Dear Editor,
I was pleased to see the recent Stabroek News editorial published on the country’s foreign policy and more specifically its plea for higher priority to be given to economic diplomacy. The editorial of July 16th seemed concerned that enough attention is not being given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to exporting, particularly marketing and, investment. It was also contended that while the Government had said a great deal about this matter, little had been done. Noticeable among the other contentions was that we have been unable to break with old habits as regards priorities. Prominent among the arguments was the frequency of the call for the appointment of (a majority of ) Heads of Missions (HOMs) with commercial background or export experience and for prominence to be given to the interplay with the commercial and export sector.
Much of what was said is true as regards the thrust but in keeping with common Guyanese form, the editorial writer could not resist the temptation to exaggerate as reflected in the contention that, “the gap between the rhetoric associated with economic diplomacy and the realization thereof as a facet of the overall diplomatic process remains as wide as the expanse of water separating the opposite banks of the Demerara River.”.
I should like to offer a few observations by way of response to some of the suggestions and criticisms. First, there can be little to disagree with suggestions pertaining to the adequate or otherwise of the number of our Overseas Embassies and the resources available to them. We have among the lowest paid staff in the Caribbean and have also signalled the need for another Embassy in Africa to service the African Union as well as ongoing discussions about an embassy in the UAE. Let me also point out that although it is not in its title, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) is responsible for foreign trade policy and investment. The latter is undertaken in conjunction with the Ministries of Finance and that of Business, in particular. The editorial gives the impression that investment in Guyana has fallen in recent years and that there is a new urgency now that petroleum is on the horizon. The petroleum activities are a reflection of greater investment. The magnitude of investment in the petroleum and mining, including manganese, sectors has not been equalled in either absolute or relative terms in Guyana in our lifetimes or those of our parents. The MoFA has played a critical part in this alongside the relevant sector agencies. Constraints on investment elsewhere arise from our lack of physical infrastructure of all kinds and inadequate educational levels. Our work with the Diaspora also involves investment issues, promotion and advice.
Secondly, Guyana’s foreign policy cannot be primarily about export enhancement. Exports may be an urgent economic issue but one cannot export if there is no state. So, first and foremost amongst our goals is the task of preserving our state, its physical space and its standing and recognition. Our primary role is diplomatic and strategic. Stabroek News, in contrast with other local newspapers has, until recently, shown a very commendable grasp of the significance of this point. The editorial like most Guyanese writers seem unaware that most states are getting physically larger. The size of coastal states in particular has been expanding. That phenomenon has been achieved by carving up the world’s oceans and sharing it among coastal states. A state has to be involved in the process if it is to benefit, otherwise other states will lay claim to ocean space and continental shelves and areas beyond the continental shelves thereby bringing what some believe are fantastic resources to the individual states by way of minerals. The North Pole alone has been estimated to harbour the equivalent of (another) ¼ of the world’s petroleum reserves. Few observers seem to realise that without the struggle and arbitral award over the Courantyne, Liza 1 would lie inside Suriname’s borders.
For this and the more obvious reasons it would be irresponsible not to have strategic and border issues at the forefront of foreign policy and skills mobilisation. Missions such as Caracas and Paramaribo are primarily charged with the specific issues peculiar to the bilateral relations with neighbours, border issues and sovereignty. Marketing cannot be the sole or even the primary focus of such Missions. It is not obvious therefore that the Heads of such Missions should be marketing experts. This is not to say that some other staff members should not be, but that is another story I will touch on later.
Thirdly, the main problem facing Guyanese exporters is not failure to find markets. In the case of traditional exports, such as agricultural commodities especially sugar, timber and rice the problem is largely lack of price competitiveness – Guyana is a high cost producer and our main salvation in these markets would need to be to develop niche products and to enhance the processing of the traditional products. The era of preferential markets for little processed commodities produced with cheap labour is largely behind us. Sending an Ambassador experienced or versed in marketing will not generate ever expanding markets in these traditional areas. We face severe competition from lower cost producers in the Far East and Asia, for example, and an increasing array of rules and regulations relating to quality control and health standards. Our exporters need to be encouraged to develop new products or old ones with rising inputs of services.
In these areas the challenge is to install capacity to test and ensure quality control, an area in which we are notoriously weak hence the challenges we face in dealing with markets with sanitary and phyto-sanitary regulations and rules about traceability. Growing global obsession with health and healthy eating has fuelled the expansion of such standards. We need to enhance levels of quality control locally. There are insufficient laboratory facilities and other infrastructure not to mention trained staff. We have seen the consequences of this lacuna in relation to catfish, such as hassar, cuirass and gilbacker, exports to the USA in early 2018. Even in relation to the very buoyant and high potential growth markets for fruit and vegetables we have challenges. Tales of Guyanese exporters and their traditional penchant for cutting corners and not delivering to agreed standards could fill all the books at the National public library in GT. This is a serious supply constraint or supply side problem.
When I was CPO of the State Planning Secretariat we often spoke of Guyana as a ‘sample economy’. When, at a trade fair our exporters were asked for samples, all would be well. When the potential buyer heard of the quantities we proposed to supply they would ask whether we were still discussing samples! When we moved to deliver supplies the problem was the same, inability to deliver in meaningful quantities – scaling up production and logistical management of supply has been a problem. In non traditional products and ‘new’ markets our challenges lie in the need to organise ourselves to meet the specific challenges of those markets as we see in the case of the EPA and Brazil, the challenge are bureaucratic and informational as well as too narrow a production base, respectively.
The writer of the editorial offers some critical comments about the skills of those recruited by the MoFA. Generally speaking, the comment about the mix of skills falls on sympathetic ears in the MoFA although it seems to me that the author is in a mood to go to the other extreme. Balance is needed in the Ministry’s mix of skills given that all the work of the Missions cannot be about marketing. Additionally, the best marketing skills should and would be found in the exporting agencies rather than in the MoFA. Let me make it clear here that the recruitment of the skills for the MoFA is not in the hands of the MoFA. The Ministry is largely at the mercy of the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Ministry both of which need to be scrapped if they cannot be radically restructured soon in a fashion consistent with the importance of their mandate and the needs of a second Millennium Foreign Ministry. Such a Ministry, even at the end on the 1990s, ought not to be recruiting 95% of its new staff from among graduates in international relations with no language or technical skills to speak of. My colleagues are tired of hearing my outrage at being saddled during the course of the last week of life of the last PSC in 2018 with 18 graduates in IR. That behaviour reflects a belief among apparently educated persons that the main need of the MoFA is for persons to perform ushering services and take minutes during the course of meetings with foreign agencies. They clearly have no time for the Ministry’s call for graduates in languages (including English most importantly!) sciences, law and economics, for example. So, it should be clear why marketing may not even appear on the list of staff skills. In keeping with the archaic rules persons sent to the Ministry cannot be sent back before completing a year at the Ministry. For reasons too embarrassing to elaborate, we have been unable to correct this system in four years!
The MoFA has some 16 Missions (excluding 5 Consulates) some of which are specifically charged with managing our input to the overall global or regional trade framework primarily that of the WTO and the EPA. They work with and seek appropriate changes in WTO rules during negotiations rather than finding some entity interested in importing per se. In other words, a look at the literature and experience in the area would demonstrate the obvious, namely that, economic diplomacy involves multilateral and not merely bilateral work. Those Missions specifically mandated to undertake multilateral trade work are – Geneva, London and Brussels. Whether therefore the Ambassador would need to be a marketing expert is a moot point.
In any case, contrary to the impression given in the editorial, at least four of the current Heads of Mission have served as senior managers of large private enterprises involved in production and exporting or in the commercial sector with exposure to, and experience in, exporting. Several other staff members have worked in the private sector.
As with most things the need here is for balance. Like Jamaica’s, the MOFA could recruit more individuals or establish an arm to deal specifically with export promotion. We did have such an agency up to the mid-1980s. Paying such recruits, especially if they have had private sector experience, is often a challenge too far.
Yours faithfully,
Carl Greenidge
