Dear Editor: 
I refer to Frederick Kissoon’s “An independent foreign policy of a poverty-stricken nation is a mirage,” (KN Feb. 2, 2010). I would also like to comment on a Press Release by the AFC dated February 2, 2010. While Mr. Kissoon’s article raises some pertinent questions,it demonstrates a rather limited understanding of some of the key concepts in international relations. The AFC, for its part, has begun an unfortunate game, and it should stop it now. Allow me to elaborate.

Freddie states that the first thing a professor of I.R should tell his students is that foreign policy is the outcome of national attributes. I am not so sure. I would rather tell them that foreign policy is a contestable matter and that there are competing theories on the subject. 

I would then outline the different theories and challenge them to make arguments for and against the competing theories. They can apply the theories to a case study, in this case Guyana, or engage in wider comparative foreign policy analysis. The students should be told that ideographic analysis allows for considerable details about the selected case, but that it minimizes the quality of generalisation that might be extrapolated. On the contrary, the comparative method would allow the student to work with more comprehensive data and would facilitate broader generalizations. There are good arguments to be made for both the ideographic and comparative methods. 

I myself prefer the genealogical method, but I also see major strengths in thick descriptions. I am quite suspect of nomothetic generalisations where foreign policy is concerned. 

Let us move on to some substantive issues, beginning with national attributes which Freddie rightfully highlights. 

The notion of national attributes is indeed relevant. This aspect of national power was most systematically articulated in Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations. That said, the student (and Freddie) must also know that Morgenthau’s framework has been roundly critiqued. Two principal problems with Morgenthau’s traditional (or classical) realism are worth noting. The first is that national attribute is a ‘unit-level’ variable, and that it is well nigh impossible to gauge foreign policy BEHAVIOUR from unit attributes. Why is this so?

In the neo-realist perspective of Kenneth Waltz, unit-level analysis is a form of reductionism. This is so because it is not possible to draw a straight line from unit attributes, to power, and then to behavior. 

Waltz himself made an analytical distinction between power and capability. Further, Waltz argues that while capability is important, the DISTRIBUTION of capabilities within the state system is more important. Simply put, without systemic analysis it would be impossible to theorize the balance of power. 

Now, in a tight bi-polar system, smaller states have less room for independent action. This is so because in bi-polar world order international politics is basically a zero-sum game. In a multi-polar system, such as obtains today, small states have greater elasticity. The correlation between aid and compliance that exists in a tight bi-polar structure, does not obtain is a multi-polar order. 

Freddie also has a rather static notion of the national interest. National interest is not something that simply jumps out of attributes. While they are enabling and limiting factors, they are not determinative of actual policies. Put differently, national attributes are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for action. 

A formulaic approach to national interest is based on synchronic elements of structure, but ignores the diachronic dimensions of historical development. In Freddie’s take on the matter, the formulaic approach would suggest that Guyana should become a client state of the U.S. because our core values, viz, national security and economic well being are tied to the West and especially to the United States. At a common sense level this is quite appealing. But there are real problems here.

If Guyana had followed this ‘formula’ it would never have adopted an anti-apartheid policy, nor would the PPP while in opposition, have supported the then PNC administrations on the issue. I make this point because the United States did nothing to support the removal of the racist regime in Pretoria. The closest the U.S. came to challenging apartheid was through the policy of constructive engagement. We know from the records that U.S. and Canadian trade actually increased with South Africa during ‘constructive engagement’. 

The same applies to Cuba. All the CARICOM countries have supported Cuba’s sovereignty. Despite protests from Washington, all the Caribbean countries supported Cuba’s right to join the OAS. Practically all Caribbean countries adopted a policy on non-interference in Cuban affairs. Despite their small size, most of the micro-states in the Caribbean have stood up for Cuban sovereignty. Close relationships with the United States and the U.K. did not mitigate the resolve of these states that conspicuously lack substantive capabilities in international politics. 

The same applies to the Non-Aligned movement. Most Caribbean countries absorbed the spirit of Bandung and supported calls for a New International Economic Order. They did this (mostly in the 1970’s) despite complaints, threats, and even abuse from the Great Powers that did not want to see a more democratic world order. In 1974 Henry Kissinger publicly stated that he the General Assembly of the U.N. is a form of threat to the national interest of the United States. Why? Well, in that illustrious body, every vote counts. Too much democracy I suppose! 

The foreign policy literature is clear on this subject. In addition to national attributes and system structure, there are also historically produced isothermal connectional that bind countries and that make them ‘stand together’, even if they march differently. Bearing this in mind, we should ask – what is wrong with Guyana having relations with Muslim countries? Guyana might become a friend of Iran, U.A.E., Kuwait, etc. What’s wrong with that? 

It is unfortunate that some elite Guyanese have become so slavish in their perspectives about the wider world. They have become more loyal than the King. They have b
ecome more American than the Americans. The Americans after all have opened relations with Libya, and have called for dialogue with the Muslim world. Not so in Guyana.

The anti-Middle East posture coming out of the AFC is alarming. In a recent press release the AFC says that starting relations with countries in the Middle East (most of which are Muslims) represents a dangerous shift. Here is the AFC in its own words – “We warn that the high wire act being performed by Mr. Jagdeo could lead to our becoming embroiled in a dangerous game being played out in a larger arena and one in which we could find ourselves impaled on the horns of an axis of death and destruction.” 

It is regrettable that a political party in Guyana (in this case the AFC) would borrow the languae of ‘axis of evil’ to describe Guyana’s relations with United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran. 

In closing I want to emphasise that Guyana’s relations with the Middle East in well within the ambit of this country’s sovereignty. Mr. Kissoon should look at our national interest in broader and more nuanced ways. His solipsistic understanding of the concept is not helpful. 

I also call on the AFC to abandon its new programme of scaring Guyanese citizens about the Middle East. Please, let us not go there. 
Dr RANDY PERSAUD