Diplomacy demands clarity in principle

Mar 15, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- Bharrat Jagdeo has, with characteristic hauteur, declared for the second time that he does not “do diplomacy in public.”  This comment was made as if to suggest that statesmanship is best conducted behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the unwashed masses.

The remark, befuddling in its audacity, also implies that foreign policy is an esoteric exercise meant for the enlightened few—one that should not be sullied by the inconvenient scrutiny of the press.  However, this is not diplomacy; it is timidity wrapped in the garb of discretion.

Diplomacy, properly understood, is the art of managing international relations with skill, tact, and transparency. The great statesmen of history—Churchill, Roosevelt, Mandela—never shrank from articulating their nations’ positions with clarity and conviction. But Jagdeo, by his own admission, prefers the shadows. His statement is not a declaration of diplomatic prudence but a dancing around an important issue of public concern.

This calculated retreat from public discourse is related to the Trump administration’s threats against the Cuban medical brigade programme. Washington is once again engaged in its usual ham-fisted approach to hemispheric politics. It is threatening visa sanctions on government officials who support the initiative.

Three Caribbean leaders—presumably with a firmer grip on principle—have stated unequivocally that the Cuban medical programme is so important to their countries’ national interest that they are willing to accept their visas being pulled.

They understand that the programme serves the public good and that defending one’s sovereignty requires courage and sacrifice. Jagdeo, on the other hand, hesitates. He equivocates. He evades. And all the while, he cloaks his indecision in the feeble excuse of pursuing a regional solution. It could hardly have escaped his notice – in fact, it has not – that the three Caribbean leaders have not given up on a diplomatic solution. But despite this, they are willing to state clearly where they stand on this issue.

No one is asking Jagdeo to engage in negotiations in public. What is expected of him is what these Heads of Government in the Caribbean have already done—make clear his administration’s stance on this crucial matter. Diplomacy may well involve discretion in execution, but it demands clarity in principle.

The people of Guyana have a right to know where their government stands, and the region has a right to know whether Guyana will uphold the spirit of Caribbean solidarity or shrink from the challenge.

The irony here is inescapable. For a man who does not “do diplomacy in public,” Jagdeo is perfectly content to play politics in the open, his weekly press conferences overflowing with partisan invective. He speaks freely when dismissing critics, when deriding journalists, when extolling his government’s policy making.  He has an intuitive eye to identify a would-be gangster and who wears slack underpants. But when asked to articulate a firm position on an issue of regional consequence, he suddenly finds himself a disciple of timidity.

What, exactly, does Jagdeo fear? That his words might carry consequences? That the United States may frown upon a small, oil-rich nation asserting its right to independent policy? That the spectre of visa restrictions might curtail the summer travel plans of his government’s officials? The answer, one suspects, lies in the timeworn pattern of Guyanese officialdom, where bravado is cheap, and principle is a luxury, few are willing to afford.

Let us be clear: this is not an issue of political preference. Leaders are defined not by their ability to sidestep controversy but by their willingness to confront it. If Jagdeo wishes to present himself as a statesman, he must abandon the pretence that diplomacy is some secretive rite performed in the antechambers of power. He must answer the fundamental question: does Guyana stand in solidarity with Cuba or will it cower in the face of American pressure?

In relation to the issue with the Mohameds, Jagdeo has declared that he is not willing to put the national interest at risk. Yet, what he is being asked to do regarding the Cuban medical brigade is simply to answer whether he and his colleagues in Cabinet are willing to sacrifice their U.S. visas to stand up for Guyana’s sovereignty.

That is what is at stake if Guyana cowers to U.S. bullyism—whether its leaders have the fortitude to defend the nation’s right to independent policy without fear of personal inconvenience.

A leader worth his title would not hesitate. But Jagdeo, ever the tactician, would rather equivocate. He does not “do diplomacy in public,” because to do so would require publicly stating his position on an issue of principle. And principle, it seems, to me, is in short supply.

(Diplomacy demands clarity in principle)

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)   

 

 

---

• Bharrat Jagdeo, Diplomacy, Peeping Tom, statesmanship

---