If it were not for the Foreign Minister’s inexperience and lack of familiarity with border questions, it would be difficult to understand how Takuba Lodge could have pursued the chairmanship of the Group of 77 and China at such potential cost to the interests of this nation. Last week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that on November 22nd, Guyana had been elected chairman of the largest group of developing countries in the United Nations, and that this had followed a CARICOM decision earlier this year to ensure that a regional candidate assumed the chairmanship. (China participates in G77 meetings but is not a member.)
Dr Karen Cummings, Minister of Foreign Affairs, was quoted as saying that Guyana will discharge its responsibilities under the chairmanship “with integrity, [and] faithfulness to the principles and objectives of the United Nations.” She was reported as going on to say that this nation was resolved to use the opportunity to further the interests of all developing countries.
While this resolve may be all very admirable in its context, it surely does not take precedence over the interests of this nation and our territorial integrity. And where that is concerned, Stabroek News last week had reported sources as saying that Venezuela raised objections to Guyana securing the position unless public lobbying for support on the border controversy within the Group was discontinued. This newspaper was told that on certain matters, Venezuela was likely to get its allies such as China and a number of Latin American countries to side with Caracas. One source was quoted as observing, “It questions the price for Venezuela’s support over national interest.”
For its part, the government has said that the election to the chairmanship showed the G77 members’ support for Guyana and came without preconditions. However, the conversation with Caracas on the matter proceeded, or whatever the administration understands by the term no preconditions, it has to realise that given the hostile actions of Venezuela in recent times, it is a challenge for anyone to believe that our western neighbour did not lay down conditions before agreeing not to oppose our assumption of the chairmanship. Furthermore, it is also a challenge for anyone to believe that Miraflores would not seize the opportunity handed to it on a plate not to extract some advantage from Guyana on the border issue.
SN has been given to understand that there are, in any case, other disadvantages to accepting the post, one of which is that funding for the duties associated with it would entail paying out nearly US$1 million. What are we doing wasting this amount of money on what is little more than a prestige position from our perspective, and which might well compromise our capacity to raise our case on the boundary? Appearances should never take precedence over national interest.
If that were not enough, this newspaper reported that it was also told by sources that the G77 chairmanship was “nothing big to boast about” as the position involved more internal diplomatic conflicts than the public was aware of. What the ministry has informed the public is that Guyana would be committed to endeavouring to strengthen multilateralism for the benefit of all developing countries, including by presiding over global sustainable development and climate change negotiations, as well as by efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation. One has to ask again whether all of that is not really so much diplomatic fluff, and is worth the sacrifice of silencing us in terms of promoting our own cause. After all, strengthening multilateralism would hardly be a primary consideration if it was only Venezuela and its allies which could be heard on the issue central to our existence as a unified territory.
But the financial cost to us of this chairmanship is not the only issue; it will also put our human resources under stress, since the Foreign Ministry has said that team members will come from the ministry itself as well as other government ministries and the Guyanese diaspora. All this at a time when President David Granger has the diplomatic service in some upheaval.
First, Ms Audrey Jardine-Waddell was relieved of her post as Director General, a position which was itself unceremoniously abolished, although under what legal instrument has yet to be disclosed. The public naturally saw this as a demotion reflecting the Head of State’s displeasure, although last Wednesday, President Granger was at pains to insist that it was not a demotion, but a promotion, since she had been “earmarked for foreign posting … She’s qualified for a higher post.” Ambassadors are normally answerable to the Director General, so technically speaking, an ambassadorship would not qualify as a “promotion” as such.
That said, an ambassadorial appointment might conceivably still be acceptable from the former Director General’s point of view, although much would depend on the mission to which Ms Jardine-Waddell was sent. If it is that Mr Granger would like to make her a “team” player in the complement to staff one of the G77 chapters scattered in Europe and Africa, albeit with an ambassadorial title, that would hardly be an upgrade. It would make her subordinate to the incoming G77 Chair, understood by this newspaper to be Ambassador Rudolph Michael Ten-Pow, who has always been subordinate to her.
Then there is the matter of the replacement of five heads of mission on grounds of professionalising the diplomatic service. The president told the media that it had always been his intention to reduce the appointment of persons who did not come through the foreign service, a rather strange statement considering that he himself made several political appointments to ambassadorial posts on his assumption of the presidency. He also said that his government had long made it clear that ambassadors would be appointed for three-year tenures and it was only because of the lack of certainty about the timing of elections that the announcement was held up.
This makes little sense as an excuse, since this is now a caretaker government going to elections in three-and-a-half months’ time. In this role, it should not be engaged in any Foreign Ministry “restructuring”, neither abolishing the Director General’s post nor engaging in a shake-up of the missions. If the government loses the poll, then a new administration will change its overseas representatives in any case, and if it wins there will be time enough to make the changes. What, one wonders, is the need for all the urgency? What is it that President Granger is seeking to achieve?
The Foreign Ministry’s statement suggested that some ambassadors who had been too long abroad were impeding the rise of younger officers “whose performance and professional competence might require that they be appointed to the summit of the Foreign Service.” It is certainly important to allow young, talented foreign service officers an avenue though the ranks, but to engineer a sweep substituting youth for experience all in one fell swoop does not recommend itself as the best of wisdom.
This government inherited a much diminished ministry in terms of human resources and institutional memory on a range of issues, not the least of which was the border question. On the assumption of office, the PPP/C with Mr Clement Rohee first as head and then as minister effected its own much more comprehensive sweep of some very competent officers. It regarded the ministry as a waste of money, which required, in addition, a political purge. By the end of that party’s term, there was a slightly better grasp of how Takuba Lodge should function, but the damage had already been done. And now, at the end of his current term when he should not be making any fundamental changes, President Granger is adding his own bit of turmoil to the mix. Have none of our governments ever heard of continuity?
