SHEER IGNORANCE, EYE PASS AND CRAP

Jun 25, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

All manner of things have been said in diplomacy to describe the actions of great powers, but one can hardly recall the use of such words as “ sheer ignorance, eye pass and crap” to describe a foreign report prepared by one country about another. It is not the sort of language you associate with relations between countries.
The United States Embassy in Guyana usually closely monitors what is being said about their country, especially by governments. Public statements are carefully observed since they signal the attitude of the local authorities towards the United States. It is most definite that the United States State Department would have been briefed about the response of the government of Guyana, as contained in statements made at a press conference on the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) 2010 Report.
The US State Department would have been advised that the report was described as sheer ignorance, eye pass and crap. Whether the US authorities understand what that means is a completely different matter. Perhaps the Embassy officials would have sought out the assistance of those knowledgeable in local linguistics and managed to indicate to their superiors in Washington that what was really meant was that the report on Guyana was misinformed, disrespectful and inaccurate.
But what meaning does one read into the original reaction of the report being sheer ignorance, eye pass and crap? Does this mean that the government is dismissive of the report and intends to lend no credibility to it? Does it mean that the government will ignore the report and not respond until the relevant corrections are made? Is the government outraged, or simply concerned by the negative portrayal of Guyana in the report?
After the outburst about “sheer ignorance, eye pass and crap” , the Cabinet Secretary succeed in doing some damage control by employing less creative adjectives in discussing the government’s opinion of the report.
All of this could, however, have been avoided, if the government had left the response to professional diplomats. The PPP administration has so neglected the art of diplomacy that the foreign ministry was not the one taking the lead in responding to this report. Given the concerns that have been raised at the highest level of the government about these reports and the consequences for the image of Guyana and its relation with the US, one would have anticipated that by now there would have been a well-resourced division within the local foreign ministry, dedicated to dealing with these reports generated by foreign powers.
The institutional memory of the Foreign Service would recall that this is not the first time that reports have caused strains to the relations between the two countries. In the mid-seventies, Guyana faced a mini-crisis in its relations with the United States over Guyana relations with Cuba, its nationalization of the bauxite industry and Guyana’s criticism of Zionism.
Publicly, the Forbes Burnham administration condemned what it deemed as foreign aggression against Guyana. Privately, however, it began a quiet but sustained diplomacy to mend the breach in relations.
One of the strategies used was to communicate Guyana’s positions through the head of the local US mission. Burnham held talks with the Ambassador and indicated a willingness to improve relations. He understood that the local ambassador was the US’s point man in Guyana and that the ambassador could officially play a pivotal role in helping the situation. At one stage he even told the diplomat that Mrs. Jagan was a gift that the Americans could take back anytime.
The diplomatic offensive exploited to the hilt the personal relationship between embassy officials and government operatives. Burnham understood that it was these officials who dispatched reports to their superiors and thus were highly influential. When relations did not improve, a decision was taken to send a PR person to Washington to help reverse the negative reports about Guyana. This was also the response that followed the assassination of Walter Rodney. It showed an appreciation of the uses of various tools of diplomacy, on the one hand personal contacts and on the other hand a much more direct lobby.
The present PPP government, therefore, should not simply rely on letters to the Secretary of State to reverse what it sees as misguided US perceptions of Guyana as it relates to TIP. The Guyana government will face sanctions by the US unless it takes action to disprove the accuracy of the 2010 TIP Report or takes decisive, corrective action to respond to the criticisms leveled against Guyana in the report.
Whatever the response, it cannot be restricted to trading barbs at press conferences or to declining assistance to deal with the problem until the inaccurate contents of the report are withdrawn.
The government must get the foreign ministry involved and undertake a sustained effort at checking the fallout from a report which could see possible economic and aid sanctions being imposed on Guyana.
The mistakes made in neglecting the foreign service have to now be set aside, and the government must work on all fronts to address its concerns about a report which has the potential of inviting sanctions unless the government sits down and understands the basis for Guyana’s classification and commits to doing something about it.
(To be continued)

---

---