Dear Editor,
With limited international relations resources at our disposal at home and our missions abroad, we have done relatively well over the last few months to rally support on our side on the border controversy. Foreign policy has not been a strong point of governments since Burnham. The Ministry was largely neglected by succeeding administrations — understaffed, under equipped, and underfunded to efficiently respond to crisis. The Venezuela crisis has now made the Ministry extremely important in our global relations as we need to engage in robust PR to counter our western neighbour’s claim.
The President, Vice President, PM, and Attorney General have all given measured responses to Maduro’s provocations. However, our foreign missions and the domestic bureaucracy can do much better; the Washington team seems to be on top of things in keeping the US administration and Congress informed. I am not sure what our missions in London, Brussels, New Delhi, New York, Geneva, Ottawa, and elsewhere are doing. Beijing, Moscow, and Havana are not likely to say anything on Maduro and that is not surprising as they are allies of the socialist, a new found friend as opposed to Guyana that has been a socialist friend since the 1950s and 1960s. Government should give consideration to an independent review of our missions’ response to Maduro and weaknesses addressed.
We seem taken aback by Maduro’s bellicose language after the ICJ conservatory order. Our missions abroad need to be more prepared and assertive or aggressive in our PR response to Venezuela’s aggression and claim. A better trained and equipped bureaucracy would help us to respond promptly and more effectively to Maduro. We should always be prepared with our own PR in response to Maduro’s tough talking. The inadequate international response, especially at certain capitals and world forums, and lack of preparedness for a stronger push back to Venezuelan threat to our national territory suggests that the time has come to construct a foreign policy or internal relations institute to train a new generation of diplomats to address crisis. The institute will provide them with the requisite skills on how to respond to threats with speed. Once trained, they can be dispersed to important world capitals.
A quick brief review of the history of our diplomacy or international relations would reveal that since the passing of Burnham in 1985, foreign policy was deemphasized by his successors. To his credit, Burnham built a competent, respected cadre of diplomats. He paid for their studies in the west and they received good training. Guyana was the envy in the Caribbean during the late 1960s 1970s, and 1980s for the kind of diplomats produced. Unlike the PNC that sent its supporters to the west to study the social sciences, the PPP sent its supporters for training in the Soviet bloc. PNC stalwart Vincent Alexander was among those who studied in Moscow on a scholarship. And he has been a success story in academia — one who could analyze social issues objectively and among the most articulate scholars to come out of Russian training; there are few equals on the opposing side to analyze social and global issues.
Post Burnham administrations lacked financial resources for a robust foreign policy. However, we have had a financial windfall since 2020 from oil revenues. Government should consider directing some funds toward establishment of a Foreign Relations Institute (that offers a diploma or a degree) perhaps attached to UG to provide training for new recruits in Foreign Service. Retirees and IR scholars can be requested to assist with training. Foreign relations has become critically important since Venezuela’s claim to our territory. Unless we have the human resources to defend through an aggressive diplomatic front all over the globe and win allies, we will not be able to retain access to our natural resources and by extension funds.
Sincerely,
Dr. Vishnu Bisram