Shifts in Guyana’s development focus underscored by the realization of oil and gas as a factor therein have occasioned the enhanced importance of attracting foreign investors as well as the need to expand external markets for the country’s products and services. These considerations have given new meaning to the term economic diplomacy. Given the current focus on the role of external factors in the pursuit of national development objectives, the time is long overdue for an assessment of the returns that we continue to make in our Foreign Service, more so in the realm of economic diplomacy.
The need to get the attention of foreign investors and foreign buyers has been trumpeted by successive political administrations for much of roughly the past two decades and more. However, the gap between the rhetoric associated with economic diplomacy and the realization thereof as a facet of the overall diplomatic process remains as wide as the expanse of water separating the opposite banks of the Demerara River. We have been unable to break old habits.
Economic diplomacy, in Guyana’s particular context, is about the deployment of the country’s diplomatic resources, principally its diplomatic missions, mostly to secure developmental gains deriving from inward investment, technical support for key development projects and the opening up of markets in targeted countries for locally produced goods. Accordingly, the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Guyana’s pursuit of economic diplomacy has become a critical barometer for measuring the performance of the Foreign Service as a whole.
Guyana’s diplomatic representation abroad is limited to its inadequately resourced Embassies, High Commissions and Consulates.(there are no specialized Commercial/Business outposts abroad) deployed in a limited number of countries in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and the Caribbean, not sufficient, one might add to effectively cover its global interests. The pursuit of economic diplomacy depends largely on the rigorous efforts of the staff at that handful of Missions. This is leaving aside particular instances of high-level ‘sorties’ by home-based delegations to foreign countries which are usually limited in both their objectives and their outcomes.
In Guyana’s instance the compelling benefits of a more experienced, skilled and focused cadre of functionaries qualified to practice economic diplomacy is sufficiently obvious as to require no clarification. However, particularly given the fact that local audiences tend, largely, to perceive diplomacy as somewhat removed from their day to day existence-related priorities, it is necessary that we not lose sight of the fact that securing export markets for local products and attracting foreign investment into Guyana – which are the key anticipated outcomes of economic diplomacy – mean jobs for Guyanese, the strengthening of the country’s physical infrastructure and improvement in our balance of payments. The point here is that the pursuit of diplomacy, specifically economic diplomacy, cannot by any means be divorced from mainstream national interests, as some might be inclined to believe.
While, therefore, Guyana’s pursuit of economic diplomacy must depend largely on the work of the country’s diplomatic Missions abroad, the reality is that our Missions have never really been structured to serve as robust outposts of for the pursuit of that purpose. The fact is that effective economic diplomacy can only be pursued by teams of functionaries trained, qualified and attitudinally oriented to function in that role and functioning within an administrative structure shaped to suit that particular purpose. Particularly, it is important, as much for psychological as for practical reasons, that the Head of Mission be seen as the foremost business/economic functionary since he/she is usually perceived as having the greatest access to the highest levels of leadership in the country of post. Moreover, the judgement of the Head of Mission is always important in reports routed to the decision-makers at home.
Tinkering with the extant organizational and personnel arrangements at overseas missions still steeped in yesterday’s order will not realize a workable regimen of economic diplomacy.
One constraint to the effective implementation of economic diplomacy may well repose in the fact that traditionally, the selection and placement of Heads of Mission have not been necessarily grounded in appointees’ qualifications, skills and aptitudes. Choices, particularly when it comes to the filling of high level diplomatic posts, notably in western capitals, have been based on the perceived intellectual and diplomatic acumen of the candidates combined with the preferences of the political administration in office. Some diplomatic postings have traditionally been effected as rewards or concessions to ‘connections’ of one sort or another, without the slightest consideration of qualifications or aptitude. Such arbitrariness has interfered with the career paths of career officers and engendered frustration and diminished aptitude for Foreign Service careers. In the main – though with some exceptions – postings of Heads of Mission to what might be considered as strategic foreign capitals have traditionally been the purview of Heads of Government with political acceptability being one of the key criteria for selection. Few if any of those candidates have been known to possess credentials that qualify them for the pursuit of economic diplomacy.
While the element of political idiosyncrasies in the selection of Heads of Mission is by no means unique to Guyana, in our particular circumstances, (where economic diplomacy has become one of the critical functions of our missions abroad) the politicization of high level diplomatic appointments can impact negatively on key Head of Mission choices and by extension on the effectiveness of the Mission.
Contextually, the selection of Heads of Mission using criteria not rooted in sound credentials often overlooks the fact that effective economic diplomacy depends on the ability of the Head of Mission to interact effectively with the decision-making apparatus of the host country in the realms of business, particularly investment and commerce. Effective interaction at that level depends largely on talent, practice and experience of the Head of Mission. As it happens, our diplomats have not, for the most part, been trained to effectively execute at the highest, most complex levels in areas such as trade and investment.
While there may be notable exceptions, the experience of other countries suggest that economic diplomacy is practised successfully by functionaries who have been previously engaged in substantive business pursuits and are more likely to possess an understanding of the culture of business in their country of post.
Whatever variant government might be inclined to try, the reality is that economic diplomacy can only be effectively pursued by teams qualified and oriented to accomplish the related tasks and led by Heads of Mission who believe in and are themselves personally committed to the success of this aspect of their duties as the home country’s envoy.
The creation of an effective economic diplomacy infrastructure would therefore require a scrupulous mission by mission (at key missions, that is) overhaul, based on a plan that focuses on the strategic placement of suitably qualified functionaries. This rationale has not ever been applied in the postings policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Our overseas missions remain, for the most part, structured to deal with the world that was rather than the world that is. If economic diplomacy is to be more than a chimera that has to change and quickly. As is the case with the Foreign Service in many poor countries, in the instance of Guyana, being posted abroad, particularly to a western capital, can open up opportunities, including economic ones, for posted officers. Accordingly, issues of seniority rather than suitability often tend to impact overseas posting considerations.
If economic diplomacy is to have any chance of meaningfully impacting Guyana’s development fortunes, the role of Guyana’s missions abroad must include, as a principal aspect of their operations the following:
1. Missions must embody as part of their principal purpose the enhancement of Guyana’s business presence in the host country, in issues ranging from investment to securing markets for goods produced at home;
2. Mission staff must infuse the business view into every deliberation relating to bilateral relations;
3. The Mission must be the centre for the gathering and transmission of business-related information to the home capital;
4. Greater account must be taken of the role of the diaspora in the host country in economic diplomacy considerations;
5. Mission staff must pay a sustained interest in host country trade and investment programmes with a view to determining how Guyana can benefit from those programmes;
6. Invitation lists for diplomatic functions must, of necessity, include strategically selected business officials from the host country;
7. Overseas Missions must give the highest possible priority to providing various forms of strategic support to visiting trade delegations, trade fairs and product displays from Guyana.
