BOONDOGGLE?

Jan 17, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

In the US military there is a term, boondoggle, that is commonly used to describe idle activity or wasted expenditure.
The term boondoggle recently surfaced in a private discussion about our President’s trip to the Middle East. But is this trip really a boondoggle? Is it a waste of time and money for the President to be visiting Libya, Qatar and Greece?
There have been isolated criticisms of the present visits that our Head of State is paying to the Middle East. One letter writer claimed:
1. That Guyanese have a right to know the reason, timing and usefulness of these visits by our Head of State.
2. That no proper report is made of these trips
3. That these trips cost a great deal of money.
None of the above criticisms in my opinion have any merit.
The problem we have in Guyana is not as much a case of public officials having too many trips but rather one of them not moving around sufficiently. There is a vast world out there, civilizations from which we can learn a great deal; areas of light that can illuminate our own understanding of this world and inspire ideas and teach lessons that can move this forward rapidly into the twenty-first century.
No foreign trip, so long as it can be afforded by the country, should be seen as a waste of time. Every trip has its benefits and there is no doubt that the trips that our President has undertaken have been necessary and will bring results.
We live in a completely different age today, one in which alliances are no longer just based on ideological compatibility. We live in a global village which requires that public officials, including heads of government and heads of states, travel far more extensively than before because we can longer rely on the traditional alliances to protect our national interests.
The Guyanese Head of State also has obligations to honour in terms of attending important summits, for to not attend can lead to a situation where Guyana, small as it may be, will be unable to have a voice in the regional agenda.
It is also important for Guyana to forge relations with States in other regions of the world. This demonstrates a more open foreign policy and has advantages both in terms of trade and political relations. Certainly, for example, one can note that Guyana needs to court as many countries as possible for we do not know just when we will need to forge strategic alliances, perhaps to offset some external threat to our trade relations.
And we must not underestimate the value of friends, however non-influential they may seem at the moment, in protecting our national interest.
No one can justly accuse the President of Guyana of not reporting on his foreign visits. The President has always upon his return to Guyana briefed the media about his trips, the gains that have been made and what is to be expected of us. He has always been forthcoming with details, and the press is also allowed to question him, as they will no doubt do when he returns from this recent trip to the Middle East.
I am sure that his visit to Libya would have displeased some foreign governments. I cannot say whether the President was invited to Libya or whether Guyana invited itself. We can question also whether any meaningful trade and investment will emerge from the Libyan visit.
Guyana had relations with Libya in the past and there was investment in the fishing sector and cooperation in the agricultural sector. Libya, however, is today seeking to break its international isolation and to reestablish links with a number of western countries who are themselves eyeing up Libya’s oil industry and seeking to promote investment opportunities for their own firms in Libya.
Relations between states are, however, not solely built on what states can do for each other. There are important principles of internationalism involved and there can be no harm in Guyana re-establishing links with Libya which is no longer being accused of exporting terrorism.
It is true that these trips cost a fair sum. The cost of four first-class tickets to the Middle East along with other expenses could probably amount to US$40,000. But is that a great deal of money considering the benefits which can be derived from cementing strong ties with a region which is expected to be critical to the world’s economy within the next ten years?
The Middle East and Mediterranean is a strategic region, and Guyana needs to begin to deepen relations with this part of the globe. Ten million dollars may seem a high price for a trip but it is not, when one considers the potential economic, trade and political benefits that can be derived.
Will the President give a full account of his trip when he returns? I think so.
Is the Middle East trip a boondoggle? I think not.

---

---