VICE-PRESIDENT and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Greenidge, has been speaking with the media about what can be considered anomalies in the foreign service. It is no secret that the Foreign Service Ministry has gone through transformation within recent years, and some have argued it is nowhere near the original standing and esteem it once held on the global stage.

That transformation saw professional Foreign Service Officers (FSO) being removed or sidelined and replaced by persons either not understanding their roles or lacking the capacity to perform.

The Foreign Service Institute established to train and educate FSOs was closed, an indication that the nation has not been preparing FSOs to perform at their optimum so as to deliver best services on the country’s behalf.

The minister and staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are the international face of Guyana. What this ministry does — be it representing Government’s policies abroad, adhering to international relations’ principles, or staffing of personnel — is of vital importance. In a complex world where changes are taking place so often, this ministry has to be able to grapple with the issues, look at the implications of/or benefits to Guyana’s interest, and be able to respond or adjust with appropriateness of time and nimbleness of intellect. It is an established principle that each Head of Mission is supposed to have a reporting relationship with the government of the day.

The Government of Guyana changed administration in May 2015. Regardless of one’s political preference or relationship with the Head of Government and State, every Head of Mission has a responsibility to report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And this principle and protocol must be respected.

The concerns raised in relation to Guyana’s former Ambassador to China, David Dabydeen, who allegedly flouted the line of reporting, ought to serve as a lesson in defining roles and responsibilities as Government moves to improve the quality of staff in each mission.

This newspaper, in an editorial of 25th February titled “Staffing the Foreign Service”, had addressed the matter of staffing in the Foreign Service, and had expressed concern that the APNU+AFC Administration was being denied its deserving opportunity to chart its foreign policy. The view is held that, as at May 2015, political appointees in the foreign service should have done the ethical thing and step down to allow the new administration the opportunity to make its own appointments.

Clearly, as in the instance of Dabydeen and others holding on to ambassadorial positions, it is not only a case of money, but is a clear attempt to subvert and undermine the programmes of the present administration. The APNU+AFC Administration has been in office for more than a year. It is not an unfair statement to say that filling diplomatic posts is moving at a pace that gives rise to questions and concerns about how it is being done, and can be achieved at this pace of recruitment and placement.

Where the present Service has an international economic trade mandate in conjunction with foreign affairs, the country stands to benefit from staking out economic opportunities and acting to realise them. It may also require establishing new missions in different countries, and these are issues that can be tedious and require much work. Tempting though it may be, given human nature to appoint those close to them, such must not come at the expense of competence and ability. Too much is happening in the world today; and competence, not favouritism, should guide decision-making on appointments.

To acquire the best mix of skills and talents may require revisiting the Foreign Service staff record and inviting on board some of those persons who have served in the past and can bring linguistic, economic and other Foreign Service skills to the table. Foreign Service is not only about international relations, it is about every facet of the nation’s activities. As such, it requires an array of skills and talents to complement each other in the discharge of the ministry’s mandate.

A professional foreign service can be arrived at only if those involved clearly understand what the role and objective of the service are, and from that position make decisions regarding the skills that are needed in each mission across the world. In fact, these are factors that need to guide decision-making in the selection of FSOs.

Greenidge also made known that there exist anomalies in the payment of heads of missions and in what he described as “if you weren’t a favourite of the Party [PPP/C] or you were not being assigned to a post that served their ‘special agenda’, then it was reflected in your payment.”

With this recognition, the country looks forward to this being addressed; and as the minister rightly noted, there is need for it to be “standardised. All the anomalies that hinder a professional foreign service ought to be addressed and corrected as a matter of urgency in the national interest.