JUST WHO WILL BE GOING TO GHANA?

Sep 10, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

When the President of Guyana proclaimed his reservations over the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiated between CARIFORUM and the European Union, he was critical of it on a number of fronts: the weakened solidarity between CARICOM and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) grouping, and the agreement’s underpinning by the principle of reciprocity.

Later, during last week’s national consultations, he expressed reservations over the developmental features of the agreement, the possibility of it conflicting with the regional integration process, and the lack of social impact assessments.

The earlier set of objections by the President found resonance in the positions outlined by former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Sir Shridath Ramphal, while the latter objections have a striking coincidence with some of the criticisms which Professor Clive Thomas had advanced in his eighteen-week series on the agreement, published in his Guyana and the wider world column.

The President, therefore, clearly embraces positions which are shared by respected and highly influential persons in the regional and global communities.

It was therefore surprising that Guyana adopted the position that it would go for a goods-only agreement so as to avoid Guyana’s exports being subject to Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) tariffs, when instead Guyana could have adopted a suggestion by Ramphal that CARICOM await the outcome of an October meeting of the ACP in Ghana so as to gauge ACP solidarity.

I have never been convinced of this notion of ACP solidarity, but since the President believes the EPA negotiating process undermined this solidarity, I would have expected that instead of taking the cautious approach, he would have instead adopted the suggestion by Ramphal, and agreed to propose to CARICOM that it await the outcome of the ACP meeting in Ghana in October.

If ACP solidarity is so critical, then this ought to have been the logical route. If Guyana accepts the importance of ACP solidarity, it ought not just to have waited on the outcome of the October meeting, but it ought to have assembled a high-powered team, led by the President and including Ramphal and Thomas to go to Africa to lobby on Guyana’s and the Caribbean’s behalf.

Instead, we are now being shockingly informed that the President of Guyana will be unable to attend the meeting in Ghana because he has a speaking engagement in China.

It is now also being reported that the President will send a diplomatic note to the Ghana conference with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett. What sort of nonsense is this?

Now I appreciate if the President had previously committed to speaking in China, it will pose some problems for him to now opt out of this prior arrangement.

However, I believe that a mere diplomatic note, even with the presence of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, is not the ideal level of representation that we should be having in October in Ghana.

I believe that Guyana needs a team of persons to spearhead a mission to lobby the grouping if indeed we are serious about the support of the ACP.

I would strongly suggest, therefore, that this proposal of sending a diplomatic note be put on hold, and that instead, the Foreign Minister of Guyana lead a top–level team which should include Ramphal and Thomas, as well as Winston Murray and a member of the local stakeholder grouping which participated in the just concluded consultations.

Guyana is going to embarrass itself if it believes that it can influence the ACP grouping by way of a diplomatic note and the presence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs alone.

I believe that Guyana needs at that meeting someone with wide reach in terms of international connections, and while I admire the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I do not believe that she has had the time or exposure since assuming office to develop the sort of contacts that are necessary to sway the ACP grouping.

I am equally concerned that in all of this, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and International Cooperation is not playing a more critical role.

Guyana has found itself in this situation because we did not properly harness our diplomatic corps. We have failed to give exposure to our diplomats.

We have neglected the importance of networking and developing the sort of high-level contact which would have now served us well today. The chickens of neglect have come home to roost.

Fortunately, we still have persons, such as Ramphal, who are willing to come forward and help Guyana. We still have persons such as Clive Thomas who are willing to offer support in the debate on ideas.

We have to make use of these talents while we do a complete overhaul of our diplomatic service to better serve our national interests.