Diaspora Diplomacy is a term, like Consular Diplomacy, that has surfaced in recent times. But, what is it? 
 
1. Diaspora: Diplomacy or international public policy?
 
The first obstacle that I see of using the term is whether diplomatic activities can target the States´ own citizens? While some Diaspora members, particularly after the second generation, are nationals of the host State, in many cases, they are allowed to have dual nationality; therefore, technically, these persons are foreign nationals while at the same time that are citizens of the sending State.
 
In other cases, the only nationality is from its home country, and many lack immigration status in the receiving State, making them particularly vulnerable to abuse and face difficulties to successfully integrate to the host society.
 
So, technically speaking (strictly application of the term), the only Diaspora Diplomacy applies towards citizens of the receiving country with some heritage from the sending State. It could not be used for dual citizens and home-country nationals. They could be part of the engagement policies of the State but could not be called Diplomacy.
 
However, for a country separating these three categories is very difficult, mainly because, in most cases, the persons themselves do not see this strict categorization, and there are many overlaps. Notwithstanding, some governments do have different initiatives targeting distinct groups of members of the diasporic community living abroad.
 
In the book 21st Century Diplomacy: A practitioner's Guide, written by Amb. Kishan S. Rana, a former ambassador of India and current Professor Emeritus at the DiploFoundation, the author includes a chapter on Diaspora Diplomacy.
 
While brief, yet substantive chapter, Amb. Rana highlights some critical aspects of Diaspora Diplomacy while identifying a few prominent countries, such as Israel, India, Kenya, and Mexico.
 
2. Diasporas and migration.
 
Because diaspora issues result from migration, it is significant to understand how the original diaspora community (or first-generation) left the sending State.  
 
It is very different from having a community abroad due to war from the creation of a new State, as is the case of Israel. Slaves and indentured workers did not have a say in any part of the process, and in many cases, with some exceptions, there is no way to know where they originated. So there is no Diaspora if there is no country of origin. Besides, “Diasporas are not simply immigrants but rather immigrants who retain an emotional bond with their country of origin.”[i]
 
As Amb. Rana describes the sources of origin of the diaspora by just following the migration flows in the last centuries.[ii] He identifies nine profiles that go from European migration during colonial times to current international students not returning to their home countries after graduation.[iii] I like the fact that the Ambassador not just discussed North-South migration but also mentioned South-South flows and intra-North movements, such as the intra-European Union mobility.
 
In the not-so-distanced-past, most migration movements tended to be permanent, particularly when there were war and violence, specific groups suffered discrimination. With the advent of faster, cheaper transportation and communications, migrants move in large numbers due to economic difficulties. In some instances, such as India after 2000 and Mexico since the depression of 2008-2009, there have been some returns, voluntary or forced.
 
In Mexico's case, because of the geographic closeness, during most of the 20 century, migration to the United States has been seen as temporary, in contrast to other communities. With the end of circularity in the late 1990s, most Mexican migrants brought their families north. However, as a surge in enforcement operations, many deported persons were accompanied back to Mexico by the U.S. citizen kids and other family members, expanding the already substantial U.S. diaspora in Mexico.
 
3. Diasporas and foreign policy.
 
Amb. Rana identifies that the issues of diasporas “is a hazy area, lacking in either norms or established practices.”[iv] This is true at the international level as well as domestically in many countries.
 
As mentioned before, the diaspora community's duality is seen as an advantage for both the host and home countries. But there is a considerable disparity in the levels of collaboration and/or conflict between the home and host state and the diaspora.
 
It is relevant to acknowledge that “the role that a diaspora plays in the country of its adoption is a function of the opportunities that are available to migrant communities…”[v] Therefore, the more significant is the diaspora to the home country is when they manage to attain some power in the host country.
 
In terms of foreign policy, the power gained could be in the policy, economic, and even cultural fields. Once this is achieved, the home country most likely will be interested in engaging in more strategic and profound ways to gain some traction in its foreign policy goals, hopefully. One can always think of Israel as a great example.
 
However, there are times that the situation works the other way around. When the diaspora gains powerful positions in the host country, it could use this power to change the receiving  State´s  foreign policy, affecting the bilateral relations. One example could be the Cuban community in southern Florida and the relationship with the Castro regime.
 
While not so many countries try to influence the diaspora´s host country foreign policy towards it, most governments try to leverage their overseas communities to promote economic development.
 
Remittances can be a substantial source of foreign currency and income for left-behind family members. Nostalgic tourism, greater trade opportunities, and the possibility of investment by successful immigrants are other avenues to support progress of the sending country by diasporic communities.
 
4. Diaspora Diplomacy.
 
Back in 2011, when Amb. Rana published the book; he refers that “one does not encounter much specialist writing on the theme of diaspora diplomacy…though the subject receives increasing attention in the media.”[vi] Nowadays, there are more scholars and practitioners in different countries that are writing about this issue.
 
I think that Diaspora Diplomacy is another instrument of the Public Diplomacy toolbox because its essence is engaging with audiences (foreign and/or domestic) who live overseas that have a special bond. Of course, it can also be part of regular Diplomacy when diaspora members work as authorities in the host country´s government.
 
After looking for a definition of Diaspora Diplomacy, something that I thought would be easy but turned out to be quite complicated, I found one, but I am not convinced about it.
 
According to Joaquin Gonzales III, Diaspora Diplomacy is “A collective action that is driven, directed, and sustained by the energy and charisma of a broad range of migrants who influence another country´s culture, politics, and economics in a manner that is mutually beneficial for the homeland and the new home base.”[vii]
 
I find this definition troublesome because it does not include the government's role and its foreign policy goals. Therefore, it is hard to call it Diplomacy, in its traditional concept. For me, Diaspora Diplomacy is a government´s engagement with diasporic communities to achieve a foreign policy goal that could be as broad as a tool for economic development, generation of soft power to influence some decisions of the host country´s government. In this regard, according to Yunus Emre Ok, the “primary objective [of the Diaspora Diplomacy] is to generate loyalty towards the home country and ultimately converted into political influence…”[viii]
 
One reason why defining Diaspora Diplomacy is so tricky is because there is an enormous array of ways that it could be instrumented. One method to visualize this variety is via the analysis of the rise of diaspora institutions, like the study of Alan Gamlen, Michel E. Cummings, and Paul M. Vaaler titled “Explaining the rise of diaspora institutions” or evaluating the policies focused on diasporas, as the issue in brief titled “Engaging the Asian Diaspora”.
 
Last but not least, there is even a handbook for “Developing a Road Map for Engaging Diasporas in Development.” So, the field, quoting Amb. Rana still is a “hazy area.”
 
5. Digitalization of Diaspora Diplomacy: balancing opposing tendencies.
 
Diaspora Diplomacy has also experienced changes as a result of the digital revolution. Ilan Manor, author of a blog about Digital Diplomacy, in The Contradictory trends of Digital Diaspora Diplomacy,” expertly explains these opposing tendencies, that bring opportunities at the same challenges for governments and diasporic communities alike.
 
He indicates that “while nations can use digital platforms to engage with diasporic communities, such communities may also self-organize thus marginalizing diplomats.” [ix]
 
Manor identifies five main contradictory trends that affect diasporas and the government´s diplomatic efforts toward them:

1. Weaker diasporas vs. Larger diasporas.
2. Migration of Power to the Embassy vs. Added Strains to the Embassy.
3. Diaspora Support Networks versus Diaspora Self-organization.
4. Virtual Communities versus Fragmented Communities.

E.Remittances versus Political Opposition.[x]
 
I strongly suggest reading this working paper, as it clearly explains each of these opposing tendencies and the implications for engaging efforts of the ministries of foreign affairs.
 
6. Conclusions.
 
The participation of diasporas in international affairs is not new. However, the digital revolution, together with cheaper and faster modes of transportation, has increased the interest of the government in engaging with them as part of their overall foreign policy.
 
The COVID-19 pandemic has “created a worldwide crisis of immobility as intentional borders closed [and] as a result, the governance of international migration is likely to change substantially, in ways comparable to or even greater than the changes that came about after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”[xi] This, in turn, will heavily affect the lives of diasporic communities in host states and their families that depend on them in their homelands.
 
Diaspora Diplomacy is a field that needs more analysis, particularly in the framework of Public Diplomacy and the banishing border between domestic affairs and foreign policy. It could also be examined under the perspective of Foreign Policy Analysis.
 

[i] Manor, Ilan, “The Contradictory trends of Digital Diaspora Diplomacy”, Working Paper #2 Exploring Digital Diplomacy, October 2017, p. 3.
[ii] Rana, Kishan S., 21st Century Diplomacy: A practitioners Guide, 2011, p. 96.
[iii] Rana, 2011, pp. 96-99.
[iv] Rana, 2011, p. 95.
[v] Rana, 2011, p. 103.
[vi] Rana, 2011, p. 94.
[vii] Cited in Jovenir, Christelle M., “Diaspora Diplomacy: Functions, Duties, and Challenges of an Ambassador”, June 2013, p. 7.  Joaquin Gonzales III, Diaspora Diplomacy: Philippine Migration and its Soft Power Influence, Minneapolis, Mill City Press, 2012.
[viii] Emre Ok, Yunus, “”Diaspora-Diplomacy” as a Foreign Policy Strategy” in Diplomatisches Magazin, November 20, 2018.
[ix] Manor, 2017, p. 2.
[x] Manor, 2017, pp. 5-9.
[xi] Newland, Kathleen, “Will International Migration Governance Survive the COVID-19 Pandemic?”, Policy Brief, Migration Policy Institute and German Cooperation, October 2020, p. 1.

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.

 
A. Introduction.
 
For most people, there is always confusion about what a Consulate/Consul does and what are the differences with an Embassy/Ambassador. I believe there are several reasons why this mix-up:

1. Both share similar responsibilities, notwithstanding at different levels.
2. Consulates were established before embassies, but the latter grew in importance with the international system's consolidation focused on Nation-States.
3. The two branches underwent a unification process in the early 20th Century;[i] however, consular services are still not deemed as relevant as diplomatic activities.
4. The existences of honorary consuls that most times are citizens of the receiving state.
5. Until recently, consular activities were constrained to specific services and actions; therefore, there was no significant interaction with most local and regional stakeholders, so consuls were not well-known, and their realm of action was quite limited.

 
However, consular affairs have increased in their relevance in the international arena, and Consular Diplomacy has risen accordingly.
 
As I mentioned in the post about the concept of Consular Diplomacy, a significant development was the creation of the Global Consular Forum (GCF), “an informal, grouping of countries, from all regions of the world fostering international dialogue and cooperation on the common challenges and opportunities that all countries face today in delivery of consular services.”[ii]
 
In this post, I will analyze the GCF and the reports of the three meetings that have taken place. But before, let´s talk a bit about the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.
 
The convention was the first and only multilateral agreement on consular relations. It codified into law many practices that were already part of the customary law regulating consular affairs. Previously all the arrangements were bilateral with a few regional ones.
 
The GCF is a way for countries to discuss the changes in consular relations since the convention almost 60 years ago and topics not covered by it, such as dual nationality.
 
So, let´s start with the meeting where the GCF was created.
 
B. The first meeting and establishment of the Global Consular Forum.
 
The first meeting took place in Wilton Park, United Kingdom, in September 2013 with the participation of 22 countries, a representative of the European Commission, and selected academics from around the world.[iii]
 
The Forum´s report is a trove of information for people interested in Consular Diplomacy. It covers a wide variety of topics, from dual nationality issues to surrogacy challenges and assisting citizen with mental health issues to ever-growing expectations of personalized consular services and interest from politicians,
 
I strongly recommend reading the report because it is an excellent summary of consular services' current most critical challenges. The report has six sections which have additional subthemes:

• Managing expectations: Citizens, media, political actors
• Other actors in the consular realm: Private sector, non-government organizations.
• Consular services tools and systems: registration systems, travel advice, technology,
• Legal issues: Dual citizens, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
• Vulnerable persons: Children, Women, Others.
• Ideas for the future: Exchange of best practices, cooperation, liaison with external partners, future meetings.[iv]

 
At the meeting, the participants agreed to formalize its Steering Committee that has the responsibility “…to develop an action plan, expand the membership…and improve upon the Forum´s model following this first experience.”[v]
 
The meeting was very valuable due to the following reasons:

1. It was the first-ever informal multilateral dialogue on consular issues.
2. The GCF was formalized with the establishment of a temporary secretariat and the confirmation of the Steering Committee.[vi]
3. Presented several proposals for further development (see below).

 
Some of the proposals included in the section “Ideas for the future” are essential, so it is worth highlighting them.
 
The “exchange of lessons-learned, best practices and policies on common issued faced by governments will help countries to maximise their resources, avoid ´reinventing the wheel´ when responding to the changing face of consular affairs and to facilitate collaboration.“[vii]
 
Many countries exchange information on consular affairs, but they usually do it bilaterally, with no outside participation. Therefore, the Forum is an excellent addition because, besides government officials, academics were invited. And the meeting reports underline the need to better engage with stakeholders to improve the provision of certain consular services.
 
Another proposal of the first meeting was that “countries could consider jointly engaging academics to translate policy dilemmas into research themes on issues such as global trends affecting the consular function, technological innovation; politically complex legal issues; expectation management; the limits of state-v-individual responsibility; how to leverage private sector influence in consular work; compiling n inventory of lessons learn from past crises, or assistance in drafting a consular agreement template.”[viii] It is a magnificent idea, which would help expand the limited scholarly work available today on Consular Diplomacy.
 
For example, an exciting development afterward was done by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs by sponsoring a project around the idea of the “duty of care” from 2014 to 2018.[ix] Two of the outcomes of the research was the publication of a special issue of The Hague Journal of Diplomacy titled “Diplomacy and the Duty of Care” in March 2018 (Vol 13, Iss. 2) and the book The Duty of Care in International Relations: Protecting Citizens Beyond the Border in June 2019.
 
Another proposal presented by the GCF was the need to have a “more structured dialogue with external partners involved in consular affairs, such as the travel industry, legal officials, NGOs, technology companies and academia.”[x] I think this is quite necessary, as we saw it at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it is not being implemented strategically and comprehensively.
 
One idea that could be more difficult to achieve, proposed at the Forum, is to evaluate the possibility of the “co-location, co-protection and co-representation of countries in both crises and also more routine consular representation.”[xi] These ideas present many challenges for MFAs.
 
C) 2nd meeting of the Global Consular Forum (Mexico 2015)
 
The second meeting of the GCF was organized in Cuernavaca, Mexico, in May 2015. As the previous one, a report was published afterward titled “Report: Global Consular Forum 2015.”
 
This time, representatives of 25 countries and the European Union attended the event. However, the report does not mention any scholar's participation in the meeting, So they might not have attended, at least officially, as the previous one.
 
In preparation for the meeting, some Working Groups, with the assistance of the Steering Committee and the Secretariat, developed discussion papers on the six key themes of the conference:

• Partnering and technology in emergency management
• Vulnerable clients
• International legal and policy framework.
• Migrant workers.
• Safe travel culture.
• Family services.[xii]

 
Additionally, improving consular services was an additional key theme discussed during the session.
 
In the section “International legal and policy framework”, the report describes a research paper's results about 57 bi and plurilateral consular agreements. It highlights “common needs and identified areas whereby the VCCR could be supplemented, including the prospect of developing agreed guidelines to facilitate the sharing of good practice.”[xiii]
 
This research demonstrated the commitment of the forum members to promote further studies about consular affairs and diplomacy. The concrete proposal could also streamline the exchange of information regarding consular issues, which could boost the government´s responses.
 
I enjoyed reading some of the lessons-learned of the consular crisis management in the aftermath of the big earthquake that devasted Nepal in April 2015. It reflected the complexity of the situation and the fast-thinking and creative ways consular officials responded.
 
Again, the issues of dual citizenship and consular assistance to persons with mental illness were highlighted in the report, which means are some of the situations that are still on top of the list for consular officials across the world.
 
The inclusion of “migrant workers” as one of the key themes reflects the priority of this issue for Mexico and other members of the Forum. In the article “Providing consular services to low-skilled migrant workers: Partnerships that care,” Maaike Okano-Heijmans and Caspar Price identify the GCF as a “facilitators of [the] efforts …to address the plight of [low-skilled] migrant workers, aiming to protect their rights…”[xiv]
 
The report contains the agreements reached during the second summit of the Global Consular Forum, including:

• “Shared training should be a priority, particularly given resource implications and the added value of increasing common understanding and collaboration.
• There were suggestions of including private sector and NGO partners/suppliers in some portion of the next Forum.
• Members should promote the GCF at regional fora and other gatherings
• More opportunities for dialogue and exchange should be developed, in between GCF meetings
• Improved communications would facilitate more exchange and opportunities for member input.”[xv]

 
The second meeting was deemed a success and included some topics previously discussed while also adding new themes relevant to consular affairs. It was agreed to hold the third meeting in 18-months, so preparations began for that.
 
D) 3rd meeting of the Global Consular Forum (South Korea 2016)
 
Seoul, South Korea, was the host city of the third meeting of the GCF in October 2016. Thirty-two countries and the European External Action Service attended. Again, in this gathering, there is no mention of the participation of other than government officials.
 
While reading the “Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation,” the first thing I realized was that it has a very different format, compared to the summaries of the previous two meetings, which were published under the Wilton Park seal.
 
The consensus has the traditional format of a statement of an agreement of a multilateral meeting, not a summary of the discussions. This implies that a certain amount of negotiations took place before and/or during the proceedings to agree on the consensus statement's terms.
 
A positive innovation was to mention the Forum's interest to cooperate with small and developing states, so they can also benefit from the mechanisms' efforts.[xvi]
 
As in previous reports, it highlights the key themes discussed:

• Promoting a safe travel culture.
• Providing consular services to migrant and foreign workers.
• Improving joint response to crises and disasters.
• Improving consular services to vulnerable clients.
• Improving support for further forum meetings.[xvii]

 
Out of the five topics, only one was new, “Improving support for further forum meetings, " reflecting the maturation of the mechanism and the need to find additional resources to make it sustainable.
 
Mental illnesses of people abroad continued to be a concern because it was included in the document,[xviii] as was in the two previous reports. Besides, the proposition to engage with stakeholders, including other government agencies, was also included. [xix]
 
Regarding crises management, the consensus statement includes a reference to terrorist attacks,[xx] most likely as a result of the different attacks that occurred since the last GCF meeting, such as those in Paris (Nov 2015), Brussels (March 2016); Nice and Munich (July 2016).
 
It is noticeable that in the “Consensus Statement”, the forum member thanked the government of Canada for undertaking the responsibility of the mechanism´s Secretariat.[xxi]
 
The report's different format, the inclusion of a statement about the efforts´ sustainability, and the language used demonstrate the GCF's evolution from an idea that grew out of the Wilton Park meeting in 2013 to a more formal (and some would say stiffer) arrangement. Notwithstanding, the lack of the organization of the fourth meeting in four years could mean a stalemate in its progress.
 
E) Why the GCF is important?
 
The Forum is the perfect example of one of the forms of Consular Diplomacy presented by Maaike Okano-Heijmans in the paper “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy”. The GCF participation indicates that “governments attach increasing importance to and are becoming more involved in consular affairs at the practical as well as policy levels.”[xxii] The GCF provides both practical information and demonstrates the increasing relevance of consular services in the overall foreign policy.
 
The idea of a diverse group of countries gathering to discuss consular services' transformation is a milestone. Identifying common challenges and searching for better tools and enhanced collaboration demonstrates the growing relevance of Consular Diplomacy at foreign affairs´ ministries.
 
While some regional collaboration schemes include exchanging information and consular services practices, such as the Regional Conference on Migration, the GCF is the only multilateral mechanism and should be reactivated. Particularly now, when enhanced consular cooperation is required to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic.
 
I highly recommend reading the reports that are available on the GCF webpage http://globalconsularforum.com/ (Update: It seems that GCF webpage is not longer available).

You can also read additional posts about consular diplomacy, such as:

• Consular diplomacy: Cinderella no more, but not yet a princess
• Recent studies on consular diplomacy: reevaluating the consular institution
• Rethinking consular diplomacy
• Mexico´s public-consular diplomacy
• New publications on consular diplomacy

[i] According to Geoff R. Berridge, a prolific author about diplomacy and Senior Fellow of the DiploFoundation, the amalgamation of the Diplomatic and Consular branches occurred after a push by consular officers. Germany started in 1918, followed by Norway (1922), the U.S, (1924), Spain (1928) and the U.K. (1943). For some countries, like Mexico, this process took place in the latter part of the 20th Century. Berridge, G.R., Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, Fifth Ed, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, pp. 135-136.
[ii] Wilton Park, “Global Consular Forum 2015 (WP1381)”.
[iii] Global Consular Forum, “Mission and Overview”, Global Consular Forum webpage.
[iv] Murray, Louise, Conference report: Contemporary consular practice trends and challenges, Wilton Park, October 2013.
[v] Murray, Louise, Conference report: Contemporary consular practice trends and challenges, Wilton Park, October 2013, p. 1.
[vi] The Steering Committee is formed by: Australia, Canada, Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom. Global Consular Forum, “Mission and Overview”.
[vii] Murray, Louise, p. 7.
[viii] Murray, Louise, p. 7.
[ix] For more information about the project, visit “Duty of Care: Protection of Citizens Abroad (DoC:PRO)”, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
[x] Murray, Louise, p. 7.
[xi] Murray, Louise, p. 7.
[xii] González, Celeste; Martínez, Andrea, and Purcell, Julia; “Report: Global Consular Forum 2015”, Wilton Park, July 2015, p. 1.
[xiii] González, Celeste; Martínez, Andrea, and Purcell, Julia; “Report: Global Consular Forum 2015”, Wilton Park, July 2015, pp. 3-4.
[xiv] Okano-Heijmans, Maaike and Price, Caspar, “Providing consular services to low-skilled migrant workers: Partnerships that care”, Global Affairs, Vol. 5, Iss. 4-5, March 2020, p. 428.
[xv] González, Celeste; Martínez, Andrea, and Purcell, Julia; “Report: Global Consular Forum 2015”, Wilton Park, July 2015, pp. 6-7.
[xvi] Global Consular Forum, “Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation”, October 27, 2016, pp. 2 and 4.
[xvii] “Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation”, pp. 1-4.
[xviii] “Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation”, p. 4.
[xix] “Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation”, pp. 2-3.
[xx] “Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation”, p. 3.
[xxi] “Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation”, p. 4.
[xxii] Okano-Heijmans, Maaike, “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy”, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ´Clingendael´, February 2010, p. 23.

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.

Last weekend the Global Master of Arts Program (GMAP) of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy celebrated its 14th alumni weekend, the first-ever zoom gathering.
 
I was able to participate, and it brought back fantastic memories of my partaking in the program.
 
For those not familiar with GMAP, you can check its webpage here. It is an excellent program with the highest standards while demanding and flexible at the same time. It is a hybrid model that combines online classes and three in-person residencies (two in Boston and one in an overseas location). This feature was the most attractive to me, as I studied when distance learning was in its infancy; therefore, personal contact was vital.
 
I still remember the first dinner sitting with my new classmates back in the summer of 2007. It was by far the most exciting conversation about international affairs that I had in a very long time. After this Alumni Weekend, I can attest that GMAP still has the uniqueness of bringing together people from all walks of life who have extraordinary knowledge and experience in their fields and are ready to share them with anybody interested.
 
Luckily for me, I was then stationed in Boston working at the Consulate General of Mexico, so the distance I traveled to Fletcher was less than five miles from my home. This was a lot less than most of my classmates that flew from the Caucasus, Central Asia, Africa, Southeast Asia, and other faraway lands. I stayed in the residence hall as the rest of the class.
 
Living near Fletcher allowed me to live GMAP in a more profound way. I was privileged to participate in a Fletcher alumni weekend, use the library, and attend some of the always magnificent conferences and seminars that the school organized year-round.
 
I was also lucky enough that the mid-year residence was in Singapore, a country that has always fascinated me ( I did my BA's thesis about it) and where I traveled often when I lived in Malaysia in 1996-1997. By January 2008, the city-state has reinvented itself once again. We were extremely fortunate to meet Lew Kuan Yew, the country's founding father, an encounter that I still cherish today.
 
What I most vividly remember about GMAP nowadays, almost 13 years ago, was the professor's talent and competence and my peers' incredible experiences. The knowledge that I acquired still serves me in my work and life today. 
 
For example, in the International Politics class, we learned about the fragility of democracy while studying the Middle East before the Arab Spring. One of the worries of our professor was that democracy is not given and has to be supported and nourished, otherwise, it could die or become a zombie.
 
Last week's events in Washington and the struggle of democratic rule worldwide are clear examples that it cannot be taken for granted. We have to work to support democracy. The professor knew then what could happen if we did not take care of it.
 
Another strength of the GMAP's academic program is the perfect combination of courses, from International Law from a practical perspective to International Trade and Finances (that we suffered but learned so much), Security studies, personal and foreign policy leadership, and negotiations.
 
The requirement to work in teams was a complicated hard-work adventure, but it was one of the most rewarding and had long-lasting benefits for me.  The requirement to produce a Master's thesis was challenging but attainable.
 
After all these years, I still have the program's laptop (still works), the DVDs, and the reading materials that arrived in packages with some goodies to lessen the shock of seeing all those binders! I have used them in different circumstances since graduation.
 
Some of the greatest moments were the dinner at Dean Nutter's home before graduation or the lobster-fest in a beautiful Massachusetts coastal town during the first residency. After spending two weeks together in Boston, from being total strangers, we became a closed-knitted group with enormous brainpower, extensive global proficiency from all corners of the world, and diverse backgrounds.
 
Back then, technology was not as evolved as today, so studying far away from the school was a challenge. The iPhone was launched a few weeks before the residency began, and broadband internet was in its infancy! However, we managed to have five-time-zones group meetings and intense and lively discussions on the boards.
 
Besides learning from our expert professors and knowledgeable classmates, GMAP allowed me to improve my abilities and skills and better know myself. The group work where challenging but extremely rewarding for self-awareness and own development.
 
That year, even if I lost a lot of social meetings, movies, and other gatherings, it was a lifetime experience that will always be with me. In retrospect, GMAP prepared me well for the COVID-19 pandemic, where everything is done remotely, including international negations and team meetings. Thanks, GMAP!
 
This Alumni Weekend was extraordinary. Seeing old professors and classmates was awesome while seeing live the amazing new GMAP team. During the breakout sessions had the chance to talk to other year's GMAPers (graduates) from the program, and they are great as my classmates were. The lectures had a trove of analysis that is hard to find in today's information overloaded world. Definitely, GMAP still has this uniqueness that makes it an excellent investment.
 
I cannot finish this post without remembering two Mexican GMAPers Diplomats that I will always be in debt: Miguel Monterrubio and Aldo Aldama Bretón. Thank you for showing me the GMAP way!  

​
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.

 
I wish you all a healthy 2021!
 
For many years, and with every technological revolution, Diplomacy has always been deemed doomed. Ever since communications and transportation have made the world smaller, diplomats have seen their careers threatened.
 
However, every time Diplomacy and diplomats come back after experiencing a makeover, to remain as relevant, if not more, as before. And it a not-so-Post-COVID-19 planet, it seems as much needed as ever.
 
Most of the problems that humanity faces today cannot be solved by a single country or a group of nations. The challenges are global and require a planetary-wide solution. And Diplomacy is the millennial-tradition that can bring about these solutions. Notwithstanding, it needs the willingness of the population and support from politicians.
 
Even if the number of actors has multiplied and even a single person can make the difference in today´s hyperconnected planet, States, embassies, and diplomats are still essential for moving ahead of the relationships between nations and the international system as a whole.
 
Embassies today provide a vital link for the sending state with borders closed across the world and limited travel options. Today, diplomats are one of the very few persons in the world that can travel with little restrictions. This was particularly important at the onset of the pandemic when millions of people were stranded abroad. Nowadays, with new border closures, they are assisting their nationals stuck overseas again.
 
Embassies and diplomats are also working on setting up zoom meetings and virtual visits while exchanging best-practices in pandemic responses and economic revitalization programs.
 
The essence of Diplomacy, sending envoys to foreign lands to communicate, represent, and negotiate, are still valid in the third decade of the 21st Century as they were at the dawn of human civilization.
 
Diplomats are typically problem-solvers and, in many instances, have managed to bring a solution to issues that affect the lives of millions of people. Just think of the Montreal Protocol that prohibited the use of CFCs that depleted the Earth´s ozone layer.
 
And even in today´s digital world, diplomats are needed to provide on-the-ground knowledge and nuances that cannot be matched by a stream of millions of terabytes of information. They can share an ice-breaker for their leaders that could avert a conflict or open the door for a strategic partnership.
 
Consuls around the Earth are engaging in a new form of Diplomacy, Consular Diplomacy, to engage with different subnational actors that have increased their international footprint.
 
In addition, all ambassadors are public diplomacy officials as they have to engage with foreign audiences, as well as domestic stakeholders. The division between foreign and domestic policies has diluted. However, they continue to be different as governments cannot control the international arena and other States´ actions and inactions.
 
These are a few reasons why Diplomacy and diplomats are essential today for the world, not only for one´s nation.
 
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.