On Thursday we reported that Guyana was about to reopen its High Commission in India, and that a senior Foreign Ministry official would travel to New Delhi shortly to identify suitable premises. The intention to reopen the mission had been announced by President Bharrat Jagdeo a few years ago, but not much had been done thereafter to implement the decision.

Citing reasons for the current move the report said that it was seen as crucial for securing Guyana's interests given New Delhi's growing clout in international fora. In addition, GINA was reported as saying that Guyana had benefited under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation programme, with an increase in the number of annual awards for study in India from 15 to 35 this financial year. Currently there are 38 Guyanese undergoing training in various institutions on the sub-continent.

GINA also referred to the demonstration vehicle donated for the purpose of teaching entrepreneurs agro-processing at the cottage-industry level, and the collaborative research between the two countries in the agricultural field. As a result of President Jagdeo's visit to India this year and last, the agency said, the Indian government had extended US$25.2 million in concessional credit for the modernisation of the sugar industry. Finally, of course, there is the matter of the cricket stadium to be built at Providence with Indian financing in the form of a US$14M soft loan and a grant of up to US$6M.

One wonders what has changed recently to cause the powers-that-be to suddenly act on a decision which was made a long time ago. The reason for action not being taken prior to this was probably financial, and certainly where that is concerned, nothing much appears to have changed. The question over the last few years has never been whether we needed a mission in India; it has always been accepted that ideally we did. The question was whether we could afford to pay for it in our current circumstances.

Why, for example, are we opening another mission at this point when for more than a decade we have been unable to appoint an ambassador to Beijing where there is an existing embassy? No one can say that China does not have growing clout in international fora, and in fact, that it does not have more clout in our own region than India does. In addition, it too has given us assistance in one form or another - although admittedly, not a cricket stadium. And considering the shrillness of the government's response when Mr Corbin went to Taiwan, one must assume that it takes its relationship with China very seriously. That being so, one must conclude that the failure to fill the post in Beijing was a consequence of monetary constraints, and not a reflection of the state of relations between Georgetown and Beijing.

It might be added too, that we have no Permanent Representative based at the United Nations in New York at the moment either; Foreign Minister Insanally who was there prior to accepting his present post, still serves in that capacity too. As a nation which is extremely limited in terms of its diplomatic reach, having a representative with ambassadorial status living in New York has always been seen as a cost-effective way of making direct contact with a range of countries. This is important not just in terms of protecting one's own interests, but also in terms of influencing international appointments, etc. Again, one can only assume that the failure to appoint a Permanent Representative in our UN office could only be connected to governmental perceptions about the need for austerity.

And then there is the matter of the 2003 United Nations report on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which strongly recommended that the government adhere to the conventions not to leave diplomats in their overseas posts beyond the customary three or possibly, four years. This recommendation was made in a context where there are some heads of mission whose appointments date back almost to the advent of this administration in office, our High Commissioner in London being one obvious case in point, and our Ambassador in Paramaribo another. It might be noted in passing, that where the latter is concerned, the public has never been offered an adequate explanation of what the Paramaribo embassy knew or did not know prior to the expulsion of the CGX rig, and why the intentions of the Surinamese were so misread; all we know is that Ambassador Arjune is still very much in place.

It has always been presumed that the reason why officers were not moved around to various foreign postings was again an economic one. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs did say that the issue was being looked at, but all they have managed to achieve to date is to send the Ambassador to Washington to Caracas, and the Ambassador to Caracas to Washington. If they cannot afford to act on the UN's recommendations with regard to the diplomatic service, how can they now afford to open an entirely new mission?

One only hopes that the intention is not to siphon off funds from existing under-funded embassies, etc, in order to pay for New Delhi. We are at a critical juncture in several respects, and we must ensure that sufficient resources, both human and financial, are provided to the missions of Brussels (which has a new ambassador designate), Washington, Brasilia, Caracas and Paramaribo, and that our others are not completely starved.

Once we reopen the High Commission in New Delhi, we cannot close it again in two years, say, if we find it too heavy a burden on the Treasury. The government will have to be able to sustain it in the long term, without, as stated above, placing our other missions under economic pressure, and while still retaining the financial flexibility to invest in rebuilding an effective foreign service.

Since we must conclude that the administration has done its arithmetic, can we now expect further announcements on the appointment of an ambassador in Beijing, of a Permanent Representative to the United Nations, the recall of some long-established mission heads, the re-shuffling of other mission personnel, and the making available of resources to our various embassies, particularly the critical ones?

Can the government assure us that it will put enough money into the foreign service following the opening of the New Delhi High Commission, to enable us to get the level of foreign policy analysis a country this size can reasonably expect, and the quality of representation it needs?