A Foreign Policy Agenda (A presentation to the AFC’s National Executive)

Dec 19, 2010 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

By Dr. Rishi Thakur
AFC Member

The recent confusion over the putative Norwegian payments that are owed Guyana, with the usual strident and arrogant claims, once again exposes the disorder and uncertainty that attends the management and pursuit of our foreign policy. The LCDS has been a matter of national controversy from the very inception and instead of dealing with the fears and anxieties that were expressed, the government decided to train its guns on its critics and demand that the Norwegians deliver on their promise. But what exactly the Norwegians promised and how it was to be delivered remains an unknown quantity.
The moment serves to highlight two of the difficulties that seem to afflict foreign policy matters in the country. First, it appears that since the departure of Mr. Rudy Insanally, the nation’s Foreign Affairs has passed to the President’s Office who seems only too willing to glow in the limelight of the publicity that it provides. It also appears that no one seems responsible for what is happening. Why is there such an irreparable cusp between what the Committee is advising (as suggested by the World Bank) and what the President is publicly demanding?
The President and his coterie of friends seem blissfully unaware and similarly uncaring that the nation has been ill-informed of the process from the beginning. Why has there been such a reticence to call for a parliamentary debate on the issue to adequately inform the nation of what is involved and to allow the representatives of the people to speak to it, both for and against? This was not a matter for paid consultants but the people’s business that required full and open discussion. Very little was done to enable a free, fair and transparent process; precisely why we have the unseemly sight of our President in an edgy exchange of differing opinions with the Prime Minister of Norway – with the world as the audience.
The national interest and especially its foreign policy agenda cannot be served by such displays. At the same time we are not unmindful of the fact that for the last twenty years the nation’s foreign policy has been everywhere and, therefore, nowhere.
Without wanting to repeat what I said earlier (UNASUR 4th Summit) 26th November, 2010, let me put some of this in context.
On Saturday, 20th November, 2010, at the Berbice Campus, University of Guyana, on the occasion of the visit of the President of Suriname to the Ancient County, our President is on record to have expressed his disappointment at our closet association – CARICOM – for its “lack of political will” and “institutional malaise” in taking the integration movement forward. CARICOM, I would like to believe, bears the closest resemblance to our history, politics, cultural practices, demographic make-up, and social instincts. We form, most anthropologists have already agreed, the basis of a natural community.
Why the hesitation then? To what “political will” does the President speak when he alludes to a lack? I would like to believe that the President has been there for nearly ten years and would have some knowledge of what that lack might or should look like. Because if he can’t, then who can?
None among us would have been so well placed. None among us would have attended so many summits and fora. None among us would have been party to so many briefs and briefings. None among us would have been party to so many confidential meetings. None among us would have been party to so many private and public consultations. Why should the President then demur at such a strategic moment?
Moreover, it is his party and therefore, in some ways, his government that has been there since 1992. What is it that has prevented the process from taking definitive shape and going forward? If it has not, why then a Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas? Why CSME? Why CCJ? Are these merely part of the “talk shop” that is required to spin the delusion and fantasy that something maybe in the making when, in fact, there is no such making. Isn’t there some need to make a clear break with us, the citizens, who are called upon to pay for this and live the expectation and hope that something is in the making and something will come of it?
The charge of an institutional malaise is no less damaging and brings into focus the full neglect that has attended the process. It is not a national secret to argue that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been internally eviscerated and institutionally downgraded over the last twenty years and since the departure of Mr. Rudy Insanally, it has become a purview of the President’s Office. Miserly attempts in the mid 1990s to organize a Foreign Service Institute have been eliminated with nothing to replace it. Not unexpectedly, the degree programme in International Relations at the University of Guyana hobbles along with the same ailments that afflict the rest of the institution – the lack of resources. Moreover, there isn’t the slightest effort locally to provide even the most rudimentary training in diplomacy.
In other words, none of the basic requirements for the creation and establishment of a Foreign Service community exist. Books, magazines, journals, newspapers are prohibitive in cost and difficult to obtain. And while the internet provides some useful information, it requires both time and professional skills to access.
Even when local information is available it is difficult when not impossible to retrieve, since very little of what is in our archives is organized in a functionally useful manner. Indeed, most of the information in our archives is in a perilous state disintegrating, while a considerable amount has already been irretrievably lost. Our Foreign Service community then consists of a few aging stalwarts from the past, a handful of lecturers from UG, and grudging efforts from our independent dailies.
Is the President’s lament then about a “lack of political will” and “institutional malaise” an attempt to absolve the government of its responsibility in this? Who is to muster the political will to see that the process is on track and sufficiently fortified to take the process of integration further? And while it would be unfair to blame the government for the existing “institutional malaise”, it cannot, however, absolve itself of the responsibility and lack of leadership that is apparent.
A Foreign Policy Framework
It is my view then that the AFC needs a foreign policy agenda and cannot allow opportunities to slip by without addressing the issue – not just as ad hoc comments from leaders and activists but as the result of studied reflection, thought out positions and a comprehensive policy framework in which we speak to the nation’s foreign policy interests.
Beyond the abysmal record of the PPP we need to put together a framework that seeks to do some of the following:

– Establish the legal and other procedural requirements to ensure that Foreign Policy is a matter for Parliament that must serve as the enabling instrument for such policies.

– Create, support and sustain an inclusive and transparent process where policies can be debated and given full, unhindered public exposure.

– Ensure that those who are likely to be affected by a decision should and must be consulted in its making (Sir Arthur Lewis)

– Support for the establishment of a foreign policy community organized around such institutions and processes as the media, the University, NGOs, business and civil society organizations.

– Assess and evaluate the existing mediums through which our foreign policy is conducted – Caricom, the Commonwealth, OAS, etc.

Institutionally, this may require:

– the establishment of a permanent Parliamentary Foreign Policy Committee

– the resuscitation of the Foreign Policy Institute with closer collaborations with our universities, UG and UWI, that will serve both as a training centre for diplomats and a research institute.

– Enhance and publicly fund the International Relations programme at UG to ensure that resources are available for both faculty and students with a clearly defined programme (including extensive language training) that the government can access while ensuring the appropriate distance and autonomy of the University.

– a robust appeal and sustained institutional effort to solicit funding from donor agencies and international organizations.

---

---