The British Ambassador’s comments

Jul 18, 2019 Editorial

The British Ambassador delivered a storm that is raging on both sides of the pond. This one is not in a teacup. Compliments of leaked cables, the whole truth is out and it is not pretty. In fact, it is most degrading and dismissive in the best stiff upper lip tradition. Britannica did return to dominate the airwaves briefly.
A sampling of the spicy details from a few quotes reveal the hard sentiments from the now former top British diplomat to the US. “Clumsy” and inept” and lack of belief in any promise that matters could “become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable….” (New York Times, July 7). That is some heavy artillery and, as many believe, long overdue. It has to hurt that this is coming from a special relationship involving the closest of friends.
Though brutal, that is what close friends are for: speaking to truth. And outgoing Ambassador Sir Kim Darroch certainly pulled no punches.
The believed star spangled American was made to look as the latest incarnation of the perennially mocked and scorned ugly stereotype. That is all well and good for a beer-swilling, loud-talking, powder-sniffing lowlife from any society. But the first citizen of the United States of America? The leader of the free world, if not the whole world? That is saying a lot of the patented contempt-long concealed, manfully contained, and diplomatically, if not globally, managed-distaste for the twitter antics and mental tics of a bona fide political maverick, if not rustic.
Matters have deteriorated so comprehensively that others have broken the seal of protocol to deliver their assessment of the corny, insensibility, and outright incorrigibility exhibited at the highest leadership level.
For in a July 10 article in the New York Times, there was this trumpet blast, ‘It could have been any of us’: Disdain for Trump runs among ambassadors.” Gerard Araud, recently retired French Ambassador, shared that, “For me, as a foreigner, it was fascinating.” As a euphemism “fascinating” stands in for the cruder language of vulgar, or disturbing, or low.
It should be remembered that, while the English are renowned for their blandness, the French are nothing, if not cultured. As has become more obvious, other senior envoys share almost the same thinking on leader specifically, and administration, in general.
For its part, the New York Times in another July 8 article reported that the British Government has stoutly defended it ambassador’s right to send home “honest, unvarnished assessments” of the political situation in Washington. That’s what diplomats do.
As all of this has unfolded, there are several questions staring all Guyanese in the face. First, if this is what is thought and committed to diplomatic cables to the home country about the United States leadership, what do diplomats on duty in Guyana think of Guyanese leadership, past and present? And relatedly, about Guyanese and Guyana?
Second, with such a heavy and necessary foreign presence involved in helping to find a way out of Guyana’s primordial political swamps and electoral woes, how do all of these publicly sweet speaking, invariably unruffled and polite representatives (usually urbane and savvy) really, honestly assess this backwater hellhole?
In spite of its muscle and might in so many different areas, the United States leadership still came in for serious hammering. Without a doubt, Guyana–lost, limp, pathetic, and almost inconsequential–is not worth interrupting the cocktail hour, other than to speak disparagingly (very much so) as to its hard and fast realities, and its fading, perhaps not-worth-the-interest possibilities.
Today, local leaders are pleaded with, whispered to, exhorted, and pressured to find a way, to discover commonsense and reason by an influential diplomatic community. It is one (in particular) that has always influenced elections outcomes. Leaders better listen.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News