US Outdated Diplomacy

The only true revelation that emerged from the wikileaks cables is that the US practices an outdated and antiquated foreign policy towards Guyana.

In 2008, I wrote a letter to the editor where I argued that the US should cease accepting applications for business and tourist non-immigrant visas if the processing system at the time was maintained. Under that system, the local embassy issues those visas without the aid of any supporting documentation or evidence to determine whether an applicant satisfies Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States, where the applicant has to show that he or she has a permanent residence in his/her home country and which he/she has no intention of abandoning.

This practice borders on absurdity and the interviewing officer merely goes with instincts and guesswork in determining who qualifies for a visa.

Unfortunately, that system is still in place today. Fast forward to the wikileaks cables and we see a similar type of unsubstantiated approach being played out in how the officials of the embassy arrive at conclusions in official foreign policy correspondence with the State Department. These cables form the basis on which US foreign policy decisions are determined towards this country.

One would have thought that the US government would have had a resolute system of verification to determine whether data and information received meet the minimum threshold of validation. However, this does not seem to be the case and the officials go with whatever rumor or wobbly evidence that is presented to them and make dead set conclusions there from.

As it relates to commercial diplomacy towards Guyana, I would echo the sentiments as expressed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her remarks at the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition on July 12, 2011, in which she asserted to the audience: “we need to up our game,” in relation to achieving an effective commercial diplomacy that would enable the US to become more globally competitive in light of a new international economic landscape.  

I sincerely hope that this call for an elevated level of economic discourse is heard loud and clear in Kingston, Georgetown.  Only recently, I had approached the embassy through the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce about the possibility of investing in the US and I’m yet to receive a response, after more than 5 months, from the commercial officials stationed there. This type of lackadaisical approach towards our business community is unsatisfactory.

The new US Ambassador has to reassess some of the current systems in place at the embassy and work towards implementing ones that are based on mutual respect and engagement between the peoples of the US and Guyana.

Synergy Contract should be Rescinded

(Letter to Stabroek News September 2011)

Dear Editor:

The Government needs to rescind the contract awarded to Synergy Holdings Inc, for the construction of the road leading to the site of the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project, and retender with the aim of securing a competent contractor to rectify the shortcomings as identified in the report by international consultants BBFL Caribbean Ltd and Earth Investigation Systems Ltd (see “Guidelines for design of Amaila Falls road poorly done,” SN September 11, 2011).

It is hardly a secret that one of the main constraints for the development of Guyana’s economy has been the high cost and unreliability of electricity. From a consumer and citizens’ welfare standpoint, this scourge has afflicted many damages and costs for as long as memory would permit. Similarly, businesses, and in particular our manufacturing industry, have had their development obstructed and handicapped by this.

Recognising this, the government should make every effort to ensure that initiatives aimed at improving reliability and lowering costs of electricity are treated as high priority and the highest level of professionalism applied. This does not seem to have been the case with the awarding of this particular contract to Synergy, a disappointing reality considering the potential spinoffs and benefits of the Hydropower project. 

Clinton Urling

EU Debt Crises and Guyana Lessons

The European integration process is in tatters as the once-strong economies of Spain, Italy and Belgium stand precariously to follow the path that already has dramatically weakened Greece, Portugal, and Ireland. Moreover, the European Union’s (EU) larger, more economically developed economies – most notably, France and Germany – are increasingly hesitant to intervene and provide the leadership and resources necessary to avoid the demise of the integration movement. 

This fear stems partially from the potential for a cascading effect that would drag the union’s strongest economies into insolvency. This economically calamitous period was exposed when Greece admitted that it couldn’t service its enormous public debt and the EU subsequently forced, albeit with great hesitation, to call an emergency summit for approving funds to bailout its delinquent member. 

This is now followed by revelations that Spain and Italy, the region's third and fourth largest economies, are on the verge of not meeting their debt commitments. As a short-term remedy, The European Central Bank has intervened, buying government bonds in these countries to provide much needed capital in order to avoid default.

This is not a sustainable strategy and without enormous financial booster shoots from the richer economies along with ongoing prudent financial and austere management of the respective economies, both countries face even greater risks of insolvency.

In the end, the richer economies will provide the financial injections needed to avoid regional and, in an interconnected world, global catastrophe.

There are pertinent lessons here for Guyana and its own integration efforts with CARICOM. If the region is to pursue the deep levels of integration as envisaged by the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME), then we risk making all of our economies vulnerable to the array of credit, market and financial problems that will hit in one or more of the region’s countries at any time.

When this happens, the region does not have an ‘undisputed leader(s)’ – or, more formally, financial hegemon(s) – to provide essential resources to avert or remedy economic crises.  We end up in a situation where small, poor economies are asked to bail out their equally small, poor regional peers.  This does not constitute pragmatic policy and I don’t see leaders in CARICOM countries lining up to bail out anyone.

We can already cite examples of this dynamic being manifested. For example, when Jamaica recently ran into economic difficulties, the country turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance. Where was Trinidad, Guyana and Barbados – the so-called More Developed Countries of the region – or the Caribbean Development Bank to provide the necessary assistance for it struggling counterpart?  A second example arises from the natural disasters that are prone to occur in the region. The current Trinidad Prime Minister said her country cannot be expected to play the roles of  ‘godfather’ and ‘ATM’ for the region when such unfortunate events occur.

These examples reflect just one element (see my previous letter titled “Regional Integration is Impractical,” Stabroek News, 27 February 2011) of what makes the CARICOM project untenable. Foremost, it lacks an undisputed regional leader(s) to advance the process for region-wide benefit. 

Guyana must reassess earnestly its involvement in the CARICOM integration process and should direct its meagre financial and technical resources toward other integration efforts, that are more likely to succeed or adopt a unilateral strategy open to regional economic cooperation with the entire global community. 

Guyana Should enhance Relations with Suriname

Guyana needs to strengthen its diplomatic efforts with Suriname in order to capitalize on numerous opportunities that exist between the two nations.

In 2010, Guyana imported approximately US$96 million in goods from Suriname – which roughly equals the value of imports from Venezuela and is significantly much higher than the amount imported from Brazil (about US$21 million). Meanwhile, Guyana exported goods approximately worth US$6 million to Suriname, according to numbers from the government’s bureau of statistics.

I would suggest that if trade data were captured for the value of goods not declared with the revenue agency, the totals for Surinamese imports and exports would have been significantly higher.  It is no secret that smuggling is rampant at the borders between Guyana and Suriname, which is exacerbated by the infamous ‘back-track’ operations that, have for the most part, become an accepted practice between the two countries (see “Suriname to Reopen ‘Backtrack’ Route,” SN 08.24.2009). However, Surinamese officials would prefer to see this situation ‘regularized’ but this has been strongly resisted by their Guyanese counterparts (see ‘Gov’t declines proposal to regularize Suriname “back-track” route,’ SN 03.10.2010).

Therefore, it was no surprise to read recently that the Surinamese are contemplating funding a bridge that would link the two countries (see ‘Suriname may fund Corentyne River bridge,’ SN 07.17.11). Suriname would like to capitalize on the enormous trade opportunities available with Guyana as both countries can be considered ‘natural trading partners’ because they both export a wide variety of goods to each other. In fact, the data obtained from the Guyana’s bureau of statistics show that, in terms of imports and exports, Guyana offers the most diverse basket of goods with Suriname than what is possible with any of its South American counterparts.

At present, the high cost of acquiring fuel from the international market represents one of the most significant constraints in Guyana’s economy.  As Suriname is an oil-producing nation, Guyana can negotiate a bilateral arrangement that could result in the Surinamese offering the country lower rate costs to acquire petroleum. Additionally, Guyana should engage the Surinamese’s private sector and government to learn from their experience regarding the construction, development, and maintenance of the Afobaka hydropower plant that supplies the majority of Suriname’s electricity. 

Another issue requiring prominent diplomatic focus is Surinamese President Desi Bouterse’s renewed claim of the New River Triangle area and his contention that his country will pursue a ‘friendly settlement’ of this issue by way of international law and norms. Suriname’s position is baffling and ambivalent as this matter was already settled through an international judicial body in 2007 when the United Nations International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea ruled on this matter.

However, the international system has no rules regarding the matter of compliance on any ruling issued by any international court. Therefore, I disagree with President Jagdeo’s shrugging off the issue, saying he was ‘not disturbed’ by Suriname’s recent claims (See ‘Guyana unperturbed by Suriname’s New River Triangle claims – President,’ Guyana Times 06.16.2011).  The Guyana government must remain vigilant in expanding its diplomatic efforts to ensure this situation is adequately monitored.

This becomes even more urgent as Repsol and its partners are expected to commence drilling in the area in the near future.  An oil discovery would have enormous positive implications for Guyana’s economy so the government cannot afford to be reactive in its diplomatic affairs, as was the case with the CGX expulsion in 2000.

Instead, it must take solid proactive measures to ensure that Suriname’s actions and claims do not interfere with this project.  Moreover, positively directed diplomatic maneuvers are essential to assuaging any fears or doubts investors in the area might have amid the present claims put forth by Suriname.

Suriname is one of the region’s most robust emerging economies and Guyana certainly has much to gain from closer relations with its neighbor. However, much of how a mutually beneficial, trusting relationship is established will depend on the strength and capabilities of our performance in foreign affairs.  

Guyana faces comprehensive challenges in assessing the rapidly shifting dynamics in the contemporary global environment and, most particularly, in the surrounding region. Therefore, its foreign policy portfolio should be directly tailored to address these new realities, articulate priority areas of focus for capital and resources disbursement and to enact a policy course for strengthening our nation’s foreign service programmes.

Military should be used to spur Economic Growth and Development

I am prompted to write this letter after reading the headline, “Strengthening army to depend on economy” (SN, January 20, 2012).  I firmly believe that the military could, and should, be deployed as an instrument to generate the type of economic growth referenced by the President. This would require the reconceptualisation and reorganisation of the Guyana Defense Force from an institution focused overwhelmingly upon issues of national security and humanitarian interventions to one that is prominently focused upon economic development.

This concept is not new or atypical, as many militaries around the global have deployed their forces in initiatives to spur economic growth. The most obvious that comes to mind is the US military establishment, which has craftily and guilefully used its military as a form of industrial policy to foster its longer-term economic ambitions. The US government funds and subsidizes its military to create employment, carry out research and develop new technologies and products, to build infrastructure, to name a few major functions. Another example that comes to mind is the Brazilian military and its engineers who have been involved in building critical infrastructure projects, including the recently opened Takatu Bridge.

In Guyana’s case, the military transformation should begin with establishing a tertiary level military academy worthy of international accreditation. This institution must have the distinction of providing a world-class standard of education and, to this end, it must be adequately resourced and outfitted with the best facilities and tutors.  Full scholarships and other incentives should be offered to the top students who graduate from the nation’s secondary schools after they have written the Caribbean Examination Council’s examinations.

This academy’s main focus should encompass science and technology. The next generation of engineers, scientists, and computer experts should emerge from this academic setting. Furthermore, those who graduate should be called upon to undertake scientific research and development projects that can assist the private sector (more specifically, the manufacturing sector), and build many of our infrastructure development projects including, but not limited to, the road or rail to Lethem, the bridge to Suriname, and a deep-water port. Moreover, the army corps of engineers should have been the ideal institution tasked with designing and building the access road to Amaila Falls.

Think of the huge sums of monies that this would save our county if we were to go this route. Within a matter of years we could easily recoup the costs of establishing such an academy.

This, however, would require a smaller and more efficient military.  In this era, I don’t believe that our military should be solely in the business of fighting wars and the current expenditure of resources to train and equip our military to this dispensation has been misguided and wasteful. Emphasis instead should be placed on responding to humanitarian disasters and to nation building through training in vocational skills, especially for those who might fall short of the academy’s standards.

It is the opportune time to stop talking about initiatives for economic growth and to start implementing bold, innovative policies that would help us collectively in doubling our current economic growth levels.