1. Introduction 

As mentioned in my previous post, “Why we need more diplomatic studies?” a significant development in today´s diplomatic practice is the explosion of novel instruments or tools used to attain a country´s foreign policy goals. However, some scholars have questioned if these “new” ways to do Diplomacy are even real while highlighting the risk that entails calling everything Diplomacy.
 
This blog post will discuss whether these innovative diplomatic tools are really new or imposters, using as examples an analysis of Public Diplomacy and Gatrodiplomacy. The conclusion is that some are original, while others are rebranded instruments, but a thorough examination is required to unmask phonies. Besides, these activities need to be part of a Foreign Policy strategy to be called Diplomacy.
 
When I think about new diplomatic instruments, I always remember the article written by Shaun Riordan titled “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies.”[i] In it, he complains about the tendency to incorporate into the diplomatic realm all sorts of activities, which carries the risk of losing the meaning of Diplomacy.
 
I agree with Riordan that “the conceptual confusion arises from the failure to distinguish between tools that can be used as part of a broader diplomatic strategy and the subject matter of diplomacy.”[ii]
 
Besides, in the article “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up!”, Katharina E. Höne of the DiploFoundation agrees with Riordan stating that “If everything is diplomacy, then nothing is. An ever-expanding concept eventually becomes meaningless.”[iii]
 
However, Höne declares that “rather than a categorical rejection [of the new diplomacies], the proper response is to sharpen our intellectual tools and get to work [and] in order to tell the imposter from the innovator, we need to look closely at diplomacy as a practice, its relation to the state, and the purposes of these new diplomacies.”[iv]
 
After thinking about this issue for the last couple of months, chiefly because it is the main objective of this blog, I believe there is a need to use these new terminologies, even if the practice has occurred since ancient times and are just rebranded. So, I concurred with Höne that it is required to analyze these diplomatic instruments to separate the new authentic tools from the fake ones.
 
So, let’s get to work!
 
2. Origins of the expansion of diplomatic tools 

Jessica Lilian De Alva Ulloa and Rafael Velázquez Flores explain the expansion of diplomatic tools during the Cold War, where every activity was part of the ideological competition between the Soviet Union and the United States. Diplomatic initiatives in different fields such as sports, education, space, and culture were developed as part of their foreign policy.[v]
 
After the fall of the Soviet Union, “the disappearance of one of the superpowers brought changes to global diplomacy. As a result, new forms of diplomacy appeared, like environmental, migration and refugees, and human rights.”[vi]
 
Besides, in the article “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, John Brown explains that “a special place in the increased “adjectivization” of diplomacy (pardon the jaw-breaking term, but it does describe what’s going on) can be traced in part to the British scholar Mark Leonard, who in his 2002 book, Public Diplomacy, introduced … terms [such as]: Co-operative Diplomacy; Competitive Diplomacy; Diaspora Diplomacy; Business Diplomacy; and Niche Diplomacy.”[vii]
 
In turn, G.R. Berridge has written that the “rejuvenation of some of the key features of traditional diplomacy has gone unnoticed – partly because it has been masked by the attachment of new labels to old procedures and partly because the novel has a greater fascination than the tried and tested.”[viii]
 
The tendency to adjectivized diplomacies already existed previously. Terms such as gunboat and shuttle diplomacies were part of the diplomatic toolbox of the U.S.[ix] However, it is not just the tools that expanded, particularly in the 21st Century, but Diplomacy itself grew into what some have called “new diplomacy.”
 
3. Expansion of the concept of Diplomacy 

One reason why the explosion of the so-called “new” diplomacies is that Diplomacy itself has expanded outwards.[x]
 
Before creating the first genuinely international organization (IO), the International Telegraph Union, in 1865, there were no diplomatic negotiations outside the States. Now there is an enormous practice of IO diplomacy, not only between member states inside an OI but also amid IOs and states, thus greatly expanding the scope of Diplomacy with these new interactions.
 
Additionally, state and local authorities, NGOs, corporations, individuals, including terrorist, and criminal organizations, have extended their engagement in international affairs. For example, there were only 176 international NGOs in 1909 compared to 48,000 in 2000.[xi] Some of these actors' participation has not been hindered by not forming part of the diplomatic services of their countries, thus do not enjoy the same privileges and immunities as diplomats.[xii]
 
Furthermore, some of these practices have evolved immensely, so whole new departments have been created at many ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs), producing lots of documents, best practices, some with excellent results and other significant failures. Besides, as MFAs have expanded their transparency and accountability, the information usually is publicly available for evaluation and comparison.
 
According to G.R. Berridge, “what we have now is neither and or nor a new diplomacy but, instead, a blend of the two, which has produced a mature diplomacy. It is also one fortified by a respected legal regime.”[xiii]
 
The digital revolution and the enlargement of trade and communications have also allowed the radical growth of international exchanges, commerce, and participation, unsealing new opportunities and threats to the diplomatic craft in general and the country´s foreign policy in particular.
 
As the reader will see in the next section, social media platforms allowed the development of digital public diplomacy in ways that were not possible just a few years ago. Also, the availability of specialized food products from faraway lands allowed governments to implement Gastrodiplomacy efforts that were impossible before.
 
In the next section, I will evaluate Public Diplomacy and Gastrodiplomacy using the proposed framework by Katharina E. Höne, focusing on their purpose, relationship with the State, and who does it.
 
4. Analysis of two diplomatic instruments. 

4.1 Public Diplomacy 

The best example of a relatively new tool, I believe, is Public Diplomacy (PD). The term has taken off worldwide, and many if not most MFAs have included it in their foreign policy toolbox.
 
For many years, connecting with certain groups was a recurrent task for any ambassador or envoy to gather information about the receiving State's conditions. More importantly, it was an opportunity to persuade or influence them to change a policy or a position towards the sending State.
 
The practice by Embassies of engaging foreign audiences outside government officials is not new.[xiv] However, connecting to ordinary people has dramatically changed, becoming a lot more specialized and adopting innovative communication technics to accomplish the intended goals.
 
If radio, TV, and fax magnified the opportunities for diplomats to engage with citizens in the receiving, the digital transformation has unlocked multiple prospects to talk, and more importantly, listening, directly to individuals and targeted groups of the receiving State and the sending one too.
 
The field of study of PD has multiplied,[xv] and I think it is one reason for greater interest in Diplomacy as a whole. For many of us, PD was the entry point for formally study Diplomacy, even if we have practiced it for a long time.
 
Nowadays, several universities and other learning institutions worldwide offer multiple PD courses, from one-day workshops to Master´s degrees. Several specialized journals and magazines[xvi] have appeared in recent years, such as South Korea´s brand new Journal of Public Diplomacy, which has expanded the options for publishing academic articles about the topic.
 
4.1.2 Does PD is a real diplomatic tool or just hype?
 
Using the analytical tool proposed by Katharina E. Höne, let´s dissect PD.
 
Concerning the relationship with the State, it is clear that governments are key sponsors of Public Diplomacy initiatives, which are part of an overall foreign policy strategy. Even if these activities are supported by NGOs, individuals, and other institutions, the core functions are performed by embassies and diplomats.[xvii]
 
So, here it is clear that, for the most part, PD is a new tool of the diplomatic craft. I don´t believe it is a rebranded one because there are huge differences from previous practices, mostly because of the digital revolution.
 
Of course, an in-depth analysis of each of the initiatives that governments label as PD would be needed to really know if it is an imposter or the real deal. Luckily, there is a growing body of research about it, not just in scholarly journals but magazines, blogs, and even government studies.
 
4.2 Gastrodiplomacy 

Another in-vogue tool of diplomacy is winning foreign audiences' hearts and minds thru their stomach, also known as Gastrodiplomacy.
 
It is considered a technique that forms part of Cultural Diplomacy, and it is relatively recent. Only in 2002, The Economist coined the term after Thailand´s efforts to increase the number of Thai restaurants worldwide.[xviii] Since then, many countries, including Peru, South Korea, and Japan, have invested considerable resources in these efforts.
 
To learn more about Mexico´s Gastrodiplomacy efforts, check out my blog “More than Tacos: Mexico´s scrumptious, yet unknown Gastrodiplomacy” and “Ten years later: Mexico´s Traditional Cuisine and Gastrodiplomacy efforts.”
 
Until recently, local ingredients seldomly used outside the country of origin were available internationally, so they were hard or impossible to find in sufficient quantities to start a restaurant. The ever-growing migration of people, combined with an openness to try different dishes and cuisines, and the growth of agricultural exports (and locally-harvested), unlock the door for governmental efforts to promote its image abroad to gain influence and expand commercial opportunities via Gastrodiplomacy.
 
Shaun Riordan has a significant point that “it only makes sense to talk about sporting (or educational, or scientific, or gastronomic) activities if they form part of a broader diplomatic strategy in pursuit of policy objectives. Otherwise it is just sport, education, science or lunch.”[xix]
 
Therefore, we can only describe it as gastronomic diplomacy if it is spearheaded by the government and has a foreign policy objective. Of course, other actors, such as corporations, NGOs, or even individuals like famous chefs, can be part of its implementation through informal collaborations or formal partnerships.
 
4.2.1 Is Gastrodiplomacy a diplomatic imposter?
 
In the case of Gastrodiplomacy, we can undoubtedly say that it is a new tool of the diplomatic craft, made possible by changes in transportation, migration, and people´s openness to try foreign cuisines. However, as already mentioned, if it is not part of a foreign policy effort with specific goals, it cannot be considered a type of diplomatic instrument.
 
The issue's development lags behind Public Diplomacy and other cultural diplomatic instruments like Sports and Science diplomacies. The number of articles, scholarly or not, about the subject is still small. The most significant accomplishment was the publication of a special issue about Gastrodiplomacy in the Public Diplomacy magazine in 2014.
 
Besides, there are no classes, seminars, or workshops that I know off just dedicated to the study and practice of Gastrodiplomacy.
 
Therefore, it is a bit hard to argue that Gastrodiplomacy is not a diplomatic imposter. Still, the facts are that countries across the planet have invested scarce financial and human resources to instrument diplomatic efforts using cuisine, sometimes with excellent results.
 
We might not like it, literally the food or the measures, but they are real and exist as the examples of the Gastronomic Diplomacy efforts by Mexico, Peru, and South Korea demonstrate. And given time and flourishing practitioners and scholars, we might have the first Diplomatic /Cordon Blue Chef school somewhere soon.
 
5. Conclusions.
 
As the new critical theories of International Relations bring new and innovative perspectives to the fields’ scholarship, novel diplomatic instruments are unlocking opportunities for original ways of international engagement.
 
However, some scholars think that it is not an all-out revolution of Diplomacy. For example, Berridge indicates, “What we have witnessed in recent years is not the complete transformation of diplomacy, but rather, the more -occasionally less- intelligent application of new technology and new devices to support tried and tested methods, with the added advantage that this has helped to integrate many poor and weak states into the world diplomatic system.”[xx]
 
In contrast, Höne writes, “If diplomacy is not to become a dinosaur, new diplomacies and their careful debate should be welcomed as part of a much-needed dynamism in the field.”[xxi]
 
Time, analysis, and country´s practices will reveal which diplomatic modes are imposters, which are rebranded efforts, and which are the real deal. For me, the key is for them to have a FP goal. Otherwise, they are not Diplomacy, and we need to invent a different form to call them, but not Diplomacy.
 
I want to conclude this post quoting John Brown:
 
“Below are recent media entries with adjectival modifications (vulgarisations?) of diplomacy — which, perhaps, have contributed to a refinement (dilution?) of the meaning of this unexciting but venerable word. Should one be optimistic/pessimistic about such a development? Let the reader decide.
crisis diplomacy
radical diplomacy
food diplomacy
audio diplomacy 
1.5 track military diplomacy
skateboard diplomacy
koala diplomacy
wife diplomacy Mrs. diplomacy [original link appears to be inactive]
female sports diplomacy
emoji ‪diplomacy
creative diplomacy
poem and prose diplomacy
soap opera diplomacy
side-eye diplomacy
Bulgakov diplomacy.”[xxii]
 
Note: I have not forgotten about Consular Diplomacy, but the post is already quite long; therefore, I analyzed this ”new” diplomatic instrument in the next blog post titled "Consular Diplomacy: Cinderella no more, but not yet a princess".
 

[i] Also see, Brown, John, “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, Huffington Post, March 23, 2016, and the last chapter of the book Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, by G.R. Berridge.
[ii] Riordan, Shaun, “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies”, Center on Public Diplomacy Blog, June 21, 2017.
[iii] Höne, Katharina E., “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up!”, DiploFoundation Blog, June 30, 2017.
[iv] Höne, Katharina E., 2017.
[v] De Alva Ulloa, Jessica Lilian, and Velázquez Flores Rafael, “La diplomacia: concepto, origen, desarrollo histórico y tipos” in Teoría y Práctica de la Diplomacia en México: Aspectos básicos, 2018, pp. 37-39.
[vi] De Alva Ulloa, Jessica Lillian, and Velázquez Flores Rafael, 2018, pp. 39-40.
[vii] Brown, John, “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, Huffington Post, March 23, 2016.
[viii] Berridge, G.R., “Conclusion: The Counter-Revolution in Diplomatic Practice” in Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, p. 266.
[ix] Brown, John, 2016.
[x] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 20.
[xi] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, 2013, pp. 7 and 9.
[xii] See Höne, Katharina E., 2017 and Riordan 2017.
[xiii] Berridge, G.R., 2015, p. 268.
[xiv] See the chapter “Public Diplomacy” by Berridge, G.R., in Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, pp. 198-209.
[xv] See for example this great research about PD articles in peer-reviewed journals, Sevin, Efe, Metzgar, Emily T., and Hayden, Craig, “The Scholarship of Public Diplomacy: Analysis of a Growing Field”, International Journal of Communication Vol. 13, 2019, pp. 4814–4837.
[xvi] Such as the Public Diplomacy Magazine and other publications of the Center on Public Diplomacy, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, among other
[xvii] Here the focus on the instrumentation of PD campaigns, including the organization of educational and cultural exchanges which are initiatives where individuals participate directly.
[xviii] The Economist, “Food as ambassador, Thailand´s gastrodiplomacy”, February 21, 2002.
[xix] Riordan, Shaun, 2017.
[xx] Berridge, G.R., 2015, p. 268.
[xxi] Höne, Katharina E., 2017.
[xxii] Brown, John, 2016.


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.

In my recent post, Why Diplomacy matter? I wrote about the significance of Diplomacy in the third decade of the 21st Century and its potential to help solve humanity's current challenges. Following up on this idea, today I will focus on the reasons why we need more teaching and studying about Diplomacy.
 
Here I argue that Diplomacy needs to be more broadly teach and research because these will:

• Reduce the common mistake of thinking that Diplomacy is the same as Foreign Policy.
• Help better understand its unchanged principles throughout history while adapting to the evolution of society and technology.
• Be needed as Diplomacy undergoes two paradigm shifts due to the explosion of international actors and the digital revolution.

 
Diplomacy is a crucial ingredient in any foreign policy recipe. However, it is not always taught in universities as part of International Relations, International Business, and other related fields. It is like cooking without salt, you can eat the food, but it won´t taste as good as if the dish had some salt.
 
In my own International Relations BA program, there was not a single class dedicated to Diplomacy exclusively. Ironically, most of my classmates wanted to join the Mexican foreign service and become diplomats.
 
After joining the foreign service, I learned Diplomacy as a practitioner. I studied it formally until 2012 when I took the course “Diplomacy in the 21st Century” offered by the DiploFoundation.
 
But, what is Diplomacy? Maybe, that could have been the first question that I made in my first publication of my blog, rather than diving directly into the question of whether Public and Consular Diplomacies were real.
 
There are plenty of different descriptions of Diplomacy. Still, I like the one written by Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur in the introductory essay of The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy that expressed that “Diplomacy at is essence is the conduct of relationships, using peaceful means, by and among international actors, at least one of whom is usually a government.”[1]
 
I also like Geoff R. Berridge´s[2] definition, which indicates that “Diplomacy is an essentially political activity and, well resourced and skillful, a major ingredient of power. Its chief purpose is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies without resort to force, propaganda, or law. It achieves this mainly by communication between professional diplomatic agents.”[3]
 
Nowadays, with so many actors involved in international affairs, including individuals, it is logical that the concept of Diplomacy has to expand its conceptual boundaries outwards.[4]
 
Besides, the growing studies of different diplomatic practices outside Europe, as part of the International Relations Global South movement, has also widened the scope of our knowledge in the field.
 
Confusion between Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
 
If Diplomacy is not taught and research, people will have the perennial confusion between Foreign Policy and Diplomacy.

I understand a bit the misunderstanding between the two in today´s world, where most of the conflicts worldwide are being solved via diplomatic negotiations rather than other means, including war. So, the less use of force and other foreign policy instruments, the closer both fields are getting, blurring their distinction, and heightening the possibility of confusing both concepts.
 
But let´s be clear, not all of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs´ activities nor all international actions of a government can be classified as Foreign Policy (FP). To be considered a part of a country´s FP, the activity must be directed to achieve a goal. Otherwise, it could only be an international public policy or something else, but not FP.
 
Here, Shaun Riordan has a significant point that “it only makes sense to talk about sporting (or educational, or scientific, or gastronomic) activities if they form part of a broader diplomatic strategy in pursuit of policy objectives. Otherwise it is just sport, education, science or lunch.”[5]
 
But, what is Foreign Policy anyways?
 
According to Jean-Frédéric Morin and Jonathan Paquin in the excellent book Foreign Policy Analysis: a Toolbox, FP is “a set of actions or rules governing the actions of an independent political authority deployed in the international environment… [or] the underlying vision -in other words, the specific conception that a state has regarding its place in the world, its national interest and the key principles that allow to defend them.”[6]
 
Reducing the confusion between Diplomacy and FP is a perfect reason why diplomacy should be taught and study more widely, not just among internationalists.
 
Old, new, and contemporary Diplomacy unchanged principles.
 
Diplomacy, old, new, and contemporary, has always been based on certain fundamental principles that have not changed and are still relevant today. This is remarkable, as, in most sciences, paradigm shifts are a constant, and schools of thoughts and theories disappear with each new discovery.
 
The unchanged principles of Diplomacy are:

1. The role of envoys. Since the beginning of time, they have always been a crucial part of the diplomatic craft. Even in today´s situation, envoys meet and negotiate via videoconferences or by telephone and WhatsApp.
2. The inviolability and immunity of diplomatic agents and premises have expanded and codified, but the idea of granting extra protections to them has been a staple of Diplomacy since ancient civilizations.
3. The functions of Diplomacy have always been communication, representation, and negotiation, even in the ever-expanding duties of diplomats.
4. The special “aura” granted to diplomats, even after the end of absolute monarchies and the ever-increasing democratization of Diplomacy.
5. The amazing adaptability of Diplomacy. As a human activity, it has to be able to adapt to the ever-changing world, from Greek city-state to nowadays´ digital diplomacy.  

 
Diplomacy´s steadfastness does not mean that it is static. Throughout history has evolved and adapted to new circumstances, including technological revolutions.  
 
As the excellent interactive historical timeline of the relationship between Diplomacy and technology shows, every technological breakthrough, from the first written language to the development of TikTok diplomacy, has generated challenges and opportunities for Diplomacy.

Diplomats, very reluctantly, have adapted to the arrival of the latest gadgets and processes. However, not all MFAs have adjusted at the same pace. There a few trendsetters and quite a significant number of laggers.
 
Even if Diplomacy has been remarkably stable, two trends are creating diplomatic paradigm shifts. One is the expansion of international actors that perform “diplomacy-like” functions, and the other is the digital revolution.
 
To better understand the impact of these transformations on the diplomatic craft, it is necessary to invest more in diplomatic studies' teaching and investigation. Only then will governments be better prepare to adapt their diplomatic institutions and practices to the new reality. Otherwise, there are going to be left behind.
 
Another critical evolution of Diplomacy is the appearance of new tools like Gastrodiplomacy and Consular Diplomacy, among others. These novel instruments have been questioned and will be discussed in the next blog post.
 

[1] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 2.
[2] A prolific author about diplomacy and Senior Fellow of the DiploFoundation. Check out his website here.
[3] Berrigde, G.R., Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, p. 1.
[4] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, 2013, p. 24.
[5] Riordan, Shaun, “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies”, Center of Public Diplomacy Blog, June 21, 2017.
[6] Morin, Jean-Frédéric and Paquin, Jonathan, Foreign Policy Analysis: a Toolbox, 2018, p. 3.

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 was originally published February 4, 2021, by the CPD Blog at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy here uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-its-best-case-mexican-consular-id-card-program. We look forward to sharing widely and hope you´ll do the same.

The Mexican Consular ID card (MCID or Matrícula Consular) program is considered a successful public-consular diplomacy initiative. It resulted in significant benefits for the Mexican community living in the United States, creating long-lasting partnerships between Mexican consulates and local authorities, and financial institutions.

With the focus on security in the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Mexico's government decided to increase the security features of the MCID, which has been produced by the consulates since 1871.

Consular offices started issuing the new high-security consular IDs cards in March 2002 while there were changes in banking regulations due to the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

Besides the new security features, the Matrícula included additional information useful for local authorities and banks, such as the bearer's U.S. address. These added characteristics allowed banks, police departments and sheriffs' offices across the United States to appreciate it as a valuable tool and begin to recognize it as a form of ID.

Despite pressure from anti-immigrant groups, the Treasury Department reaffirmed banks' possibility of accepting foreign government-issued identification documents, including the MCID, in September 2003.

Wells Fargo was the first bank to accepted it and opened 400,000 bank accounts using the Matrícula from November 2001 to May 2004. Other financial institutions quickly followed. Therefore, by 2010, 400 financial institutions did the same, and 17 consulates signed 45 agreements with banks and credit unions.

The Mexican Consular ID card was also seen as a step toward the financial inclusion of Latinos and immigrants; hence, the Federal Deposits Insurance Corporation (FDIC) promoted the collaboration with Mexico's consular network across the United States through the New Alliance Task Force.

While preparing for a project, I have to review my understanding of International Relations (IR) theories. I was shocked to see how far the field has evolved since I studied them during my BA (1988-1993) and one of my MAs (1998-1999).
 
Back in the day when I was a college student, it was a time of upheaval not only for the world but for the study of IR. The unraveling of the Soviet Union started with Gorbachev´s Glasnost and Perestroika, and by the end of 1991, it dissolved, changing the face of world politics and IR.
 
My professors struggled, not just to keep up with the fast changes occurring, but trying to explain them to us, almost as they were happening. It was especially complicated for the professor teaching the course about the USSR’s politics and economy right after its collapse.
 
Fortunately for me, in my GMAP studies (see a post about my experience here), I had the opportunity to take courses where I examined the significant changes that occurred at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, with a 18-year perspective. For me, it was a revelation.
 
Since the Soviet Union’s disintegration, many things have changed, including the evolution explosion of IR theories. But, why do we need theories?
 
I like the idea that “Theories are like maps. Each map is made for a certain purpose and what is included in the map is based on what is necessary to direct the map’s users. All other details are left out to avoid confusion and present a clear picture.”[i]
 
Maps are appropriate for specific purposes, highlighting critical features while leaving out elements that are not necessary. Their focus and simplification give a sense of direction and location, regardless if you are moving or not.
 
To go beyond the headlines and have a deeper understanding of the transnational world, you need a map to underscore what is essential, and with this knowledge finding solutions to humanity's problems might be more manageable. Without knowing where we are and what direction to look, we are lost.
 
In the book International Relations edited by Stephen McGlinchey, there is an excellent overview of traditional, middle-ground, and critical IR theories. Back in my student days, there were but a few of them besides Realism and Liberalism and their “neo” versions.
 
However, the theories explored in the book are but a few of the new ways IR scholars worldwide are probing the international system, how it works, and how its actors interact.
 
Long are the days when the Nation-State was the only player of the international system. Nowadays, there are around 41,000 active intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations, out of 213 in 1909.[ii]
 
The digital revolution and fast changes in transportation have made the world smaller, with increasing blurring of borders which “has dramatically altered the general dynamics in politics and global affairs.”[iii]
 
Besides, Tech companies are very different from their more traditional peers, as I explained in my post about Denmark’s Tech Ambassador to Silicon Valley. The influence they garner is unlikely any other actor in the international arena.
 
All these changes have impacted the theories of International Relations. To learn more about the new ways scholars are interpreting the state of global affairs, I recommend reading the book International Relations Theory, edited by Stephen McGlinchey, Rosie Walters, and Christian Scheinpflug.
 
The book’s second part is exciting as it includes new and different standpoints of IR theory from Green and Queer Theory to Indigenous and Global South Perspectives.
 
In tune with the greater use of audiovisuals and online resources, the book publishers (E-IR) have a dedicated section with some useful videos useful to better understand some of the theories described in the book.
 
I think that the inclusion of non-State, non-Western/European, non-male -centric perspectives in the field of International Relations is very much needed and welcomed. As the constructivism theory indicates, people construct the anarchic international system. Through changes in these beliefs, norms, and behaviors, there is a possibility of changing it to the human race's benefit. So, the inclusion of new visions and perspectives will only enrich the understanding of the system and hopefully find better ways to interact.
 
Adding the Global South´s perspective into International Relations, including its theories, is significant because as societies recognized their own diversity, starting with a push towards greater inclusion of women and other minorities.
 
In the chapter “Towards a Global IR?”, Amitav Acharya[iv] explains some of the reasons for “Western dominance in IR, [including the]…

• widespread belief that the Western IR theory has discovered the right path to understanding IR …
• serious lack of institutional resources in the non-Western world…
• challenges facing scholars from non-English speaking countries in getting published in major IR journals or pursue the major debates and developments in the field that are mainly carried out in the English language…
• tendency among many IR scholars in the Global South towards an uncritical acceptance of Western theory.”[v]

 
Mexico has been working on expanding the IR vision from the Global South. An example is the publication of the book Teorías de Relaciones Internacionales en el siglo XXI: interpretaciones críticas desde México, edited by Jorge Schiavon et al., and published by the Asociación Mexicana de Estudios Internacionales (International Studies Mexican Association. A second edition had to be published after its successful launching, something uncommon for a book about theories!
 
Another effort towards greater inclusion is the creation of the Global South Caucus of International Studies of the International Studies Association (ISU), ten years ago, together with the association´s efforts to include higher participation of Global South members as contributors, reviewers, and editors of its seven iconic journals.
 
Besides, ISU is promoting more and deeper cooperation with its sister´s academic organizations and establishing in 2018 the Committee on the Status of Engagement with the Global South.
 
Going back to the map as theory idea, I concurred that “Embarking on the study of International Relations without an understanding of theory is like setting off on a journey without a map. You might arrive at your destination, or somewhere else very interesting, but you will have no idea where you are or how you got there.”[vi] So, let´s open our map of choice and examine the situation we want to explain using IR theory.
 

[i] McGlinchey, Stephen, Walters, Rosie and Gold, Dana, “Getting Started with International Relations Theory” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 2.
[ii] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 9.
[iii] Gebhard, Carmen, “One World, Many Actors” in International Relations, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 44.
[iv] Which happens to be a highly regarded IR scholar, and the first non-Western President of the International Studies Association (2014-2015).
[v] Acharya, Amitav, “Towards a Global IR?” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, pp. 76-77.
[vi] McGlinchey, Stephen, Walters, Rosie and Gold, Dana, “Getting Started with International Relations Theory” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 2.



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.