Dear Editor,
What is reported in Stabroek News of December 3, 2019 as a ‘Diplomatic Shake–up’ might well be seen by other informed parties as more of a ‘Shake-Down’ that is inexplicably and unfortunately timed.
The exercise of dis-appointing long serving career diplomats at such short notice compares embarrassingly with the severance of sugar workers at year-ends 2016/2017, respectively.
More importantly however, may be the legal implications of giving these officers an inappropriate one month’s notice–unacceptable in any normally managed institution.
Little consideration seems to have been given to the substantive disruption of family lives, particularly in the case of children’s education–in accustomed environments
This disconnective form of communication would not have been tolerated by the man who created the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be a pre-eminently special purpose entity to represent Guyana proactively, and who consequently upgraded the position of ‘Permanent Secretary’ to the more imaginative one of ‘Director General’. The newly arrived decision-makers could not have known that they were tinkering with the vision of no less than President L.F.S. Burnham, who at one time formulated foreign policies that were supported by some Caribbean counterparts. Consistent in his humanity President Burnham would not just have sent notices of termination to respected officers, but rather would have shown his deep appreciation of each individual in personal engagement, during which they would also mutually agree the logistics of the impending separation.
Not unlikely some of the diplomats can recall that human enquiry, in contrasting sorely with the current management style (if at all it can be so called). So also would Guyanese in the related diasporas who would have interacted closely over the years with their diplomatic colleagues.
The former could hardly be expected to offer congratulations to those who show substantive indifference to what leaders of every ilk normally acknowledge as basic ‘human relationships’– indifference incompatible with the so–called ‘season of giving’.
Whose turn is next–the Embassy of Cuba?
In the meantime logic requires that there must be an urgent scheduled programme of replacements, as against the more commonsensical process of transition. There would be no handing–over. But is not logic denied?
Once more communication is lost in authoritarianism probably not unnoticed by the Governments concerned.
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
