Arguably the most worthwhile takeaway from the recent visit by the President of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) President, Kester Hutson, to India to attend the August 3-4 Ninth CII India-Latin America and the Caribbean Conclave under the theme ‘Furthering Economic Partnerships for Shared & Sustained Growth’ was the profusion of ideas which the visit yielded for the shape of Guyana’s economic diplomacy, going forward.
Over time, the historic socio-cultural ties between Guyana and India metamorphosed into predictable post-independence diplomatic relations, though it has to be said that up until New Delhi’s very recent interest in Guyana’s likely role as an oil supplier, much of the potential for really meaningful relations remained largely unrealized, particularly in relation to what such a relationship could have done for private sector growth in Guyana. Even up to this time, the situation bespeaks a certain sluggishness, part of the blame for which can, perhaps, be placed at the feet of a foreign policy focus that favoured eye-catching rhetoric which, in terms of actual development, led nowhere. The themes that now underpin relations between Guyana and India have to do with issues that embody clear-cut mutual interests, India, in the context of its ‘big power’ ambitions, recognizing Guyana’s emerging role as a petro power, and Guyana, meanwhile, being altogether aware of the role that Indian technology, particularly, plays in a number of fields that can further our developmental ambitions.
This much is reflected in the difference in the timbre of Guyana/India relations since oil and gas became a factor. It is not that there had not been earlier opportunities for Guyana to further cement relations with India by way of the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)/India platform Here, perhaps, it can be argued that up until the advent of oil, Guyana had less than it now has to offer to LAC, which comprises a country now widely considered to be a global power and inclusive of some of the ‘heavyweights’ of Latin America. By sending a delegation to the recent India/LAC Business Conclave, Guyana was sending a signal that it was ready for the ‘big time.’ That said, if indeed, we are serious about occupying the same table that those more advanced countries than our own in the hemisphere share with India, we are going to have to grow both our foreign policy infrastructure as well as its conceptual outlook to match our ambitions.
Here, it has to be said that while our diplomatic infrastructure has undergone some measure of transformation in the Middle East, notably, the opening of a Guyana Embassy in Qatar being the standout indication of this, we still have some distance to travel in adding more ‘meat’ to the frame of our wider foreign policy infrastructure if it is to meet the requirements of what we are told has been the country’s redesigned foreign policy thrust. Here, the question arises as to what a hitherto fit-for-purpose Foreign Ministry may not have to undergo to render it fit for purpose. This would, of necessity, include functionaries who are, in every respect, up to the job of accomplishing what we understand to be clearly re-defined goals.
To return to the Ninth India-LAC Conclave (staged under the theme ‘Furthering Economic Partnerships for Shared & Sustained Growth’) the history of follow ups to attendances at these fora has always been reflective of a disposition that has been indifferent to the public’s right to know. If it is, therefore, that our recent representation by both the state and private sector at the recent India forum may (or could) be a precursor to Guyana ‘signing up’ as a ‘member’ of the LAC Conclave, then it would be desirable that both the state and the private sector’s perspectives on the recent India forum and the desirability of Guyana becoming a member of the Conclave be placed in the public domain.
This should happen before we go forward to the stage of seeking admission to the LAC/India Conclave, in order to allow for a broad national understanding of the foreign policy steps that we are contemplating. It would, at least, signal a change from what, over time, has been our seemingly incurable habit of fashioning and re-fashioning foreign policy on the quiet, since now perhaps, much more than had been the case previously, our foreign policy is directly hinged to our material well-being.
