Dear Editor,
It should have dawned on foreign policy watchers by now that there are some common characteristics between the political and ideological praxis of the Trump administration and the Granger administration in so far as foreign policy is concerned.
Take for example, the patently nationalistic and inward focus of both governments. In so far as the Granger administration is concerned, this is manifested in the views expressed by both the President and his Foreign Minister in respect of the controversy with Venezuela. Further, in the promotion of its foreign policy beyond Venezuela and Suriname, the Granger administration has demonstrated a lukewarm predisposition towards a host of critical global issues affecting developing countries.
The APNU+AFC government is not known to be actively fighting at the level of the G77; or the Non-Aligned Movement; or at ECOSOC; or in the context of South-South cooperation to advance, in cooperation and collaboration with like-minded developing countries, the common interests and goals to rebalance international trade as a tool for human development, in bridging the prosperity-poverty divide. It is not addressing the ramifications of the worst financial and economic crisis yet affecting small economies, reforming the international financial system and further democratizing the multilateral financial institutions. Similarly, they are not known to be pressing the international donor community to meet their longstanding commitment to allocate 0.7 per cent of donors’ gross national income as assistance to developing countries, and to improve the quality and effectiveness of aid.
If these conclusions are not true, then the government must produce the evidence to prove otherwise, so that we Guyanese could know how our tax dollars are being spent through our missions overseas in pursuit of our country’s foreign policy, and whether that foreign policy is indeed a reflection of our country’s domestic policy which many of us have serious doubts about or disagree with partially or totally.
Incidentally, it was loudly proclaimed soon after assuming office, that the priority of the Granger administration via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be “economic diplomacy.” It would be useful if government, after almost nineteen months in office could provide an inventory of concrete achievements in pursuit of this goal.
Another example of diplomatic insularity would suffice. It was passing strange that neither the Government of Guyana nor the ruling coalition ever took a public position in respect of the deposing of President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, nor the move by a group of South American countries to deprive Venezuela of the chairmanship of the Pro-tempore Secretariat of Unasur.
In the case of President Rousseff, there should have been some expression of solidarity in light of the principled stand Brazil has always adopted in respect of our borders being fixed centuries ago.
And the Venezuela-Unasur controversy should have been addressed as a matter of principle. But alas, this was not to be in either of the two cases. At least the citizenry are not aware of the stand adopted by their government.
The escape routes adopted by the Granger administration vis-à-vis climate change, environmental degradation and a green economy, which incidentally, approximates to the stand taken by the industrialized states in respect to greenhouse gas emissions, demonstrate the weak, accommodating and collaborative predisposition of the Granger administration to act in consort with countries whose foreign policy does not coincide with Guyana’s interests in these matters. In this regard, the Government of Guyana now seems to be in cahoots with countries whose permanent interests are diametrically opposed to those of developing, small economies, of which Guyana is one.
The dismissive attitude of the Granger administration towards the call for a New Global Human Order, which remains quite relevant notwithstanding the meaningless efforts and indifferent attitude adopted by some, in and out of government, who view this call as ‘outdated’, simply because it is associated with Cheddi Jagan and the PPP, is a case in point. Once again, the so-called fresh approach is resorted to as the get out of jail card, to deny a call which more than one hundred and fifty countries at the United Nations support.
These are just a few examples of the nationalistic and insular approach by government that raises more questions than answers in respect to its foreign policy praxis. There is however a certain familiarity with past practice, and that is, the Granger administration, from all indications, seems to be pursuing a foreign policy reminiscent of the 1964-1970 Burnham era.
In matters of foreign policy, citizens must never give their government the benefit of the doubt; such a national dereliction of duty to can prove harmful to the economic and financial interests of a nation state.
It does not matter whether you are a supporter of the APNU+AFC or the PPP/C, our country’s foreign policy is inextricably bound up with, and is in fact a reflection of, government’s domestic policies. If we are not supportive of and disagree with government’s current domestic policies then we must of necessity demand full disclosure and accountability of the Granger administration’s foreign policy.
Yours faithfully,
Clement Rohee
Fmr General Secretary
People’s Progressive Party
