The President stated, as his other reason for this new direction in foreign policy, his belief that these countries had accumulated significant financial wealth from their petroleum resources. He was convinced that Guyana needed to broaden its “economic diplomacy” which, currently, is mostly directed at North America, Europe, Brazil and China. That is easier said than done.
Summitry
In pursuit of this new policy, the President embarked over the past ten months on a series of visits to Cyprus, Greece, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait and, most recently, Iran. He was greeted cordially everywhere and received lots of kindly assurances. There have been, however, few measurable material benefits from his visits so far. It may be too soon to determine whether this diplomatic initiative will bear fruit and when.
In Cyprus, an agreement was reached “to take steps to promote and further develop relations between the two countries.” In Libya, an agreement was reached for a team of investors “to explore investment possibilities” here and for a Libyan People’s Bureau to be opened in Guyana. In Syria, “avenues through which…relations could be strengthened were explored” and discussions were held about “possible areas” of cooperation and investment.
In Jordan, discussions were held on issues relating to trade, investment, collaboration in the areas of technology, education, health, tourism, energy, climate change, culture and diplomatic relations between the two states. In Kuwait, discussions were held on “means to develop bilateral relations.” Three bilateral agreements in areas of culture and economics were signed and a non-resident ambassador to Guyana is to be appointed. In Iran, two memoranda of understanding on political and visa services and development assistance were signed.
All of this is regular bureaucratic chaff. Without a permanent diplomatic presence in these states it is difficult to see how the agreements will be fulfilled. Given the sparse staffing in Guyana’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its few existing missions it is unlikely that either personnel or money will be found to open an embassy in the Middle East to promote this initiative.
President Jagdeo’s new diplomatic thrust raises several issues. His decision to embark on ‘personal summitry,’ unsupported by a strong team of professional officers could likely falter. He tried this a decade ago during the Suriname maritime crisis when he decided to engage Suriname’s President Jules Wijdenbosch in face-to-face negotiations. The Surinamers were much better informed about the 60-year controversy and advised by serious career foreign service officers. The attempt at summitry did not work then and, eventually, resort had to be made to the professionals. There was a lesson to be learnt.
Personal summitry is a tempting expedient. But it can foster the notion that this sort of episodic presidential contact is superior to, or a substitute for, sedulous, systematic diplomacy, structured negotiations, the employment of professional officers, the establishment and staffing of embassies and the fulfillment of obligations under the raft of agreements which have often been signed. Neither the Office of the President nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at present has the capability to manage its present load of international agreements even with neighbouring Brazil. Adding new ones from several states in the Middle East will impose more unachievable obligations.
Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the main instrument by which a state attempts to achieve is foreign policy objectives in the international system. Guyana, a small state, can only negotiate. It does not have recourse to military force nor can it exert economic pressure to impose its will on other states.
The four founding fathers of the Caribbean Community foresaw this weakness of their small states and prescribed that the coordination of foreign policies would be one of the pillars of the Community as expressed in the Treaty of Chaguaramas. The Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Foreign Affairs − now the Council for Foreign and Community Relations − helped Guyana tremendously in the past and has been one of the Community’s most important diplomatic arms. It would be an error to abandon a coordinated approach at this time.
It was with this new foreign policy focus in view, perhaps, that the Conference of Heads of Mission was purposefully re-convened last October after a nine-year hiatus. Held under the theme, “Repositioning the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to effectively promote the national interest,” the conference assembled all the heads of Guyana’s overseas embassies, high commissions and consulates and met for a three-day retreat.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett announced that the Conference’s objective was “to review Guyana’s strategies and the positions it takes, ensuring all the missions are familiar with them, so as to be more prepared to advance the country’s foreign policy.” She also advised “We will certainly be looking at new alliances that we need to make and strengthening the traditional ones that we’ve had. Traditionally, we’ve been dealing with the ABC countries of [United States of] America, [Great] Britain and Canada but we’re also looking at our relations with other countries like Brazil, and also what we want to do in the Middle East, Asia and so on.”
The Ministry is tethered by its resources and the present situation with regard to organising, staffing and training officers in Guyana’s Foreign Service is restrictive. The Foreign Service Institute which had responsibility for training new officers has been closed for several years. The administration has also followed a deliberate policy of purging the highest level of the service of professional officers and replacing them with political appointees who, although they may well be qualified in other professional fields, are untrained in diplomatic skills.
Apart from Rudy Insanally who, although retired as Minister has not yet been replaced as Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Dr Patrick Gomes, Ambassador to Brussels and the European Union, all of the other ambassadors and High Commissioners are political appointees with scant diplomatic education and experience.
Most recently, Merlin Udho, formerly the Women’s Progressive Organisation’s International Secretary and Programme Coordinator for the Support for Competitiveness Programme at the Ministry of Tourism, Industry and Commerce replaced Karshanjee Arjun as Ambassador in Paramaribo. Mitra Devi Ali, an attorney-at-law, retired as Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Legal Affairs and replaced Timothy Critchlow as Ambassador in Havana. Harry Narine Nawbatt, an accountant who was former director of the Social Impact Amelioration Programme and Minister of Housing and Water replaced Marilyn Miles in Brasilia.
These appointees join the corps of very long-serving diplomats − Odeen Ishmael, a teacher, who was first appointed seventeen years ago to Washington but transferred to Caracas in 2003; Bayney Karran, an attorney-at-law, first appointed to Caracas thirteen years ago and was sent to Washington in 2003; Laleshwar Singh who has been in London for seventeen years; Rajnarine Singh, a businessman who was appointed to Ottawa eleven years ago and Ronald Gajraj, an attorney-at-law and former Minister of Home Affairs, went to New Delhi in 2005.
The Minister, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, at 37, is the youngest member of the team. She used to manage the Amerindian Projects Programme of the Social Impact Amelioration Programme for seven years before being appointed Minister of Amerindian Affairs in 2001 and Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2008.
The national interest
Writing its own annual report entitled “Foreign Ministry records fair year in 2009” that was issued by the Government Information Agency earlier this month, the Ministry wordily claimed that 2009 was a year in which “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was determined to manifest the fact that a small developing nation can stand tall, proud and strong among the giants of the international arena by helping to promote the cardinal principles of respect for international law, the peaceful settlement of disagreements among and between States, international cooperation to combat common threats and equal rights for all mankind.”
Apart from its attempts to employ a few upbeat phrases such as the assertion that relations between Guyana and Venezuela “have not been better in recent memory,” there were few achievements to boast of. Guyana reinforced its reputation as a recipient of Venezuelan assistance, this time for the construction of a Centre for Rehabilitation and Reintegration of the Homeless. It also signed an agreement for the export of rice. On the consular side, Guyana iterated that it was still “looking at the possibility” of establishing consular representation in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela to assist the 30,000 Guyanese many of whom have been living in Venezuela for nearly 30 years.
In Brazil, the official inauguration of the Brazilian-built Takutu River Bridge last September could hardly be described as a Guyanese achievement. As with Venezuela, the Government of Guyana is “currently considering” establishing consular representation in Boa Vista to assist Guyanese in that country. Cuba, another perennial aid donor, provided financial assistance for Guyana’s National Ophthalmology Hospital at Port Mourant and also seconded specialized staff − including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, administrators and bio-medical technicians − to operate the institution.
In reality, apart from its success in receiving assistance, the Ministry can claim few concrete accomplishments, a sad reflection of a severely limited head office, an under-resourced diplomatic service and a mendicant mindset. Ratifying agreements, attending meetings and passing bills in the National Assembly are the quotidian tasks expected of any administration.
Sir Shridath Ramphal, one of Guyana’s most experienced diplomats and a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, warned when he addressed a Caribbean Diplomatic Training Programme for Mid-Career Diplomats last May, “The truth is that the quality of our most senior representatives is very uneven. This is often the case where political, not professional, considerations have influenced their choice. As important as our choice of diplomats, is the capacity of the Foreign Ministry to support them and to service the government at home. This means both numbers and professional quality.”
Ramphal continued “…you cannot build an effective Foreign Service save through recruiting to it the best intellectual talent of the country and you cannot attract such talent unless you have a Foreign Service of high calibre. A well-oiled Foreign Service means constant direction and coordination of our Foreign Missions from the Foreign Ministry…Diplomats cannot be sent abroad and left to improvise in foreign capitals, all the moreso when they themselves are sub-quality.”
Was anyone at Takuba Lodge listening?
