In his recent address to the UN General Assembly, President Jagdeo drew attention to what he described as the high premium on democracy at the national level, while there is a notable failure to live up to this ideal in the international councils that shape the common destiny of the world.

In this connection he cited as particularly disconcerting what he referred to as the practice by some countries and international financial institutions of “relying on anecdotal or partial information, often from questionable sources, to assess the performance of a given country” (SN September 26).

The President was of course referring to a recently published draft World Bank report which stated inter alia that Guyana suffers from a crisis of governance and that the government is seen as being weak and unable to deal with embedded crime and corruption.

It is not proposed here to deal with the contents of the report but it should be observed that the World Bank, while it is easily personified as is the case with other institutions, in fact consists of a myriad of persons of all shapes and sizes and nationalities with biases and susceptibilities to pressures and capacities for judgements. In this inevitable human context with all its weaknesses and diversions but with also the possibility for insights it seems that the opposition elements whose views are strongly represented in the report did a better job of pushing their views and concerns.

President Jagdeo in the same address pointed out that the report can be very damaging to a particular economy since it effectively deters further aid and investment. What is even more disturbing is that the restoration of a good image of Guyana is not easily done. Even an amended World Bank report or statements by the President or Ministers will in all probability have little corrective effect. People tend to believe what they first hear or see or read. President Bush recently asserted unequivocally that his government had not been able to establish any links between al-Qaeda and Saddam but polls still show that 75% of the American people believe that these links existed because that was what they were first told.

Creating or restoring an image is a slow process. It is one of the main responsibilities of a country’s overseas missions (embassies). It requires personal contacts and a continuous flow of information. While Guyana has missions in some of the most powerful and influential countries it is unlikely given the current unsatisfactory state of organisation and low level of funding that they can undertake this task. The consequent inability of the Missions to perform satisfactorily thus becomes a self-confirming assessment.

Some of the Guyana Missions have been closed or tapered down. India closed, Russia was run-down and eventually closed, China maintained at a low level of representation and the UN without an ambassador for more than two years. It amounts almost to a disbelief in the value of external representation, a failure to understand or a lack of appreciation of the value of diplomacy especially to the small states, even perhaps a perception of Missions as unnecessary, wasteful expenditure.

Far more disturbing is the lack of positive diplomacy to support Guyana’s sovereignty in the controversy which has arisen as a result of Venezuela’s unwarranted territorial claim. Make no mistake this is not a situation in which the integrity of Guyana’s territory can at any stage be taken for granted. Venezuela’s claims and threats have had the harmful effect of deterring major investments in the Essequibo region to the acute disadvantage of Guyana’s development and the standards of living of its people.

Such diplomatic modes as the establishment of cooperation committees between Guyana and Venezuela or the good offices mechanism of the UN Secretary General seem most unlikely to produce solutions to the controversy and its damaging effects including the exclusion of investment.

It has been reported that a meeting of the Good Offices “mechanism” has just been held at the UN in New York. It is difficult to know what to make of its work. It has struck one as strange that both “Good Officers” (to use the media term) have been West Indian scholar/diplomats, Alister Mc Intyre and Oliver Jackman. Why did Venezuela not insist in keeping with established conventions that the second time round the UN Secretary General should have chosen a Latin American? Might it not be the case that despite the public rhetoric to the contrary, the mechanism is not viewed seriously.

Should not cooperation or mediatory efforts be accompanied by positive if not aggressive Guyana diplomacy? The latter concept is best explained by a true story. It is the case that some years ago Venezuela, reacting perhaps to US pressures, sent its Foreign Minister to Africa to build diplomatic bridges with those states. It is told that in every capital which the Venezuelan Foreign Minister visited he was given the same answer by the Head of the African State or Foreign Minister: “Yes we would be happy to have a good relationship with Venezuela but first you must get off the back of Guyana” - This was the result of Guyana’s activist diplomatic stance.

Guyana must return for its own security to such an activist role in foreign policy. And the place to begin is at the UN in New York where all the states are represented. But alas Guyana has had no Ambassador/Permanent Representative in that post for more than two years!

What do these current situations have in common? They are all characterised perhaps by a certain disbelief in the efficacy of diplomacy in the usual pattern. It goes right back to the early days of the new government when as already noted Missions were closed or downgraded, and with curtailments in expenditure everywhere. Can one not recall the Foreign Minister of the day boasting that his was the only Ministry which had returned funds to the treasury!

The evidence is that there was a deliberate decision that external representation was best effected by a minister travelling alone to important international conferences. However, the efficacy of such representation is to be doubted. It is the “foot soldiers”, the trained diplomats who go into the committees and seek to bend or mend or formulate new texts which ensures that Guyana’s interests are protected. The Hon. Lester Bird, the Prime Minister of Antigua and for many years its Foreign Minister has described this situation precisely as follows:

“We are unable to service the myriad committees established to deal with a variety of issues; consequently many reach decisions - sometimes unhelpful to us - without our participation. We must not mistake attendance for participation” (P120 Antigua Vision).

In short the one-man Ministerial delegation far from being a saving in expenditure may often be a waste of public funds.

However this concentration on Ministerial representation has had the most dire consequences for the Foreign Ministry. The UN Advisory Mission in its recent report recorded that eighteen foreign service officers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had not attended a single international meeting since January 2000. The approach to posting and reposting has also been indefensible. Except for the early appointment of one Ambassador it was some seven years after 1992 before the first postings were made.

Consequently, nearly all the Missions are inadequately staffed, both in numbers and in terms of skill, with little attention being paid to such vital areas as trade and investment promotion. More disturbing has been the direct recruitment of diplomatic level personnel at certain missions. Such persons who have settled and worked overseas for most of their lives have insufficient knowledge of Guyana’s current dilemmas. Moreover, such recruitment which closes out options for posting further demoralises the corps of foreign service officers in the ministry waiting in vain for posting. Of the eight missions with Ambassadors/High Commissioners, only two are career diplomats, at a time when foreign policy issues are increasingly complex and technical. The Foreign Service Institute, at a time when training and re-training are essential, despite once being generously funded by donors is now virtually defunct and unable to pay its staff.

But there is little point in going on with this litany. The recent UN Advisory Mission described the situation as follows: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot discharge routine activities nor exploit opportunities to contribute to Guyana’s national prosperity with its present structure and capacity” (Sunday Stabroek, September 17).

The draft World Bank Report, however amended, will in its initial form resonate in international public opinion for a long time with possible dire effects on prospects for direct foreign investment and economic assistance. It should serve as a wake-up call for the urgent rehabilitation of Guyana’s external representation. There is certainly a case for timely Presidential intervention. It is understood that Sir Shridath Ramphal is still retained as a Presidential Advisor. Who better than he, who once put together what was recognised in the region, and indeed further afield, as a most effective foreign service, to advise on its rehabilitation.