A diplomatic deficit
Editorial
The observation is often made that small nations like Guyana with their fragile economies, will have an increasingly difficult time in making their voices heard in a world where globalization is the mantra. More than ever, the fate of developing nations is being decided at fora like the World Trade Organization, and more than ever those nations need sophisticated representation in order to ensure that their legitimate claims are not overridden. The Caribbean had such representation during the recent negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries for a successor pact to Lome. In his Sunday Stabroek column of February 6, this year, Mr David Jessop stated that the role of the Caribbean and Mauritius had been central to the success of the negotiations. He went on to remark: "So much so that there is a begrudging view among some EU negotiators that if the Jamaican Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Anthony Hylton, in particular, had not been the senior ACP Trade negotiator, then the ACP would not have achieved the sophisticated language on transitional arrangements or market access that the final agreement now contains." This is not the first time that Mr Jessop has made reference to Mr Hylton's unique talents at the bargaining table; in an earlier column he predicted that the Jamaican Minister had a future as one of the world's leading negotiators in the international arena. Where negotiations between the EU and ACP are concerned, Minister Hylton has a predecessor in the form of then Minister (now Prime Minister) PJ Patterson. However, the leading role played by Guyana's diplomats - in particular then Minister Shridath Ramphal - in forging the association of ACP states must also be acknowledged. That grouping had its origin in the 1972 meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement in Georgetown, and it was Guyana's diplomats who illuminated the path to a trans-continental partnership which was able to extract trade concessions from the then European Economic Community (now EU). Before the ACP bond was made fast, however, difficulties and suspicions arose, which were smoothed over by Minister Ramphal both through public statements and private diplomacy. For two-and-a-half decades, beginning in the 1960s, Guyana was well represented abroad, and her diplomats could claim an intimate grasp of the inner workings of the international system. The creation of a foreign policy with clear aims, and the installation in strategic posts of a cadre of talented diplomats who understood and could pursue those aims, gave Guyana international clout well above that which her economic and political status would have normally warranted. Those were the days when former Minister Rashleigh Jackson in company with Salim Abdul Salim of Tanzania, put their imprimatur on the drafting of many resolutions dealing with the important political issues of the time to come before the UN General Assembly. Guyana's strong showing in the diplomatic arena allowed her to contain Venezuela's bellicosity, giving her sufficient muscle to exclude the neighbouring state from membership of the Non-Aligned Movement. Her international status and consequent ability to canvas votes also put Dr Mohamed Shahabuddeen onto the International Court of Justice. All was not perfection, of course, and in any case the world was a less complex place than it is now, but even taking those things into account, Guyana's diplomatic record was far more impressive than it is today, and Guyana's diplomatic skills were far more in evidence than they are today. One of the greatest mistakes made by the present administration was to dismantle the diplomatic structures of the PNC era, and create the environment of mistrust which caused so many professional officers to resign. Without going into details, the PPP/Civic misunderstood the functions and methods of the foreign service at the time of its accession to office, and in pulling the plug on the bathwater, it lost the baby in the process. All of which does not mean to say that Takuba Lodge was not in need of rationalization in 1992, but the last thing it needed was the destruction of its institutional framework, its institutional memory and its pool of diplomatic/negotiating skills. While in theory it is possible to replace lost talent if various things are in place, it has to be said that a good diplomat requires not just ability, but also experience. Unfortunately for the Government that reservoir of experience lies for the most part with the PNC. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but the reality has to be faced if the Foreign Ministry is ever to regain its former status. As has often been proposed before, a rapprochement between the major parties should really begin with border issues. A standing Parliamentary Committee on border matters, and the framing of a national border policy would allow the administration to tap skills outside its limited political ambit. From there, foreign policy in general could be considered. For all of that to happen, however, the language emanating from Takuba Lodge would have to be rather more fastidious than it sometimes is, and both sides, not least the PNC, would have to identify with a national goal in this sphere. In an electioneering year, that is, no doubt, a vain hope.
|