It is about time that a country which faces substantial border problems on two fronts pays some attention to border studies and research. Minister of State, Mr. Joseph Harmon, who brought the decision of the cabinet to establish a National Border Institute to public notice stated that there would be widespread public consultations before the matter is finalized, and so I make the following three comments – two having to do with the scope of what is being proposed from the standpoint of the issues to be addressed and the nature of the institution that is envisaged and the third dealing with the location and structure of the proposed institute.
The issues surrounding Guyana’s border controversies with Venezuela and Suriname are very complex as they have to be considered as part of the stated intention on all sides to maintain ‘friendly’ cross-border relations. Both countries intermittently aggressively prosecute their claims to our territory at the same time as we are forced by the very nature of the situation into all manner of ‘friendly’ political and economic relations. Thus, Guyana has persistently established bauxite, oil, rice and other deals with Venezuela, and, unless it has been taken off the agenda of the present government, is even contemplating building a bridge between itself and Suriname.
On the other hand, there is our continental-sized neighbour Brazil, which many view as a bulwark against a strident Venezuela and an economic power house that promises great opportunities but whose people are now quite independently finding Guyana’s border area an economic attraction. To this we must add the wider regional aspirations for greater integration and financial and trade interconnectedness. Some have argued that the only real solution to the border problems lies somewhere in our properly understanding and directing this collage of interests. This of course requires an in-depth and multidisciplinary approach to border policy making.
According to the minister of state, the institute will “enable research to ensure the maintenance of Guyana’s territorial integrity as well as to address issues relating to its airspace and the continental shelf. … the institute is a very important one as it will be the `repository’ of all documents, maps and charts which have to do with the territorial integrity issues..”
In my view, the minister’s statement will have to be an aphorism of what is intended if it is to comprehensively address the intellectual requirements of a proper border policy environment, i.e. sensible policy making and implementation. The scope of what is intended appears restrictive, and quite apart from research, documentation and dissemination, a good response must include the provision on a continual and increasing basis of trained specialists, and at the very least, a more sound understanding of the issues by the tertiary educated class.
A modern border institute can develop quite a complicated mandate. For example, The Borders Institute based in Nairobi, Kenya is an independent, multinational, non-profit, non-governmental organisation that deals with border dispute settlement, security and management, cross border corporation and boundary delimitations and demarcation. The content of these general headings gives a good indication of what could (not necessarily should) be the scope of work of a border institute.
These include: research on border disputes; records recovery and safe keeping; the provision of logistical, technical and administrative dispute settlement support; threat and risk assessment; the preparation of treaties; training in border management; design strategies on border security/management; assisting in improving the livelihoods of border communities; promoting and maintaining soft borders; conducting research on cross-border co-operation; designing strategies on trans-boundary resources management; recovering historical records, surveys and map boundaries; conducting sensitization campaigns; providing technical advice and support in boundary demarcation; translating and preparing boundary treaties and studying the impact of border conflicts on local communities and national economies.
Assuming that the government’s intention is to develop a comprehensive approach to our understanding and effectively managing our borders, I wonder whether the right place for such an institute is not the University of Guyana. Guyana has a paucity of personnel and financial resources and should we not attempt to better integrate our needs within the institutions we have rather than creating a new bureaucratic infrastructure? Furthermore, it is well known that it takes the existence of a critical mass of given types of inputs to optimize allocated resources to a point of sustainability. When we are talking about teaching/training and research, should we not try to build that mass around the university to allow for a better universal cross-fertilization of ideas in an interdisciplinary environment?
I had similar concerns with then minister Clement Rohee’s establishment of the Foreign Service Institute, which for years operated sub-optimally, the proposed Public Service Staff College, etc. I have never been convinced that it is beyond us to design relationships within the university that could fulfill the specific needs more cost effectively and at a better qualitative level.
Modern universities are surrounded by dozens of institutes such as the Institute of Development Studies at UG. For example, the University of Warwick, one of the top ten universities in the United Kingdom, has some eighty research centres attached to its various faculties, in which department staff administer and carry out tasks not too dissimilar to what we require.
Among other things, The Centre for Studies in Democratisation is a focal point for (inter)national collaborative interdisciplinary and comparative studies in democratization, coordinating and disseminating information through a series of seminars, research conferences, workshops, meetings, public lectures and media contact, and developing the teaching and research programme of the department of politics and international studies.
To provide specialists in the field, in 2005 contacts at the University of Guyana and I made an abortive attempt to introduce a masters degree in border and development studies in collaboration with The Federal University of Roraima, Brazil and Anton de Kom University of Suriname. It is my contention that placed within the university framework, such a border institute can also be the focal point for developing academic programmes of this sort, providing those inputs across the university and nation thus encouraging the kind of multidisciplinary approach efficacious border management requires.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
