My grandma Susana, or as we call her, abuelita Susana, passed away at the end of 2022 at the age of 102. This week is her birthday, and I want to honor her because she significantly influenced me.
 
Note: Some actions referred to here might be true or just family myths. Regardless they are very treasured!
 
Abuelita Susana was an extraordinary woman of the 20th century. She had a challenging but rewarding life. Susana was born in 1920, at the start of the roaring twenties and after the 1918 pandemic. 
 
One of her many attributes was that she was a fantastic storyteller, so we were always looking forward to hearing about her amazing adventures. She was a treasure  of stories.
 
One of her earliest stories was about how she spent her weekly allowance buying the “Cuentos de Calleja”. In 2021, I was lucky enough to find two compilations of his work and gave them to her. Mr. Saturnino Calleja was a best seller and icon back in the day. 
 
Abuelita Susana was a woman entrepreneur in a mid-size town in the State of Veracruz. She started selling Tupperware and later moved up the ladder and was able to pay for some amazing trips. 
 
One of her most cherished voyages was her around-the-world tour in the late 1960s. She traveled to some places that are hard to visit, even today. She went with her sister, and they started in Hawaii. Later they went to see Angkor Wat before the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia and committed genocide. 
 
The next stop was India, where they were received with great surprise as it was uncommon to see two middle-aged women traveling without a man. Afterward, they visited Iran before the Islamic Revolution and Iraq before Saddam Hussein. They took fantastic pictures of their stop in Lebanon, the then “Paris of the East”, before the civil war tear apart the country for many decades. Their last stop was Rome, which seemed dull after the extraordinary places they had visited beforehand. 
 
The trip was extraordinary, but even more so was her ability to do it without knowing much English. She visited Paris several times, and she remembered how to get to the hotel from the famous shopping stores by memorizing the shop displays on the way because she still had to learn French.
 
Every time she returned from her travels; she gave me coins from all the countries she visited. That is how I started my coin collection and my interest in traveling. After listening to her adventures overseas, I picked up the Encyclopedia (there were no personal computers or the internet back then) and searched entries about the countries I had coins. It was then that I knew I wanted to travel like abuelita Susana, and I enjoy learning about different nations and their history. It was when I developed the love for maps that I still have today. 
 
All my grandparents had the travel bug, especially abuelita Susana, so I didn´t even question why I wanted to travel the world. Furthermore, I was so interested in different countries that I studied International Relations and later became a diplomat.
 
Another facet of her life was art. She was an inherent painter. Every summer, when all her granddaughters and grandsons spent time in her house, she had several activities, including painting classes. Below is one of her paintings.

 
As part of the "Digital Diplomacy 4.0" project, today I will write about tech diplomacy, also known as TechPlomacy.
 
In the last few months, the disruptive arrival of the now-famous ChatGPT Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) software has attracted much attention and discussion about the role of technology in society. Part of the debate has also focused on the impact of technology on diplomacy, including a new approach referred to as TechPlomacy or tech diplomacy. You can read more in my blog post Why Denmark sent a Tech Ambassador to Silicon Valley?
 
In April 2023, the DiploFoundation published the updated version of the study Tech diplomacy practice in the San Francisco Bay Area. The original version is from 2018, a year after Denmark announced the designation of the first tech ambassador, who was responsible for engaging diplomatically with tech giants like Apple, Amazon, Meta (Facebook), and Alphabet (Google) and Silicon Valley's entrepreneurial ecosystem, which includes venture capitalists, think tanks, universities, entrepreneurs, research labs, and other actors.
 
The subject seems very interesting because of several reasons: 

1. The influence of technology on world politics is immense, from cyberattacks that can change the outcome of an election to ransomware that can shut down the electric power of a country. Therefore, ministries of foreign affairs and diplomats new to adapt to these changes, as it is vital. But first, there must be some level of understanding about how technology works. Adopting tech diplomacy policies is a way to showcase their adaptability and to seek advantages before somebody else takes them away.
2. In the course I teach, I use the tech ambassador as a case study about the influence of technology on diplomacy so students understand today's diplomacy, which is increasingly done digitally. 
3. I found it intriguing why a country would designate an ambassador as its representative for a specific industry when many businesses throughout history have amazed immense power. I wanted to know why there were no Oil, Arms, or Banks Ambassadors before, but now we have envoys to Silicon Valley (Blumenthal, 2018).

 
The first question that comes to mind is why tech giants are different from other corporations. Blumenthal (2018) explains why tech giants are so powerful nowadays that countries send ambassadors to Silicon Valley. He indicates that "digital platforms govern the spaces they control. And by developing new technologies deployed as platforms, they can govern entirely new spaces before national governments are even aware." So, it is not just their vast amounts of cash or the unreal market capitalization, it is primarily their ability to control the digital space, as no other corporation did before, what separates them from the rest of the businesses.
 
The second issue would be, what is a tech diplomat? It seems an easy question, but the reality is much more complicated. Diplo's study identifies eight different tech diplomats' titles (Ittelson & Rauchbauer, 2023, p. 17). See Table 1 for a detailed view of titles. 
 
Table 1: Tech diplomatic representations in Silicon Valley.

 
After participating in the Summit on Digital Diplomacy and Governance organized by DiploFoundation (see my blog post here), I realized that today’s diplomats need to not only know about the current trends in technology and their impacts on diplomacy but also need to be able to actively participate in the discussions, such as the UN’s Global Digital Compact. Therefore, in the coming months, I will work on a special project titled "Digital Diplomacy 4.0." 
 
The well-known digital diplomacy scholar Corneliu Bjola explains that we are now in the fourth iteration of digital diplomacy. The first occurred with the Arab Spring, showcasing social media’s impact on the real world. The second wave happened in 2015 and 2016, with the appearance of the “dark side” of technology and its effects on the U.S. presidential election and the Brexit vote (Bjola, 2022).
 
The COVID-19 pandemic launched digital diplomacy 3.0, with the ubiquitous use of Zoom and other platforms that allowed continuous interactions among diplomats and other international actors when the world shut down (Bjola, 2022). 
 
Prof. Bjola indicates that today digital diplomacy has moved forward to a new phase, what I call 4.0, due to the arrival of disruptive innovations such as Artificial Intelligence and the Metaverse (Bjola, 2022). As their predecessors, these new technologies will considerably impact the digital and real worlds. The idea is consistent with the Highlights from the Summit on Digital Diplomacy and Governance that took place in November 2022. 
 
Since then, the arrival of ChatGPT has turned the world upside down. It is amazing the speed that things are happening. In the last months, there has been a tremendous number of events to discuss the impact of AI on everything. Here are some of them:

• Technologies of Tomorrow: A Conversation with Eric Schmidt. (January 11, 2023). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 
• Will AI take over diplomatic reporting? (WebDebate #56). Here are the Video, the Human-made summary, and the AI-generated report. (February 7, 2023). The DiploFoundation. 
• What role can AI play in diplomatic negotiation? (WebDebate #57). (March 7, 2023). The DiploFoundation. 
• How to Train Diplomats to Deal with AI and Data? (WebDebate #58). (April 4, 2023). The DiploFoundation.

 
Diplomats worldwide cannot wait until these new technologies mature to embrace them, and they need to take the bull by the horns and start learning these disruptive inventions. The DiploFoundation is an excellent resource, and it is ahead of most capacity-building institutions that perfectly combine courses on technology and internet governance, and diplomacy. 
 
Besides, governments need to work on their digital strategies, and the ministries of foreign affairs need to incorporate them into their foreign policy and diplomatic efforts. Some countries, like Switzerland, have already are working on them and in late 2020 presented its digital foreign policy strategy.
 
Here are some resources that I found extremely useful to start diving into the realm of digital diplomacy 4.0:

• DiploFoundation’s webpages dedicated to digital diplomacy, Artificial Intelligence and diplomacy, internet governance and digital policy, and digital foreign policy.
• Geneva Digital Atlas 2.0
• The technologies section of the Digwatch website.
• Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group.
• The Cyber diplomacy issue of the Public Diplomacy Magazine.
• Exploring Digital Diplomacy blog by Ilan Manor.

 
In the coming days, I will discuss Technology Diplomacy or TechPlomacy. Here is my previous blog post about the subject. 
 
Reference:
 
Bjola, C. (2022). Stratcom-Talks, Episode 29 (podcast interview).
 
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.

 
This post is dedicated to all individuals and institutions participating in the IME's activities and programs through its 20-year history. 
 
On Sunday, April 16, the Institute of Mexicans Abroad (Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior) celebrated its 20th anniversary. On that day in 2003, the government of Mexico published the Decreet that established this new diaspora engagement institution in the Federal Registry.
 
The Institute, also known as the IME (for its acronym in Spanish), revolutionized the relationships between the government of Mexico (especially the executive branch of the federal government) and the Mexican community in the United States and Canada. For the first time in history, Mexican migrants and second-generation and National Hispanic organizations sat at the table by participating in the IME's Advisory Council (known as the Consejo Consultivo del IME or CCIME). 
 
The IME also profoundly transmuted the role of the consulates and hometown associations in their host municipalities and states, engaging with a wide variety of actors from businesses and local authorities to civil society organizations and institutions. They developed effective and long-lasting partnerships to cater to the needs of the Mexican community in North America. Their activities can be classified as a successful public diplomacy effort (Márquez Lartigue, 2023).
 
Background
 
Even though migration to the United States has been a constant in some states in Mexico for over a century, significant changes dramatically transformed the situation in the late 1980s and through the 1990s.
 
The combination of several factors metamorphosed Mexican migrants from temporary workers into a permanent diaspora: 

1. The regularization of more than 2.3 million Mexicans was a result of the enactment of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which generated a boom in family reunification, including the arrival of a significant number of women and children. It also allowed them to travel freely to Mexico and get permanent jobs in urban areas.
2. The migration circularity ended due to greater immigration enforcement operations through the 1990s that resulted from the criminalization of migration violations and growing anti-immigrant sentiments.
3. The expansion of Mexican migrants from all regions of Mexico and their dispersion in every corner of the U.S. turned migration from a regional to a national phenomenon on both sides of the border.
4. Mexico's economic downfall and one of the longest economic booms in the U.S.

 
Besides, the government of Mexico reformed its consular system, including the establishment of the Program of Mexican Communities Abroad in 1990, expanded its consular network, and granted greater autonomy to consular officers to actively engage with Mexican community leaders, local and state authorities, and civil society organizations (González Gutiérrez, 1997). Government officials encouraged the establishment of Hometown Associations and confederations among migrants and Migrants Care Offices (Oficinas de Atención a Migrantes) by Mexican provincial and even municipal authorities. 
 
After the failure to negotiate a migration accord with the U.S. in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the government of Mexico created the National Council for Mexican Communities Abroad in the summer of 2002. One of the council's tasks was to receive recommendations from consultative mechanisms (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2002).
 
The establishment of the IME
 
In the autumn of 2002, Mexican consulates across the United States and Canada invited migrant community leaders to participate in the selection process of an advisory board that was going to be established as part of the IME.
 
Ayón (2006) explains that the IME was added to traditional consular programs such as documentary services (passports, notary public, and visas) and assistance to distressed citizens because the Institute could "plan, handle, propose, and pursue national and binational strategic goals and respond to the challenges that transcend the consular district" (p. 132).
 
IME's first Executive Director indicated that the institute had three primary functions: information dissemination, empowerment of the communities, and provision of innovative new services that go beyond regular consular programs (González Gutiérrez, 2009).
 
Regarding information distribution, the IME had three major programs: 

1. "Lazos," an electronic information bulletin distributed to more than 12,000 people with news of interest to the migrant community in Mexico, the U.S., and Canada.  (González Gutiérrez, 2009, p. 96). Nowadays, the monthly digital bulletin is called Casa de México. 
2. The Jornadas Informativas, or as Laglagaron (2010) translated the termed Migrant-Focused Conferences (p. 19), conveyed leaders across North America on specific topics from gastronomy to financial education to share experiences and information. This program was also part of the empowerment activities.
3. The network of HTAs and community leaders connected with the consulates and the federal government through the activities of the CCIME.

 
The consular network began offering social services through partnerships with non-governmental organizations, authorities, and even businesses. These services centered on non-traditional areas such as education (Plazas Comunitarias -Basic Adult Education- program, scholarships -IME Becas-, and exchange of teachers, among others), health (centered around the Ventanillas de Salud or Health Desks and the Binational Health Week); financial education and investment of remittances (Financial Advisory Desk -Ventanilla de Asesoría Financiera-, the Three-for-one program, and Directo a Mexico. 
 
The most important task was the empowerment of the Mexican community through the CCIME and participation in the information and services agendas (Ayón 2006, p. 132). 
 
In many ways, the government of Mexico, through its consular network, was already working on most of these programs before the creation of the IME. Notwithstanding, the key innovative aspect of the institute was its advisory council. For the first time, its approximately 120 members from across the U.S. and Canada gathered at least twice a year to prepare recommendations about policies directed at Mexican migrants in North America. The first director of the Institute, Don Cándido Morales, was also a migrant from Oaxaca living In California. 
 
Even though the CCIME had limited responsibilities centered on presenting non-binding recommendations, it provided a national platform for migrant leaders. On the one hand, they meet and engage each other, strengthening their advocacy and organization skills. It was an executive leadership training academy (Ayón, 2006, p. 135). On the other hand, it opened the doors to authorities on both sides of the border at all levels. It facilitated their engagement with civil society and, for some, in political activities. 
 
Giving Mexican migrants a voice and visibility through the CCIME was helpful as it helped expand many of the IME programs, such as the Health Desks and the creation of IME Becas. Also, many board members advocated enacting the overseas absentee vote implementing law in 2005 and the migrant demonstrations of the Spring of 2006.
 
The IME has evolved thought its 20 years of existence, but most of its core functions continue to this day. In 2022, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched the 2022-2024 Action Plan for Mexicans living overseas, which contains nearly 40 activities. 
 
IME's successful public diplomacy
 
Without using the term public diplomacy, the IME's activities can be defined as such. Its programs encompass Professor Nicholas Cull's (2019) five elements of public diplomacy listening, advocacy, cultural activities, and educational exchanges. Even there was some international broadcasting in the form of electronic information bulletins.
 
Interestingly, the target audiences were migrants themselves. However, it did not stop there; through its many undertakings, consular offices engaged with all sorts of people and organizations and slowly built long-lasting partnerships. Thus, nowadays, the IME "has about 2,000 partners in Mexico and the USA" (Mendoza Sánchez & Cespedes Cantú, 2021).
 
Another contribution of the IME was that many countries, from Uruguay to Morocco and Türkiye to Colombia, requested meetings and attended some of its activities to learn more about the country's diaspora engagement programs. (Laglagaron, 2010, p. 39; Délano, 2014). The IME generated soft power for Mexico's diplomacy soft power, as it attracted attention around the globe.
 
It has also generated consular partnerships with other Latin American consulates in programs like Binational Health Week and Labor Rights Week that are celebrated across the U.S. every year. With the countries of the Northern Triangle of Central America, several consulates established consular coordination schemes known as Tricamex. 
 
One of the most outstanding achievements of the IME was reducing the barriers between the government and the migrants. After years of hard work, little by little, it has gained the community's trust, which was very little. Significant investments in the modernization of documentary services have also resulted in better quality services. 
 
The Institute also gave way to the rise of Mexico's public-consular diplomacy. To learn more about its origins and features, read my practitioner's essay in the Journal of Public Diplomacy titled Beyond Traditional Boundaries: The Origins and Features of the Public-Consular Diplomacy of Mexico. 
 
References
 
Ayón, D.R. (2006). La política mexicana y la movilización de los migrantes en Estdos Unidos.  In Carlos Gónzalez Gutiérrez (coor.), Relaciones Estado-diáspora: La perspectiva de América Latina y el Caribe. Tomo II, (pp. 113-144). Ciudad de México. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores.
 
Cull, N. J. (2019). Public Diplomacy: Foundations for Global Engagement in the Digital Age. (Kindle Edition).
 
Délano, A. (2014). The diffusion of diaspora engagement policies: A Latin American agenda. Political Geography, 41, 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.11.007.
 
Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2002, August 8). Acuerdo por el que se crea el Consejo Nacional para las Comunidades Mexicanas en el Exterior. https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=721574&fecha=08/08/2002#gsc.tab=0
 
Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2003, April 16). Decreto por el que se crea el Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, con el carácter de órgano administrativo desconcentrado de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. https://www.gob.mx/ime/documentos/decreto-por-el-que-se-crea-el-ime
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (1997). Decentralized Diplomacy: The Role of Consular Offices in Mexico´s Relations with its Diaspora. In Rodolfo O de la Garza and Jesús Velasco (eds.), Bridging the Border: Transforming Mexico-U.S. Relations, (pp. 49-67). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (2006). Introduccion: El papel de los gobiernos. In Carlos Gónzalez Gutiérrez (coor.), Relaciones Estado-diáspora: La perspectiva de América Latina y el Caribe. Tomo II, (pp. 13-42). Ciudad de México. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores.
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (2009). The Institute of Mexicans Abroad: An Effort to Empower the Diaspora. In Dovelyn Rannverg Agunias (ed.), Closing the Distance: How Governments Strengthen ties with their Diasporas, (pp. 87-98). Washington, DC. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/closing-distance-how-governments-strengthen-ties-their-diasporas
 
Laglagaron, L. (2010). Protection through Integration: The Mexican Government's Efforts to Aid Migrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/IME_FINAL.pdf
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2023). Engaging migrants in the Mexico-US diplomatic relationship: The Institute of Mexicans Abroad. Working paper presented in the ISA 2023 convention. Unpublished. 
 
Mendoza Sánchez, J. C., & Cespedes Cantú, A. (2021). Innovating through Engagement: Mexico’s Model to Support Its Diaspora. In L. Kennedy (ed), Routledge International Handbook of Diaspora Diplomacy (Kindle Edition). Routledge.
 
Terrazas, A. and Papademetriou, D. G. (2010). Reflexiones sobre el compromiso de México con Estados Unidos en materia de migración con énfasis en los programas para la comunidad de mexicanos en el exterior. In Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexicanos en el Exterior: Trayectorias y Perspectivas (1990-2010), (pp. 107-139). Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Instituto Matías Romero.
 
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.
 

 
When I started the blog, I did not know a lot of articles and studies about consular diplomacy. I have compiled some resources about the subject in the last two years. The focus is on consular activities related to diplomacy and foreign policy, with a Mexican tilt. Below are some of the works I have identified, which I will update every few months.
 
This list is in alphabetical order but incomplete, and I would greatly appreciate any suggestions. Please feel free to send them in the comments section below or via email. 
 
I apologize for not using any reference-management software, but I do not know how to integrate it into the blog. 
 
April 2023 updates: 
 
 
BOOKS
 
Bada, X. & Gleeson, S. (eds.). (2019). Accountability Across Borders: Migrant Rights in North America. The University of Texas Press. 
 
Bada, X. & Gleeson, S. (2023). Scaling Migrant Worker Rights: How Advocates Collaborate and Contest State Power. The University of California Press. Especially chapter two: The Mexican Consular Network as an Advocacy Institution. OPEN ACCESS.
 
Lafleur, J.M. & Vintila, D. (2020). Migration and Social Protection in Europe and Beyond (Volume 2): Comparing Consular Services and Diaspora Policies. IMISCOE Research Series. OPEN ACCESS
 
Platt, D. C. M. (1971). The Cinderella Service: British Consuls since 1825. Archon Books. 
 
BOOK CHAPTERS 
 
Berridge. G. R. (2022). Consulates. In G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, (pp. 141-157). Palgrave and DiploFoundation.
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (1997). Decentralized Diplomacy: The Role of Consular Offices in Mexico´s Relations with its Diaspora. In Rodolfo O de la Garza and Jesús Velasco (eds.), Bridging the Border: Transforming Mexico-U.S. Relations, (pp. 49-67). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 
 
Melissen, J. (2022). Consular Diplomacy in the Era of Growing Mobility. In Christian Lequesne (ed.), Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the World. Diplomatic Series, Vol. 18. (pp. 251-262). Brill Nijhoff.
 
OTHER WORKS
 
Haynal, G., et al. (2013). The Consular Function in the 21st Century: A report for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. 
 
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
 
Global Affairs Canada. (2017). Evaluation of the Consular Affairs Program. Diplomacy, Trade and Corporate Evaluation Division, Global Affairs Canada. https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/assets/pdfs/publications/evaluation/2018/cap-pac-eng.pdf
 
Gradilone, E. (2012). Diplomacia Consular 2007 a 2012. Ministério das Relações Exteriores (Brazil) and Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão. https://funag.gov.br/biblioteca-nova/produto/1-182-diplomacia_consular_2007_a_2012
 
OTHER BLOGS
 
Manor, I. (2022, January 25). Are Consular Tweets a New Form of Crisis Signaling? 
Exploring Digital Diplomacy blog. https://digdipblog.com/2022/01/25/are-consular-tweets-a-new-form-of-crisis-signaling/
 
February 2023 List:
 
BOOKS:
 
Berridge, G.R. (2022). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. 6th edition. Palgrave Macmillan and the DiploFoundation. 
 
Carrigan, W.D. and Webb, C. (2013). Forgotten Dead: Mob violence against Mexicans in the United States, 1848-1928. Oxford University Press. 
 
Casey, C. A. (2020). Nationals Abroad Globalization, Individual Rights, and the Making of Modern International Law. Cambridge University Press
 
Délano Alonso, A. (2018). From here and there: Diaspora Policies, Integration, and Social Rights Beyond Borders. Oxford University Press. 
 
De Goey, F. (2014). Consuls and the Institutions of Global Capitalism. Routledge.
 
Fernández de Castro, R, (coord.). (2018). La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump. El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Gómez Arnau, R. (1990). México y la proteccion de sus nacionales en Estados Unidos. Centro de Investigaciones sobre Estados Unidos de América, UNAM. (IN SPANISH)
 
Græger, N. and Leira, H. (eds.). (2020). The Duty of Care in International Relations: Protecting Citizens Beyond the Border. Routledge.
 
Heinsen-Roach, E. (2019). Consuls and Captives: Dutch-North African Diplomacy in the Early Modern Mediterranean. University of Rochester Press.
 
Hernández Joseph, D. (2015). Protección Consular Mexicana. Ford Foundation & Miguel Ángel Porrúa. (IN SPANISH)
 
Herz, M. F. (1983). The Consular Dimension of Diplomacy: A Symposium. Institute of the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University. 
 
Hofstadter, C. G. (2020). Modern Consuls, Local Communities and Globalization. Palgrave Pivot.
 
Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In J. Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. (pp. 3-27). Palgrave MacMillan. 
 
Melissen, J. and Fernandez, A. M., (eds.) (2011). Consular Affairs and Diplomacy. Martinus Nijhoff. 
 
Moyano Pahissa, Á. (1989). Antología Protección Consular a Mexicanos en los Estados Unidos 1849-1900.Archivo Histórico Diplomático Mexicano, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. (IN SPANISH)
 
Muñoz Martinez, M. (2018). The Injustice Never Leaves You: Ant-Mexican Violence in Texas. Harvard University Press. 
 
 
BOOK CHAPTERS
 
Calva Ruíz, V. (2018). Diplomacia Consular y acercamiento con socios estratégicos. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 205-216). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH) 
 
De Moya, M. & Bravo, V. (2021). Conclusion: Lessons Learned and Future Research. In V. Bravo & M. De Moya (eds), Latin American Diasporas in Public Diplomacy, (pp. 311-324). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74564-6_13
 
Fernández de Castro, R. & Hernández Hernández, A. (2018). Introducción. In R. Fernández de Castro(coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 17-25). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Fernández Pasarin, A. M. (2016). Consulates and Consular Diplomacy. In C. Constantinou, P. Kerr & P. Sharp (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy. Sage Publishing. 
 
Gómez Zapata, T. (2021). Civil Society as an Advocate of Mexicans and Latinos in the United States: The Chicago Case. In V. Bravo & M. De Moya (eds.), Latin American Diasporas in Public Diplomacy, (pp. 189-213). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74564-6_8
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (2006). Del acercamiento a la inclusión institucional: la experiencia del Insittuto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior. In C. Gónzalez Gutiérrez (coord.), Relaciones Estado-diáspora: aproximaciones desde cuatro continentes, Tomo 1, (pp. 181-220). Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. (IN SPANISH)
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (2018). El significado de una relación especial: las relaciones de México con Texas a la luz de su experiencia en California. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 253-269). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Heijmans, M. y Melissen, J. (2007). MFAs and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs Cinderella in the Limelight. En K.S. Rana y J. Kurbalija (eds.), Foreign Ministries Managing Diplomatic Networks and Optimizing Value (pp. 192-206). Malta: DiploFoundation.
 
Laveaga Rendón, R. (2018). Mantenerse a la Vanguardia: Desafío para los Consulados de México en Estados Unidos. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 231-251). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Leira, H. & Græger, N. (2020). Introduction: The Duty of Care in International Relations. In N. Græger & H. Leira (eds.), The Duty of Care in International Relations: Protecting Citizens Beyond the Border, (pp. 1-17). Routledge.
 
Leira, H. & Neumann, I. B. (2011). The Many Past Lives of the Consul. In J. Melissen & A. M. Fernández, (eds.), Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 223-246). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188761.i-334.69
 
Leira, H. & Neumann, I. B. (2017). Consular Diplomacy. In P. Kerr & G. Wiseman (eds.), Diplomacy in a globalizing world: Theories and Practice. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. 
 
Melissen, J. (2011). Introduction The Consular Dimension of Diplomacy. In J. Melissen & A. M. Fernández, (eds.), Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 1-17). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188761.i-334.6
 
Mendoza Sánchez, J. C., & Cespedes Cantú, A. (2021). Innovating through Engagement: Mexico’s Model to Support Its Diaspora. In L. Kennedy (ed.), Routledge International Handbook of Diaspora Diplomacy. Routledge.
 
Neumann, I. and Leira, H. (2020). The evolution of the consular institution. In I. Neumann, Diplomatic Tense,(pp. 8-25). Manchester University Press. 
 
Okano-Heijmans, M. (2011). Changes in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy. In J. Melissen & A. M. Fernández, (eds.), Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 21-41). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188761.i-334.13
 
Okano-Heijmans, M. (2013). Consular Affairs. In A. Cooper et al., (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, (pp. 473-492). Oxford University Press. 
 
Rana, K. S.  (2011). The New Consular Diplomacy. In K. S. Rana, 21st Century Diplomacy. A Practitioner's Guide. Continuum.
 
Schiavon, J. A. & Ordorica R., G. (2018). Las sinergias con otras comunidades: el caso Tricamex. In R.Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 185-203). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Torres Mendivil, R. (2018). La diplomacia consular: un paradigma de la relación México-Estados Unidos. In R.Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 109-124). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Ulbert, J. (2011). A History of the French Consular Services. In J. Melissen & A. M. Fernández, (eds.),Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 303-324). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188761.i-334.96
 
Valenzuela-Moreno, K. A. (2021). Transnational Social Protection and the Role of Countries of Origin: The Cases of Mexico, Guatemala, Bolivia, and Ecuador. In V. Bravo & M. De Moya (eds.), Latin American Diasporas in Public Diplomacy, (pp. 27-51). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74564-6_2
 
 
JOURNAL ARTICLES
 
Bada, X., & Gleeson, S. (2015). A New Approach to Migrant Labor Rights Enforcement. Labor Studies Journal,40(1), 32-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X14565112.
 
Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). Duty of Care: Consular Diplomacy Response of Baltic and Nordic Countries to COVID-19. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 17(2022), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10115.
 
Bravo, V., & De Moya, M. (2018). Mexico’s public diplomacy efforts to engage its diaspora across the border: Case study of the programs, messages and strategies employed by the Mexican Embassy in the United States. Rising Powers Quarterly, 3(3), 173-193. 
 
Cárdenas Suárez, H. (2019). La política consular en Estados Unidos: protección, documentación y vinculacion con las comunidades mexicanas en el exterior. Foro Internacional, LIX(3-4), 1077-1113. https://doi.org/10.24201/fi.v59i3-4.2652. (IN SPANISH)
 
Crosbie, W. (2018). A Consular Code to Supplement the VCCR. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302019
 
Délano, A. (2009). From Limited to Active Engagement: Mexico’s Emigration Policies from a Foreign Policy Perspective. International Migration Review, 43(4), 764-814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00784.x.
 
Délano, A. (2014). The diffusion of diaspora engagement policies: A Latin American agenda. Political Geography, 41, 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.11.007.
 
De la Vega Wood, D. A. (2014). Diplomacia consular para el desarrollo humano: una visión desde la agenda democrática. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior 101, May-August, 167-185. (IN SPANISH)
 
Durand, J., Massey, D. S. & Parrado, E. A. (1999). The New Era of Mexican Migration to the United States. The Journal of American History, 86(2), 518-536.
 
Gómez Maganda, G. and Kerber Palma, A. (2016). Atención con perspectiva de género para las comunidades mexicanas en el exterior. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, No. 107, May-August, 185-202. (IN SPANISH) 
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (1999). Fostering Identities: México´s Relations with Its Diaspora. The Journal of American History, 86(2), 545-567. https://doi.org/10.2307/2567045
 
Græger, N. & Lindgren, W. Y. (2018). The Duty of Care for Citizens Abroad: Security and Responsibility in the In Amenas and Fukushima Crises. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 188-210. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302009
 
Hernández Joseph, D. (2012). Mexico’s Concentration Consular Services. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy,7(2), 227-236. https://doi.org/10.1163/187119112X625556.
 
Haugevic, K. (2018). Parental Child Abduction and the State: Identity, Diplomacy and the Duty of Care. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302010
 
Leira, H. (2018). Caring and Carers: Diplomatic Personnel and the Duty of Care. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302007
 
Leira, H. and de Carvalho, B. (2021). The Intercity Origins of Diplomacy: Consuls, Empires, and the Sea. Diplomatica 3 (1), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1163/25891774-03010008
 
Lottaz, P. (2020). Going East: Switzerland´s east consular diplomacy toward East and Southeast Asia. Traverse: Zeitschrift für Geschichte = Revue d´historie 27(1), 23-34.
 
Marina Valle, V., Gandoy Vázquez, W. L., and Valenzuela Moreno, K. A. (2020). Ventanillas de Salud: Defeating challenges in healthcare access for Mexican immigrants in the United States. Estudios Fronterizos, 21 (e043). https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2020.1714462
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2023). Beyond Traditional Boundaries: The Origins and Features of the Public-Consular Diplomacy of Mexico. Journal of Public Diplomacy 2(2), 48-68.
 
Martínez-Schuldt, R. D. (2020). Mexican Consular Protection Services across the United States: How Local Social, Economic, and Political Conditions Structure the Sociolegal Support of Emigrants. International Migration Review, 54(4), 1016-1044.
 
Melissen, J. (2020). Consular diplomacy's first challenge: Communicating assistance to nationals abroad. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 7(2), 217-228. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.298

Melissen, J. & Okano-Heijmans, M. (2018). Introduction. Diplomacy and the Duty of Care. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-23032072
 
Navarro Bernachi, A. (2014). La perspectiva transversal y multilateral de la protección consular. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior (101), May-August, 81-97. (IN SPANISH)
 
Necochea López, R. (2018). Mexico´s health diplomacy and the Ventanilla de Salud program. Latino Studies(16), 482-502. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41276-018-0145-8
 
Okano-Heijmans, M. & Price, C. (2019). Providing consular services to low-skilled migrant workers: partnerships that care. Global Affairs, 5(4-5) 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2020.1714462
 
Rangel Gomez, M. G., Tonda, J., Zapata, G. R., Flynn, M., Gany, F., Lara, J., Shapiro, I, & Ballesteros Rosales, C. (2017). Ventanillas de Salud: A Collaborative and Binational Health Access and Preventive Care Program. Frontiers in Public Health 5. 30 June. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00151.
 
Schiavon, J. A. & Cárdenas Alaminos, N. (2014). La proteccón consular de la diáspora mexicana. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior (101), May-August, 43-67. (IN SPANISH)
 
Torres Mendivil, R. (2014). Morfología, tradición y futuro de la práctica consular mexicana. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior 101, May-August, 69-79. (IN SPANISH)
 
Tsinovoi, A. and Adler-Nissen, R. (2018) Inversion of the “Duty of Care”: Diplomacy and the protection of Citizens Abroad, from Pastoral Care to neoliberal Governmentality. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (13) 2, 211-232. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302017
 
Xia, L. (2021). Consular Protection with Chinese Characteristics: Challenges and Solutions. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 16 (2-3), 253-274. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10068.
 
Valenzuela-Moreno, K. (2019). Los consulados mexicanos en Estados Unidos: Una aproximación desde la protección social. INTERdisciplina, 7(18), 59-79. https://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/inter/article/view/68460/61387.
 
OTHER WORKS
 
Batalova, J. (2008). Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. 23 April. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states-2006.
 
Bruno, A. y Storrs, K. L. (2005). Consular Identification Cards: Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation. Congressional Research Services. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL32094.pdf.
 
González, C., Martínez, A. & Purcell, J. (2015). Report: Global Consular Forum 2015, Wilton Park, July. Global Consular Forum.
 
Israel, E. & Batalova, J. (2020). Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. 5 November. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states-2019.
 
Kunz, R. (2008). Mobilising diasporas: A governmentality analysis of the case of Mexico. Working Paper Series, “Glocal Governance and Democracy” 3. Institute of Political Science, University of Lucerne. https://zenodo.org/record/48764?ln=en#.YyZZyC2xBaR. 
 
Laglagaron, L. (2010). Protection through Integration: The Mexican Government’s Efforts to Aid Migrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/IME_FINAL.pdf
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2021). El surgimiento de la Diplomacia Consular: su interpretación desde México. Unpublished essay. (IN SPANISH)
 
Murray, L. (2013). Conference report: Contemporary consular practice trends and challenges, Wilton Park, October. Global Consular Forum. 
 
Noe-Bustamante, L., Flores, A. & Shah, S. (2019). Facts on Hispanics of Mexican origin in the United States, 2017. Pew Hispanic Center. 16 September. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/fact-sheet/u-s-hispanics-facts-on-mexican-origin-latinos/. 
 
Global Consular Forum. (2016). Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation, 27 October.
 
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
 
Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior. (2018). Población Mexicana en el Mundo: Estadística de la población mexicana en el mundo 2017. 23 July.http://www.ime.gob.mx/estadisticas/mundo/estadistica_poblacion_pruebas.html.
 
Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior. (2021). ‘Revista “Casa de México”’. 22 January. 
https://www.gob.mx/ime/articulos/revista-casa-de-mexico.
 
Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. (2019). Fortalecimiento de la Atención a Mexicanos en el Exterior, Libro Blanco 2012-2018. (IN SPANISH)
 
 
OTHER BLOG POSTS (BESIDES THIS BLOG)
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2021). Public-Consular Diplomacy at its Best: The case of the Mexican Consular ID card program. CPD Blog. 4 February. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-its-best-case-mexican-consular-id-card-program.
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2021). Public-Consular Diplomacy That Works: Mexico’s Labor Rights Week in the U.S. CPD Blog. 6 October. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-works-mexicos-labor-rights-week-us.
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2022). Public-Consular Diplomacy That Heals: Binational Health Week Program. CPD Blog. 8 June. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-heals-binational-health-week-program. 
 

Yes, I had writer's block, and it was horrible. 
 
For the last six months, I have been working on a paper about the influence of society on diplomacy, focusing on diasporas, to present at an international convention. However, I was not able to write coherently and thoughtfully. I had writer's block. Now I realize how fortunate I have been, as this was the first time ever that I could not put my ideas into paper or, nowadays, the screen. 
 
Since my university years, I have always been able to compose some decent prose, from my three theses all the way to my recently published practitioners' essay about public-consular diplomacy in the Journal of Public Diplomacy. I always have so many ideas, which is one of the reasons that I decided to start this blog. Time has been my only limitation in writing before I hit the wall.
 
My previous understanding of writer's block was that the person did not have ideas to write. Now, it is the opposite. When you have too many ideas and options to frame your thoughts, you cannot write, period. 
 
Having writer's block is an unpleasant experience, and now I understand all my Ph.D. friends and scholars that struggle to finish their dissertations and essays. Framing a gazillion thoughts in a certain way is the most challenging task of the writing process, so your argument and evidence can stand the multiple tests they need to pass before you can present them publicly.
 
For me, the issue at heart is how to demonstrate that diasporas influence a country's diplomacy from a societal perspective. Luckily, I found an article that helped me overcome writer's block, so I was able to move forward with the working paper. I had to hurry to finish the first draft of the essay so I could present it at the convention!
 
After all the hoopla about ChatGPT and other Artificial Intelligence programs that (supposedly) will help humans better communicate ideas, process complex thoughts, and even do the work for us, it is time to reflect on what makes us human. For me, the ability to process information and put it in black and white (or orally presented) is one characteristic of humanity besides feeling emotions and, for some, having faith. 
 
The disruption of social media was supposed to improve our livelihoods, but looking at the current state of the world, it is clear that I did not fulfill its promise. Technology in itself is not bad or good; people make it beneficial or detrimental. Let's hope we are more careful about its implementation this time so we don't lose part of what makes us human. 
 
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.

Following up on my previous post, “Recent studies on consular diplomacy: reevaluating the consular institution,” about recent works on consular diplomacy, I want to share two great articles I just finished reading.
 
But first, I want to share that the Journal of Public Diplomacy recently published my practitioner's essay titled Beyond Traditional Boundaries: The Origins and Features of the Public-Consular Diplomacy of Mexico. It is open access, so I invite you to read it too.
 
The first article I just read is titled “Duty of Care: Consular Diplomacy Response on Baltic and Nordic Countries to COVID-19”, and was published by the Hague Journal of Diplomacy (open source article).[i]
 
The second is “Going East: Switzerland´s east consular diplomacy toward East and Southeast Asia”, written by Pascal Lottaz and focuses on opening Swiss consular offices in the Far East in the 1860s. 
 
So, let´s start with the comparative study of the Baltic and Nordic countries´ consular diplomacy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
“Duty of Care: Consular Diplomacy Response on Baltic and Nordic Countries to COVID-19”
 
The article is a must-read for anybody interested in the latest developments in diplomatic practices. It includes discussions on the evolution from consular services into consular diplomacy through the expansion into foreign policy, digital diplomacy, and citizen-centric initiatives.[ii]
 
There are few comparative studies of consular diplomacy; therefore, this essay is very much welcomed. It also showcases the different responses to the biggest-ever challenge for consular assistance, as the pandemic was once in a millennia occurrence that closed down the entire world.
 
Birka, Klavinš, and Kits explain the concept of “Duty of Care” and the importance of the state–society relationship in implementing consular assistance to citizens abroad in the real world. They classify this responsibility into two categories the “pastoral care concept [in] which citizens are objects to be protected [and the] neoliberal governmentality conception where citizens are expected to take on more responsibility for their own well-being.”[iii]  
 
The authors define the concept “as the assistance and protection of citizens through guidance and information provision, enabling citizens to make informed decisions and care for themselves. However, when faced with the pandemic, all states made minor adjustments to this approach and assumed some level of a pastoral DoC role by exceeding normal consular services provision.”[iv]
 
Birka, Klavinš, and Kits also discuss the changes in consular affairs, particularly the refocusing of ministries of foreign affairs into a greater engagement with its citizens and the inclusion of new diplomatic tools such as digital and diaspora diplomacies into their primary functions. The rise of consular diplomacy is part of these transformations and was put to a big test with the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
The evaluation and comparison of the response of the Nordic and Baltic countries to the pandemic is a significant contribution to the field of consular diplomacy studies. Despite their similarities, the eight countries have essential differences in their consular emergency responses. 
 
The categorization of the countries' consular responses to the pandemic, reflected in tables 2 ”extent of pastoral care provided”[v] and 3 “aspects of consular diplomacy,”[vi] could be applied in other comparative or single-country case studies. 
 
A key highlight of “Duty of Care: Consular Diplomacy Response on Baltic and Nordic Countries to COVID-19”, is the importance of having robust relationships among different MFAs to be able to evolve from consular coordination schemes to full-fledged consular diplomacy, which happened among the Nordic states but not in the Baltic region.  
  
Regarding innovative approaches, Lithuania and Denmark stand out. By using their established connections with their diasporas, the two countries were able to mobilize them to assist their nationals in the first months of the pandemic.[viii] Citizens' active participation in helping governments distribute valuable information and their assistance to some people showcases the new role of citizens in diplomacy and consular assistance.
 
The study underscores the significant contributions of information and communications technologies to diplomacy. Having a smartphone application with hundreds of thousands of users and being able to send SMS messages to all citizens abroad underline their vital role in today´s consular diplomacy. Even traditional MFAs webpages were crucial in disseminating information to people stuck overseas and their family members in the home country. 
 
Birka, Klavinš, and Kits successfully explain the critical elements of today´s consular diplomacy, and I am sure their comparative study will be highly cited work in the field. It is a must-read for everybody interested in today´s diplomacy, not only consular affairs. 
 
Now, let´s move on to the historical essay on Switzerland's consular diplomacy in the late 19th century.
 
“Going East: Switzerland´s east consular diplomacy toward East and Southeast Asia”
 
From the onset, it is hard to imagine why a small land-locked country like Switzerland would be interested in opening consulates in Asia. However, after reading the article, it all makes sense; therefore, this essay is also a valuable contribution to the field of consular diplomacy.  
 
It is fascinating to learn about how trade interests pushed the opening of Swiss consulates in Manila (1862), Batavia (now Jakarta) in 1863, and Yokohama and Nagasaki (Japan) a year later. Back then, the Alps´ nation had only three embassies -Paris, Vienna, and Turin (its three big neighbors)- but had 77 honorary consulates; therefore, most of its foreign activities were conducted by non-official consular officers rather than state diplomats.[ix]
 
“Going East: Switzerland´s east consular diplomacy toward East and Southeast Asia” showcases the linkage between colonial powers and small European countries in their trade expansion two centuries ago. Switzerland was able to open two new consulates with the assistance of Spain and the Netherlands. Besides, the U.S. and the Dutch helped Swiss diplomats sign a friendship treaty with Japan in 1864 after a failed attempt.[x]
 
Lottaz identifies the need for new markets for Swiss manufactured goods as the main objective in expanding relations with the Far East, which was driven mainly by a few tycoons, also called “Federal Barons.”[xi] He also ascertains that the expansion resulted from “the opportunity structure of the colonial era.”[xii]
 
Another issue that surfaced in this research was the concern about giving an advantage to a company with the designation of honorary consul abroad, issue that later was overturned, as the Swiss government designated the same person the second time around.[xiii] This subject still matters today, as demonstrated by the recent investigation into honorary consuls´ criminal activities and nefarious behaviors (See below). 
 
Here are some topics that came up in the conclusions of the article which could be further studied: 

• The supportive nature of other European powers (especially the Dutch) to the Swiss´s efforts to engage in commerce in the Far East. This is what Lottaz refers to as the “colonial opportunity structure.” It would be interesting to learn if this type of trade solidarity occurred in Latin America after their independence or in Asia and Africa after the Second World War. 
• The study highlights the importance of social actors, such as powerful manufacturing companies, chambers of commerce, and influential businesspersons, in steering diplomatic activities with commercial goals. 
• The fact that Switzerland was a land-locked country without any vessels was not an obstacle in its expanding trade interests, including the Far East. Was market access more relevant than transportation? What are the implications for other countries that lacked merchant navy?

 
The article reinforces the idea that most of the consular activities in the 19th century were focused on protecting trade interests, which were part of the national interest, rather than individual citizens. This perspective differs in the case of Mexico, which early on focused on protecting citizens in distress in the U.S. that had no trade connections. 
 
“Going East: Switzerland´s east consular diplomacy toward East and Southeast Asia” is a worthwhile contribution to understanding the links between trade and diplomacy and the merging of consular and diplomatic functions into what is known today as consular diplomacy. 
 
A brief comment on Consuls and Captives: Dutch-North African Diplomacy in the Early Modern Mediterranean
 
Before finishing, I just want to briefly comment on the book Consuls and Captives: Dutch-North African Diplomacy in the Early Modern Mediterranean by Erica Heinsen-Roach. It is not new, but it is fascinating historical research that demonstrates that diplomacy is not a uniquely European creation. The fact is that for nearly 300 hundred years, Maghribi corsairs and rulers in Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis, were able to deal on their own terms with European powers, mainly under the title of consuls, who performed diplomatic duties.
 
The book has a human dimension as it centers on the adventurous lives of Dutch consuls and a couple of non-resident ambassadors stationed on the African shores of the Mediterranean Sea. It provides an excellent example of the role of consuls in diplomacy. 
 
One of the defining elements of consular diplomacy is high-visibility consular cases[xiv]; therefore, what is more relevant than the enslavement of Dutch nationals in the Mediterranean and the government’s efforts to release them? 
 
As seen in the Swiss expansion to Asia, in this case, consular protection of citizens in distress was mainly related to trade interests, as the corsairs’ seizure of Dutch vessels and citizens in the Mediterranean affected the national interests. However, it seems that there is also a humanitarian responsibility, described as “duty of care” by the Dutch authorities, to look after its nationals abroad, particularly in these situations where the government's action made the difference between freedom and slavery. 
 
A final note on the honorary consuls’ global investigation.
 
Recently, ProPublica and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists launched a global investigation on honorary consuls titled “Shadow diplomats: The Global Threat of Rogue Diplomacy.”
 
This study is unique as consular affairs are typically covered by the media on crises or high-visibility consular cases, not the consular officials´ performance and activities. Sadly, it focuses on the “rogue” side rather than honorary consuls´ substantial contributions, especially in assisting distressed citizens abroad and promoting greater ties between nations. 
 
Most of the cases described in the research would still exist, as honorary consular usually are citizens of the host country rather than foreigners. The only, and important difference is their status as consular officers granted by both the receiving and the sending governments´. Of course, any criminal activity should be prosecuted, and abuses should be reported and sanctioned.
 


[i] Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). Duty of Care: Consular Diplomacy Response of Baltic and Nordic Countries to COVID-19. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 17(2022), 1-32.
[ii] Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). 
[iii] Tsinovoi A. and Adler-Nissen, R. (2018) Inversion of the “Duty of Care”: Diplomacy and the protection of Citizens Abroad, from Pastoral Care to neoliberal Governmentality. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (13) 2, cited in Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). p. 7.
[iv] Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). p. 26.
[v] Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). p. 16.
[vi] Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). pp. 23-24.
[vii] Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). pp. 22-24.
[viii] Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). pp. 22-24.
[ix] Lottaz, P. (2020). Going East: Switzerland´s east consular diplomacy toward East and Southeast Asia. Traverse: Zeitschrift für Geschichte = Revue d´historie 27(1), p. 23-24.
[x] Lottaz, P. (2020). p. 28.
[xi] Lottaz, P. (2020). pp. 25-26.
[xii] Lottaz, P. (2020).  p. 24.
[xiii] Lottaz, P. (2020). pp. 24 and 30.
[xiv] See Maaike Okano-Heijmans. (2011). Changes in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy. In Jan Melissen and Ana Mar Fernandez (eds.) Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, pp. 21-41.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed here are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer, or company.

 
In November 2022, I had the fantastic opportunity to attend the Summit on Digital Diplomacy and Governance organized as part of the 20th anniversary of the DiploFoundation.
 
The main takeout of the superb conference is that, as in the past, technology is changing diplomacy very fast. Diplomats and ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) need not just to try to keep up with the changes but be prepared to take advantage of the opportunities it brings and protect against the threats it presents.
 
As it was a decade ago with the appearance of social media, nowadays, diplomats and people who perform diplomatic functions must be aware of the rapid changes happening in the digital realm. From the rise and consolidation of TechPlomacy (Technology Diplomacy) and Digital Foreign Policy to the upcoming arrival of quantum computers and the fast-changing face of Artificial Intelligence, technology is changing diplomacy and the world´s geopolitics. 
 
The adaptation of diplomacy to technological revolutions is not new. To learn more about the topic, make sure you visit Diplo´s interactive page on the History of Diplomacy and Technology or watch the very educational and informative Masterclass Diplomacy and Technology: a Historical journey, which at the end of each chapter has a great surprise.
 
Diplo´s uniqueness 
 
There are few places or institutions in today´s world that bring together specialists in ICT and internet governance and practitioners of diplomacy in such a dynamic way like Diplo does. It has achieved this perfect communion through consistency, innovation, and total commitment to capacity building with a particular focus on small and developing states.
 
Another marvelous aspect of Diplo is that the Summit and all events it organizes have an incredible array of participants from all corners of the world, with a considerable proportion of women and the Global South. Furthermore, many of the attendees were Diplo´s Alumni, so the camaraderie of the Summit was just unbelievable. I even learned how to dance Jerusalema!
 
Summit on Digital Diplomacy and Governance. The Future of Diplomacy: From Geopolitics to Emerging Technologies.
 
According to Diplo, the Summit had 33 sessions, 68 speakers, and 510 participants (DiploFoundation, 2022). Here is a video about it.  

​For a summary of the event, read the Digwatch Newsletter, Issue 75 (December 2022). One of the highlights was the idea that digital diplomats “need to acquire new skills in digital governance: An understanding of the new geopolitics and geo-economic landscape, knowledge of the technology fuelling these developments, and the skills to engage with other actors, including tech companies, academia, and civil society” (Geneva Internet Platform, 2022, p. 6). For a complete summary of the meeting, visit Highlights from the Summit on Digital Diplomacy and Governance
 
To learn more about the participants' perspectives, Diplo created a series of videos and messages titled “Summit in a minute”, which I recommend watching/reading. You will see the significant diversity of the Summit´s attendees and their broad perspectives.
 
Opportunities for learning about new technology and its impact on diplomacy.
 
The future is happening now, as Tech giants and digital nomads are working hard to code new technologies and apps that will transform the world. In the last decade, we have seen the disruptive power of social media. The coming changes will likely have a more significant impact, from automation affecting millions of jobs and livelihoods to data mining and artificial intelligence.
 
Therefore, I encourage diplomats to ride the wave of technological changes before it is too late. Fortunately, DiploFoundation has many tools and options for learning and engaging. Here are some courses offered by Diplo:

• Advanced Diploma in Internet Governance.
• Public Diplomacy
• Artificial Intelligence: Technology, Governance, and Policy Frameworks.
• Introduction to Internet Governance.
• Diplomatic Theory and Practice.
• Humanitarian Diplomacy.
• Multilateral Diplomacy.

 
 
REFERENCES:
 
DiploFoundation. (2022). Highlights from the Summit on Digital Diplomacy and Governance. 
Geneva Internet Platform (2022) Digwatch Newsletter, Issue 75 (December 2022). 

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.

 
This blog post is dedicated to all the Mexican diplomats and U.S. legal teams that work with death penalty cases involving Mexicans, especially in memoriam of Imanol de la Flor Patiño, an exemplary person.
 
Today, twenty years ago, Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice for violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), specifically Article 36, which provides the right of consular notification to foreign citizens detained abroad.
 
The case concerning Avena and other Mexican nationals against the United States was a milestone in Mexico's assistance to its citizen overseas, particularly in the United States. In March 2004, the Court rendered its judgment against the United States, thus becoming an instrumental decision for the consular protection of the rights of Mexicans arrested north of the border and also for the 52 named cases (Gómez Robledo 2005, p. 183). 
 
The Avena case is Mexico's most consequential consular protection case because it overhauled the assistance consulates provide to distressed citizens and raised the relevance of consular affairs inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 
 
Background
 
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty. In 1993, a Mexican was executed in Texas; he was the first Mexican put to death after the reimposition of capital punishment. His execution was a big issue in Mexico which generated "more than a hundred condemnatory articles in the [Mexican] press, and pronouncements by not only the minister of Foreign Affairs but the President [of Mexico]" (González de Cossío, 1995, p. 102).
 
As a result, Mexico took a series of actions that helped prepare for the presentation of the Avena case in 2003. One immediate step was to interview all Mexicans on death row. As part of the process, consular officials identified a systemic violation of the right to consular notification in capital cases (González Félix, 2009, p. 218-220).
 
In addition, in 1997, Mexico asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for an Advisory Opinion (OC-16/99) about the consular notification.  It was a multilateral effort and was not bidding; thus, it was not a direct confrontation with the U.S. The Court published its opinion in 1999, stating that foreign individuals have certain rights under the VCCR, such as the rights of information, consular notification, and communications. Besides, it determined that the sending state and its consular officers also have the right to communicate with its detained nationals (Cárdenas Aravena, n.d).
 
In 2000, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico launched a new program to assist Mexicans on death row in the United States. This program complemented the legal training that some Mexican diplomats received as part of the official collaboration with the University of Houston that started in 1989 (see, for example, De la Flor Patiño, 2017 and number 109 of the Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior).
 
Enhancing consular protection 
 
With the arrival of President Fox in 2000, Mexico's government stepped up its engagement with the Mexican community in the United States intending to enhance consular protection. Mexico started negotiating a bilateral migration agreement with the recently inaugurated U.S. president, George W. Bush. The government established the Presidential Office for Migrants Abroad, promoted the Mexican Consular ID Card, and created and expanded consular programs such as the Binational Health Week and the Ventanilla de Salud (Health Desk).
 
In early 2002, the country ratified the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes of the VCCR, to which the United States was also a party (González Félix, 2009, p. 221-222), thus offering a binding conflict resolution mechanisms.
 
Meanwhile, the number of Mexicans sentenced to death and executed by U.S. authorities increased, creating an uproar in Mexico. In January 1995, there were 23 Mexicans sentenced to death in the U.S. (González de Cossío, 1995, p. 108). The ICJ's Avena Judgment decision of 2004 included 51 cases. 
 
From 1997 to 2002, four nationals were put to death in Texas and Virginia (Death Penalty Information Center, n/d). Even President Fox suspended a trip to president's Bush ranch in Texas in August 2002 as a protest of the execution of a Mexican in the same state (Gómez Robledo 2005, p. 178-179).
 
Meanwhile, Paraguay in 1998 and Germany in 1999 requested the intervention of the ICJ regarding the Breard and LaGrand cases related to violations of consular notification rights by U.S. authorities. In Paraguay's case, the proceedings were stopped after the execution of its national in 1998, while the German brother's case continued even after both were put to death in 1999. Both instances were significant for Mexico's consular protection of its nationals on death row. 
 
According to Gómez Robledo (2005), after LaGrand's ICJ decision in June 2001, Mexico tried to work with the United States regarding the Mexicans sentenced to death whose rights were violated by local authorities by denying the consular access with no avail (p. 178-179).
 
The Avena Judgment and its repercussions
 
In January of 2003, in a bold action, Mexico presented in the ICJ the Avena case against the United States for violations of Article 36 of the VCCR regarding the death penalty cases of 54 Mexicans in the United States (Covarrubias Velasco, 2010, p. 133-134).
 
The case had significant implications and had very high visibility in Mexico, particularly at a time when the migration to the United States grew very fast, passing from 4.3 million in 1990 to 9.1 million in 2000 (Rosenbloom & Batalova, 2022). 
 
After more than a year, which included one provisional measure, on March 31, 2004, the ICJ issued its judgment. In summary, "the ICJ concluded that the United States had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention [on Consular Relations] by failing to properly notify Mexican nationals of their rights to have Mexican consular officials notified of their arrest, which in turn deprived Mexican consular officers of their right under Article 36 to render assistant to their detained nationals "(Garcia, 2004, p. 14).   
 
More significantly, "the Court ordered the United States to provide judicial review to each and every one of the fifty-one Mexicans named in the suit whose Article 36 rights had been violated, and to determine whether the failure to timely advise the consulate of their arrests resulted in "actual prejudice to the defendant." Importantly, the United States judiciary also had to review and reconsider the convictions and sentences as if the procedural default did not exist" (Kuykendall and Knight, 2018, p. 808-809).
 
It was a massive victory for the rights of the Mexicans on death row, as it was mandatory for the U.S. government. The Judgment bound the U.S. to the 51 Mexicans with capital sentences, regardless of the eventual outcome of each case.
 
The Avena case was a milestone for Mexico's consular protection because: 

• The death penalty cases were no longer just a consular issue but a topic that was taken by the International Court of Justice and directly confronted Mexico with the United States. It also became a multilateral issue at the UN, such as the UN General Assembly's Resolution on the use of the death penalty every two years. 
• It dramatically changed the perspective on consular protection activities inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. First, the ICJ case involved many departments and officers unaware of the importance of the consular officers' work and its implications. Secondly, it became a foreign policy priority; thus, it was part of the conversations at the Ministry's highest echelons. Overall, the case helped to elevate the status of consular affairs into what is known now as consular diplomacy.
• It considerably impacted consular procedures, from compiling and processing consular notifications to interviewing all Mexicans detained, which could lead to capital punishment and consular presence in courts in these cases. Kuykendall and Knight (2018) explain how the violation of the right of consular notification in capital cases has severe consequences and detail how Mexico can assist its nationals in capital cases. 
• In a way, it induced Mexico to completely eliminate the death penalty in 2005 (Gallardo Negrete, 2022), thus becoming an abolitionist country for all crimes.
• It also helped engage with other countries on death penalty issues, thus promoting Mexico's international image and enhancing its public diplomacy efforts.

 
However, not all has been good news. Regarding the demand by the ICJ court that the U.S. review and reconsider the cases of the 51 Mexicans named in the Avena Judgment, the federal government has faced internal challenges. The most important of these was the Supreme Court's decision regarding the case of Medellin vs. Texas (p. 491). In 2008, the Court indicated that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not a self-execution treaty, therefore, the U.S. Congress must legislate so it could become part of the U.S. law (Medellin vs. Texas (p. 491-492).
 
Regardless of U.S. authorities' continuous breach of their international obligations, there have been crucial domestic adjustments. In some cases, State courts decided to review the death penalty cases based on the Avena Judgment and provided relief to Mexicans on death row. In addition, some states "have at least some statutory requirements concerning consular notification…[and] beginning in December 2014, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures now provide that at an initial appearance, the judge must inform the defendant" (Kuykendall and Knight, 2018, p. 824) that if they are foreigners, they have the right to contact their consulates. 
 
Besides, since the start of the Avena case in 2003, the support for the death penalty in the U.S. has been declining ever so slowly.
 
In conclusion, the Avena case was Mexico's most consequential consular protection case, which enormously influenced the emergence of the country's public-consular diplomacy. 
 
References
 
Cárdenas Aravena, C. (n.d). La Opinión Consultiva 16/99 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y la Convención de Viena de Relaciones Consulares. 
Covarrubias Velasco, A. (2010). Cambio de siglo: la política exterior de la apertura económica y política. México y el mundo: Historia de sus relaciones exteriores. Tomo IX. El Colegio de México.
Death Penalty Information Center, n.d. Execution of Foreign Nationals [in the United States.
De la Flor Patiño, I. (2017). Pena de muerte en el condado de Harris, una mirada a través del cristal de la Universidad de Houston. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior (109), 99-123.
Gallardo Negrete, F. (2022, April 27). La pena de muerte en México, una historia constitucional. Este País. 
Garcia, M. J. (2004, May 17). Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Overview of U.S. Implementation and International Court of Justice (ICJ) Interpretation of Consular Notification Requirements. Congressional Research Service. 
Gómez Robledo V., J. M. (2005). El caso Avena y otros nacionales mexicanos (México c. Estados Unidos de América) ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional Vol. V, 173-220.  https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/derecho-internacional/article/view/119/177
González Félix, M. A. (2009). Entrevistas: Pasajes Decisivos de la Diplomacia. El Caso Avena. Interview by C. M. Toro. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior (86), 215-223. June.
González de Cossío, F. (1995). Los mexicanos condenados a la pena de muerte en Estados Unidos: la labor de los consulados de México. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior (46) 102-125. Spring.
Kuykendall, G. & Knight, A. (2018). The Impact of Article 36 Violations on Mexicans in Capital Cases. Saint Louis University Law Journal 62(4), 805-824.
Rosenbloom, R. & Batalova, J. (2022, Oct. 13). Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. 

​DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.