimate concerns raised by Astaphan and the broader community. Will the government heed the call for change, or will this episode become another chapter in the narrative of missed opportunities and unfulfilled potential?