The word protocol is derived from the combination of two ancient Greek words, protos (first) and kollao (attach); literally translating into attached first. Simply put, it sets the stage for engagement. Protocol is so intricately interwoven with the subject of diplomacy that separating the two can be equated to trying to resolve the question of which is the hand, and which is the glove. The riddle aside, the role of protocol in a country’s foreign relations is of the utmost importance.
Prior to its return to office in 2020, the PPP/C Government was fully aware of our newly discovered oil wealth and the significant geo-political influence in the western hemisphere that accompanied this unearthing. One assumed that the lack of alacrity in the attention paid to foreign affairs during its previous stint (1992 – 2015) would be replaced by an entirely different playbook, with diplomacy a top priority. Alas, this aspiration is completely invalid, as what could only be described as ‘Season Two of the House of Horrors’ show continues to roll merrily along, much to the nation’s, but apparently not the PPP/C’s, embarrassment. The Charrandass Persaud fiasco in India (Mr Charrandass Persaud, SN editorial, 28th October, 2022) served as a reminder of two unsavoury incidents towards the end of the PPP/C’s previous term in office, which were most inappropriate breaches of fundamental diplomatic protocol.
On the 4th July, 2014, American Indepen-dence Day, at a function which also served as a farewell for outgoing US Ambassador Brent Hardt, then acting Foreign Affairs Minister Priya Manickchand delivered her now infamous ‘feral blast’. Much to the astonishment of guests, Minister Manickchand broadsided Ambassador Hardt for the perceived slight of meddling in the affairs of a sovereign Guyana, which she described as “justifying insurrection.” The Ambassador’s crime? Bringing up the subject of the long overdue local government elections at the closing ceremony of a Blue Caps training programme.
In January 2015, then Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon had labelled outgoing British High Commissioner Andrew Ayre as a “pariah” whose departure was eagerly anticipated. High Commissioner Ayre was verbally attacked for stating that the suspension of Parliament was a violation of the Commonwealth Charter and sanctions from London could be in the pipeline. In his tirade, Dr Luncheon described High Commissioner Ayre as “terribly dishonourable,” and went on to refer to the “recent EU dishonouring” of its agreement with the Government of Guyana in relation to budgetary support. The Cabinet Secretary accused the British High Commissioner of “sinisterly and conspiratorially” revealing the handiwork of the UK and EU threat to withhold development aid which he considered “most dastardly.”
Now, there are standard diplomatic protocols to be followed where visiting dignitaries are considered to have overstepped their diplomatic boundaries. The Head of Mission of the violating foreign country is ‘summoned’ to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the matter is handled in a civilised manner behind closed doors, or in the instances of what might be considered minor infractions, a statement would be issued condoning the act in coded language. Instead, in both instances mentioned above, the public displays of tawdry behaviour by senior government officials were embarrassing reflections on our nation. It must be noted also that the two forums selected, a farewell gathering and a post Cabinet media briefing, showed a complete lack of decorum for either occasion.
Protocol encompasses the rules of social engagement. Etiquette and civil behaviour are the adhesives of an orderly and successful society. It is expected that the government of the day and the country’s diplomatic corps set the standards and tone for the enforcement of these codes of conduct. It is worrisome that these disturbing diplomatic faux pas keep reoccurring at a time when our standards of performance should be ascending to the highest levels.
The selection of High Commissioners and Ambassadors should be an exercise akin to the cultivation of rare orchids, i. e. executed with great care and immense caution. A relatively small nation, such as ours, would best be served by a pool of career diplomats (wishful thinking for a perfect world). Career diplomats are a select breed, blessed with high intellect, excelling at public speaking, often multilingual, very sociable and replete with impeccable manners. Their quick study and adaptability facilitate them being comfortable with all strata of society at a moment’s notice, and they are perfect representatives for a nation on any occasion required. Most importantly, they have an uncanny knack of adhering to the rules of protocol of which they are intimately versed in, and fully appreciating the fact that a diplomat is on duty 24 hours a day.
Diplomatic protocol departments are fast paced environments with continuously changing agendas. It is a world of interpreters and facilitators who try to dot every i and cross every t, as they do their utmost to ensure that all protocols and customs of visiting envoys’ cultures are strenuously followed. The minutiae of social conduct and ceremony is carefully observed, from seating arrangements at the head table, to the order of serving meals, proposing of toasts, execution of handshakes, avoidance of certain gestures, and the eschewing of particular colours in the dress code when visiting other countries. Nothing is left to chance.
With every change in government we are accustomed to having our key ambassadors and high commissioners replaced. In the last instance, Dr Riyad Insanally was replaced after five years as our emissary to the USA, this means that his five years of network contacts and cultivated goodwill are now lost. The appointment of loyal untrained party supporters to key diplomatic posts is a recipe for disaster. One can conclude that this stratagem of “diplomatic postings for the loyalists” is a deliberate ploy by Freedom House. One which allows it to retain one of the tenets of its Communist origins, centralised control, where it can limit or restrain the role of its heads of missions.
As long as this ‘inbreeding’ policy of selecting in-house or favoured candidates as ambassadors as opposed to the best people available prevails, we will continue to be embarrassed by the likes of Charrandass Persaud, who, with their ‘bull in a China shop’ mentality, are totally unsuitable for the diplomatic corps.
