The main objective of Public Diplomacy is to influence foreign citizens to achieve a country´s foreign policy goal. Therefore, an essential element to be considered is the nation´s image and reputation. People are more likely to accept other country´s actions if they have a good reputation, or at least it does not have a negative image. The concepts Soft Power and Nation Branding have been discussed and debated in the last decades, creating an enormous amount of bibliography. From the rejection of the term from his creator[i] to the millions of dollars invested in many countries´ efforts to improve their image and reputation, both expressions are still being debated, and there is no consensus on their definitions and accomplishments. I believe that debates are great for the development of a field of study, but one has to be careful about what you read. As both ideas come from many different academic areas, from strategic communications and marketing to psychology and sociology and from international affairs to nationalism, there are multiple, often opposing, perspectives on these subjects. Interestingly enough, several world ranking systems have been created for both topics, such as the old Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brand Index, Country Brand Index by Future Brand; Country Brand Ranking by Bloom Consulting; Elcano Global Presence Index by Real Instituto Elcano; Nations Brand Report and Global Soft Power Index by Brand Finance; Soft Power30 by Portland Communications; and Soft Power Survey by Monocle magazine. I think these issues are particularly complicated as both delve into the core of the idea of the nation, the identity of its people, and the generation and use of power in the international arena. In the area of Soft Power and Nation Branding, the ministry of foreign affairs has a small role, as other government and non-government actors come in to play, from Tourism, Investment and Trade Promotion boards, all the way to the office of the executive branch. And all have their agendas and speak “different” languages. Another issue is that both deal with perceptions that is difficult as could be, particularly when talking about countries and millions of citizens. A particular development in the topic is that Nation Branding, Soft Power, and Public Diplomacy are concepts that even if they are different, they are intertwined and feed into each other, augmenting the confusion. For example, in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, different authors discuss the three terms in various ways, as it can be seen in the titles of some of the book's chapters: -Making a National Brand by Wally Olins, -The EU as Soft Power: the Force of Persuasion by Anna Michalksi -Rethinking the “New” Public Diplomacy by Brian Hocking -Power, Public Diplomacy and the Pax Americana by Peter van Ham. Another example is the analysis made by Gyorgy Szonzi in Public Diplomacy and National Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences of five different ways on how Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding interrelate, depending on how both terms are conceptualized. In table 1 there is a schematic view of the three concepts. It could be useful for a more precise idea of the differences between these terms, even if all are talking about the same After this long warning, now let´s talk about these two concepts. Regarding Nation Branding, I recommend these three readings: a) the Council on Foreign Relations´ backgrounder Nation Branding Explained; b) “Place Branding: The State of Art” by Peter van Ham and Melissa Aronczyk´s Branding the Nation: The Global Business of National Identity, which I enjoyed immensely. And let´s not forget the copious writings of two British Nation Branding eminences: Simon Anholt[ii] and the late Wally Olins.[iii] For a comprehensive bibliography on the subject, including texts in German, I suggest you visit Oliver Zöllner´s Reading List.[iv] Nation Branding derives from the corporate world, specifically from marketing and consumer behavior disciplines. A Nation Branding effort involves not only the participation of the ministry of foreign affairs but is a whole-country approach. It has a similar premise of Soft Power: the force or strength of attraction and also includes culture and foreign and domestic policy as sources of the nation´s brand, therefore its reputation and influence abroad. And for Soft Power, Joseph Nye explains in the article “Think Again: Soft Power”, what it is and not is Soft Power, giving very concrete examples. He complains that many analysts have confusion about power resources vs. behavior and states that “whether power resources produce a favorable outcome depends on the context.”[v] So, it is not all black (Hard Power) or white (Soft Power), but many shades of gray, depending mostly on behavior and context. Nye describes that a country´s soft power derives from “three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).”[vi] Therefore, it seems to me that Soft Power is more than just public diplomacy or nation branding. As we have seen, Soft Power and Nation Branding are challenging concepts to grasp. Both are intertwined, and they are always cited in Public Diplomacy studies. I hope this was useful. Now that I have revised the basic concepts discussed in this blog, in the next three postings, I will focus on a topic that is not well-known outside Mexico: its Consular Diplomacy. I will review most chapters of the book La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en los tiempos de Trump, (Mexican Consular Diplomacy in Trump´s Era) coordinated by Rafael Fernández de Castro, a well-known Mexican foreign policy analyst and currently the director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies of the University of California, San Diego. [i] Simon Anholt is credited to have created the term Nation Branding in 1996. Notwithstanding, later on Anholt rejected the term instead using Competitive Identity. For more information see Anholt, Simon, Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions, New York, 2007. [ii] See for example Anholt, Simon, Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions, New York, 2007; and Places: Identity, Images and Reputation, New York, 2010. [iii] See Olins, Wally, “Branding the Nation – the Historical Context” in Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4-5, p 241-248; “Making a National Brand” in Jan Melissen (ed), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, New York, 2005; and Wally Olins and Jeremy Hildreth, “National Branding: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow” in Nigel Morgan, Annette Pritchard and Roger Pride (eds.), Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation, 3er edition, Oxford, 55-66. [iv] Although I noticed that there is not a single article specifically about Mexico. [v] Nye, Joseph, “Think again: Soft Power” in Foreign Policy, February 23, 2006 [vi] Nye, Joseph, “Think again: Soft Power 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.
0 Comments
Another element of the new diplomacy is Cultural Diplomacy; however, just because it is part of the novel tools of diplomacy does not mean it is not old. Actually, it is one of the most traditional forms of Public Diplomacy. The best know example is the development of cultural institutions for the promotion of the language and culture of European powers. Thus France's Alliance Française was established in 1883, the Società Dante Alighieri of Italy in 1889, United Kingdom's British Council in 1934, Goethe Institute of Germany n 1951, and Spain's Cervantes Institute just in 1991. Nowadays, the most extensive example is the Confucius Institute of China, which has grown so fast that, in some instances has generated a backlash.[i] Interestingly enough, the United States never established an overseas cultural institution but did not mean that it did not engage in Cultural Diplomacy, such as the famous Fulbright scholarship program or the European Erasmus initiative. The Institute of Cultural Diplomacy states that: "Cultural Diplomacy may best be described as a course of actions, which are based on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of cultural or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation, promote national interests and beyond..."[ii] The idea of promoting exchanges of ideas, people, and cultural knowledge to foster better understanding and relations for the benefit of foreign policy objectives lies behind the concept of Soft Power. However, Cultural Diplomacy has been implemented long before it was coined in 1990 by Joseph Nye, an Emeritus Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University. The next post, I will take about Soft Power, Nation Branding, Influence, and Reputation, so let's continue with today's theme. The creation of a Ph.D. in Cultural Diplomacy demonstrates the significant development of this field of study. I don't know of any other specialized diplomacy area that offers this. Besides, the amount of articles about this topic in the digital library (PD Hub) of the Center of Public Diplomacy is enormous, as well as many issues of its CPD Perspectives research papers. Under the umbrella of Cultural Diplomacy, many hyphenated diplomacies have developed, particularly in the last couple of decades; from Gastrodiplomacy (link al post) to Sports, Science, Think Tank, and even Music (Jazz, K-pop, and J-pop) Diplomacy. However, the bread and butter of Cultural Diplomacy are the following two activities: Regarding exchanges, the basic concept is that a person or a country is less likely to go to war if you know them or at least are more likely to being influence than not. Therefore, interactions foster collaboration and diminish the possibility of conflict. Its scope is extensive and goes from language teaching and skills training to multi-country research projects, like the CERN and from regular tourism and international business and trade contacts to entertainment such as movies, music or the performing arts. However, the biggest critique is that the results of these types of connections take a long time, and in most cases, it is challenging to measure its successes or lack of them. As for broadcasting, nowadays has gone into a bit of a slump, but during the Cold War, it was on its prime. The United States had not one but two agencies devoted to it in the middle of the 1990s: the U.S. Information Agency[v] and Broadcasting Board of Governors.[vi] And the BBC has been an icon of a multimedia powerhouse for many years. Other countries have state-run or sponsored radio and television stations, such as is RT of Russia, TeleSUR of Venezuela, and Al Jazeera of Qatar. Almost all of them now have YouTube channels, and Facebook and Instagram accounts for the same purpose, which is part of these countries' digital diplomacy (link al post the digital diplomacy=. A relevant aspect of Cultural Diplomacy is that, even though governments are still the prime promoters of these types of engagements with people of other nations, there is a very active role of the non-state actors, including regular citizens.[vii] This is particularly important as non-state actors are typically seen as neutral or less-politically influenced by the governments and their ultimate Cultural Diplomacy goals. [viii] In the field of Cultural Diplomacy, Mexico has been successfully achieving some of its foreign policy goals with the assistance of its cultural heritage and influence. From the Revolution's aftermaths in the 1930s, with the Muralism artistic movement and the golden age of Mexican cinema to soap operas and NAFTA authorization in the US Congress.[ix] In a later post, I will write about this, as there is little information in English regarding Mexico´s Cultural Diplomacy. [i] For a updated list see “Latest Reports on Confucius Institutes Controversies” [ii] “What is Cultural Diplomacy” in Institute of Cultural Diplomacy webpage. [iii] For a brief analysis of psychological effect of exchanges see Scott-Smith, Giles “Exchange Programs and Public Diplomacy” in Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (eds.), 1st edition, 2009 pp. 50-56. [iv] See Cull, Nicholas, Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past, CPD Perspectives Series, 2009, particularly section 2.5 in page 21. [v] It was disbanded in 1999 For a brief about the agency see Chodkoswki, William M., “Fact Sheet: The United States Information Agency “in American Security Project webpage, November 2012. [vi] In 2017 the name was changed to US Agency for Global Media. [vii] See “Citizen Diplomacy” Winter 2012 issue of the Public Diplomacy Magazine. [viii] Mueller, Sherry, “The Nexus of U.S. Public Diplomacy and Citizen Diplomacy” in Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (eds.), 1st edition, 2009 p. 103 [ix] See for example Starr, Pamela K. “Mexican Public Diplomacy: Hobbled by History, Interdependence and Asymetric Power” in “Middle Power” Summer 2009 issue of the Public Diplomacy Magazine and “Cooperación y diplomacia consular: experiencias y travesías. Entrevista al embajador Jorge Alberto Lozoya” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, Vol 85, February 2009 p. 253-267. 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. “Governments and international organisations are now realising that social media is also a potential game changer for how international relations can be pursued.”[i] In this post, I will talk about Digital Diplomacy, even if it is not the central theme of the blog. Today, diplomats using digital instruments is critical for any foreign ministry, particularly in Public Diplomacy campaigns and initiatives. Digital technology, mainly social media, is used to implement many Gastrodiplomacy and Consular Diplomacy initiatives. Changes in technology have always impacted diplomacy, from the development of the clipper sailing ships to the arrival of the airplanes and from the telegraph[i] to Twitter and Zoom. The way diplomacy is carried out was affected by these innovations. Instead of waiting for months to receive instructions from the capital, ambassadors and consuls could connect immediately to inform the situation in the host country and receive instructions. Of course, these changes also transformed international affairs, trade, and the use of force. With the arrival of the internet, the development of the Web 2.0 that focused on interactivity that resulted in the creation of multiple social media outlets[ii], and smartphones, the so-called 3rd industrial revolution arrived: the digital world. As in previous innovation waves, foreign ministries and diplomats have to adjust and adapt. For some activities, such as Public and Consular Diplomacies, digital technology has been a great addition to engage with foreign citizens in addition to their nationals abroad. But a question still lingers, is “Digital Diplomacy” a new way of excising foreign policy, or is it just a tool to achieve these goals? Digital Diplomacy is one of the areas of the new diplomacy that has had the most development as a field of study. A lot has been written about the topic from many different perspectives. A quick query on Google Scholar for 2020 comes up with 5,820 results.[iii] But what is Digital Diplomacy exactly? Corneliu Bjola is an Oxford scholar that has become a renowned researcher of digital diplomacy.[iv] He conceptualizes it “as the use of social media for diplomatic purposes.”[v] It is also viewed in “a broader perspective of the role of digital technology in diplomacy, not only as an instrument or medium of communication but also as a different mode of thinking about and practicing diplomacy.”[vi] From Bjola´s perspective, the digitalization of diplomacy is more than just the inner works of the ministry of foreign affairs, including the struggle between early-adopters and old-school ´mandarins´. It also includes the government’s foreign policy objectives, the adoption of technological innovations, and the existence of a digital “dark side,” such as misinformation, propaganda, and infowar tactics.[vii] So, Digital Diplomacy is not only Twiplomacy [viii] or the current COVID-19´s Zoom diplomacy[ix] but much more. Ministries of foreign affairs need to speed up their creative power, capabilities, and abilities to be at the forefront, which in turn can bring more significant influence, thus Soft Power to the country.[x] As many of the topics discussed in this blog, there is greater room for debate about the definition of Digital Diplomacy, as well as its reach. However, for now, I recommend having a look at Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior (Mexico´s foreign policy magazine) issue 113 titled Public Diplomacy in the Digital Era, which has articles in English from top scholars. [i] The International Telegraph Union was the first international organization created in 1865 to work on the creation of international standard for telegraphs. [ii] Most of them are based on the creation of content by the users rather than from the company itself. Well-know platforms that reach billions of people are Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, as well as nowadays Snapchat, Instagram and Tik Tok. [iii] You can also see Center for Public Diplomacy at University of Southern California comprehensive “Digital Diplomacy Bibliography” and Ilan Manor´s blog “Exploring Digital Diplomacy” [iv] He established the Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group (DigDiploRox) . Other specialist on Digital Diplomacy are Ilan Manor, Juan Luis Manfredi Sánchez and Alejandro Ramos Cardoso. [v] Bjola, Corneliu “Introduction: Making Sense of Digital Diplomacy” in Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, Corneliu Bjola and Marcus Holmes (eds), Routledgde, 2015 p. 6. For a in-depth but brief summary of different definitions and the evolution and risks of digital diplomacy see Adesina, Olubukola, “Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy” in Cogent Social Science, Vol 3, Numb. 1, 2017. [vi] Bjola, Corneliu, .“Digital Diplomacy 2.0: Trends and Counter-Trends” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, Num. 113, May-August 2018, p. 2. Interesting enough, this magazine’s issue, was the first ever to be published in English, as well as Spanish. [vii] Bjola, “Digital Diplomacy 2.0: Trends and Counter-Trends” p. 10 [viii] For a relatively new study of Twitter see Chhabra, Radhika, “Twitter Diplomacy: A Brief Analysis”, ORF Issue Brief No 335, January 2020. [ix] For more examples see: Gotev, Georgie, “The Brief – Zoom diplomacy” in Euroactiv.com, April 24, 2020; “Diplomacy in the Zoom era” in Meridian, July 2020; Heath, Ryan, “For global diplomats, Zoom is not like being in the room” in Politico, April 16, 2020; and Aina, Dolapo, “Digital diplomacy in the era of coronavirus pandemic” in The Guardian, July 20, 2020. [x] Bjola, “Digital Diplomacy 2.0: Trends and Counter-Trends” p. 5 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. As mentioned in the previous post, Mexico´s Gastrodiplomacy efforts have not been analyzed or recognized; therefore, they are relatively unknown. A few articles cite the diplomatic efforts of the government of Mexico[i] regarding its work to register its traditional cuisine in the list of UNESCO´s Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2010, together with “The Gastronomic meal of the French”. It was the first inscription in the registry of a traditional practice around food. After this historical achievement, other countries such as South Korea, Japan, Turkey, and nations around the Mediterranean have successfully registered a total of 18 “food preparation” elements with the participation of 26 countries. [ii] Before moving in a bit deeper, it is worth asking: do efforts of registering food preparations as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity can be considered Gastrodiplomacy? If not, is this the reason why Mexico´s efforts in this regard have not been included as Gastrodiplomacy, or are there other reasons? Most articles analyzing countries´ Gastrodiplomacy campaigns, particularly the ones about Peru, South Korea, and Japan, included the stated goal of the inscription of its culinary traditions in UNESCO´s list. Therefore, I can assume that this activity forms part of these countries' Gastrodiplomacy efforts. Consequently, Mexico´s actions to achieve this goal must also be considered as Gastrodiplomacy. In 1996, Mexican scholars started the idea of the “recognition of particularly culinary practices as complete expressions of a living and dynamic heritage.”[iii] In 2002, a group of Mexican multidisciplinary academics, led by Yuriria Iturriaga and Cristina Barron, joined forces to begin the preparation of the nomination of the cultural food system of the Mexican people as an Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.[iv] A key player of all these efforts and the follow up is Gloria López Morales, Founder and President of the Conservatorio de la Cultura Gastronómica Mexicana, a non-profit organization registered at the UNESCO. The 2005 nomination of Mexico titled “People of Corn, Mexico´s Ancestral Cuisine. Rituals, Ceremonies and Cultural Practices of the Cuisine of the Mexican People.” was rejected.[v] However, a debate started about the recognition of cuisine and other food and beverage related traditions as part of the registry,[vi] which concluded in 2010 with the inscription of Mexico´s traditional cuisine and the Gastronomic meal of the French as the first ones, as mentioned above. During this time, just before the presentation and, particularly, after the rejection of the registry in late 2005, the government of Mexico began an aggressive but under-the-radar Consular Diplomacy initiative in the United States and Canada, focused on food and cultural heritage. It was part of an overall Gastrodiplomacy strategy to achieve the inscription of Mexican cuisine as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. One of the first activities of the consular Gastrodiplomacy effort was the organization of a “Jornada Informativa”[vii] focused on Mexican chefs and restaurant owners in the United States and Canada in June 2005, a few months before the UNESCO rejected Mexico´s nomination. As a result of the meeting, most of the participants agreed to establish an organization of Mexican restaurants and food distributors in the United States and Canada.[viii] The Mexican Restaurant Association (MERA) held its first national summit in 2009, as part of the 5th Trinational Mexican Gastronomy and Culture Week.[ix] Unfortunately, it later disappeared. Another initiative that developed during that 2005 meeting was the creation of the Trinational Gastronomical Festival or “Semana Trinacional de Gastronomía.” This activity took place around the celebration of the Day of the Dead (November 1st and 2nd, 2005),[x] with the participation of most of the Consulates of Mexico in North America, [xi] together with Mexican restaurants and other organizations, such as Mexican beer distributors, Tequila and Mezcal producers.[xii] The Festival continued for another six years until 2011. All participants of the Jornada Informativa del IME: Programa Trinacional de Gastronomía Mexicana signed a letter to the Director-General of UNESCO in support of Mexico´s nomination to the designation as Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, that was going to be voted on November 2005.[xiii] As these initiatives demonstrate, there was a comprehensive effort by the government of Mexico, together with non-governmental organizations, to highlight the value of its traditional cuisine, and to have it recognized as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity. It included precise actions in the multilateral arena of UNESCO,[xiv] but also a specific work plan for the Mexican restaurant community in the United States and Canada, supported by the network of Consulates of Mexico in North America. Using Paul Rockewer´s definition of Gastrodiplomacy as a “…concerted public diplomacy campaign by a national government that combines culinary and cultural diplomacy – backed up by monetary investment – to raise its national brand status…”[xv] I believe that Mexico´s efforts clearly can be considered as Gastrodiplomacy. One can ask, was the goal achieved? In the end, in 2010, Mexico´s traditional cuisine was included in the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, reaffirming its position as a robust international cuisine and hopefully winning hearts, minds, and stomachs all across Canada and the United States. Even after these initiatives ended later, the government of Mexico has continued to promote it´s cuisine abroad through different activities. These will be analyzed in another post, hoping to confirm that are actual Gastrodiplomacy actions. [i] See Wilson, Rachel, “Comida Peruana para el Mundo: Gastrodiplomacy, the Culinary Nation Brand and the Context of National Cuisine in Peru” in Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No.. 1, 2011, p. 15; Zhang, Juyan, “The Food of the Worlds: Mapping and Comparing Contemporary Gastrodiplomacy Campaigns” in International Journal of Communication Vol 9, 2015, p. 569; Chappel-Sokol, Sam, “Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds” in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 8, 2013, p. 165; and Bestor, Theodore C., “The Most F(l)avored Nation Status: The Gastrodiplomacy of Japan´s Global Promotion of Cuisine”, in Public Diplomacy Magazine, Winter 2004, p.58. [ii] See UNESCO ´s ¨food preparation” category of the registry in the following link https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists?term[]=vocabulary_thesaurus-10 [iii] CONACULTA, “Relatoria, Capítulo 1: El Expediente Pueblo de Maíz, La Cocina Ancestral de México” in Cuadernos Patrimonio Cultural y Turismo, No. 10, 2014, p. 14. [iv] Ibid. Note: thru the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity 90 intangible masterpieces were recognized in three different sessions (2001, 2003 and 2005). It was not till 2006 when the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, adopted in 2003, came in to force. Therefore, in the 2008 meeting, those 90 masterpieces were recognized as elements of the Convention. [v] To find out some of the reason why it was rejected read Medina, F. Xavier, “Mediterranean diet, culture and heritage: Challenges for a new conception” in Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 12, Num. 9A, September 2009, p. 1618. [vi] For an analysis of the discussions whether a cuisine or food can be an UNESCO´s intangible cultural heritage of humanity see Romagnoli, Marco “Gastronomic heritage elements at UNESCO: problems, reflections and intepretations of a new heritage category” in International Journal of Intangible Heritage, Vol 14, 2019 p. 158-171 and De Miguel Molina, Maria, et al., “Intangible Heritage and Gastronomy: The Impact of UNESCO Gastronomy Elements” in Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4, October 2016, p. 293-310 [vii] The “Jornadas Informativas” or “Migrant-Focused Conferences” are organized by the Institute of Mexican Abroad (IME) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico that brought to the country different groups of authorities, organizations, and leaders in the U.S. and Canada to learn about Mexico´s efforts toward its immigrant population in those countries and exchange best practices. Each conference or Jornada has a specific theme or focus, such as Health, Financial Education or Gastronomy. For more information about the IME and a description of the Jornadas see: Laglagadore, Laureen Protection through Integration: The Mexican Government´s Efforts to Aid Migrants in the United States, Migration Policy Instituto, January 2010. Additionally visit Jornadas Informativas del IME (in Spanish). [viii] Laglagaron, p. 22. [ix] “Inicia V Semana Trinacional de Gastronomía y Cultura Mexicana”, in Protocolo, October 30, 2009. The national summit of MERA was held in Kansa City, Missouri, during the official opening of the festivities that took place across North America. [x] This was a very clever way to also promote the Day of the Dead, a 2003 UNESCO´s Oral and Intangible Cultural Heritage designation of 2013, for the celebration of the trinational gastronomic week. [xi] Ponce, Karla, “Día de Muertos en Tres Países” in El Universal, October 28, 2005. [xii] Martinez M., Pedro Salvador, “Comiendo con los Muertos” en la Semana de Gastronomia y Cultura Mexicana en EU, Canadá y México”, in Azteca 21, October 24, 2005. [xiii] Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, 25a Jornada Informativa del IME: Programa Trinacional de Gastronomía Mexicana. SRE, 2005, p. 80. [xiv] See Marco Romagnoli (2019) He states that “Mexico organized an international and scientific meeting in Campeche in 2008 to enhance and promote the heritage value of cuisine.” Its outcome was the “Declaración de Campeche”. Additionally, Mexico supported Peru´s proposal for an expert meeting that took place in France in April 2009, which “paved the way for the acceptance of culinary nominations and inscriptions by UNESCO in 2010”. p. 165 [xv] Rockower, Paul “Recipes for gastrodiplomacy” in Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2012, p. 236. 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.
The third component of the new kind of doing diplomacy is Gastrodiplomacy. As I mentioned in the first post, the term was created in 2002 by The Economist in an article about Thailand's efforts to “…boost the number…” of Thai restaurants around the world and “to make it easier for foreign restaurants to import Thai food…”[i] Since then, a substantial number of studies and articles about Gastrodiplomacy were created, particularly by Paul Rockower, founder of the Levantine Public Diplomacy organization. Besides, Sam Chappel -Sokol also developed what he calls “culinary diplomacy”, which is different from Gastrodiplomacy, as you will learn later on this post. The highlight of the study of winning hearts and minds through the stomach was the publication of an issue about Gastrodiplomacy in the Public Diplomacy magazine in 2014. As far as I know, from recent online searches, it seems that the term is less used nowadays. Maybe because it was a mere fad or because, as some have written,[ii] it was not real diplomacy at all, but just a tool of public/cultural diplomacy that did not deserve a particular category in the academic world. In his seminal work of 2012 “Recipes for gastrodiplomacy”, Rockower defines Gastrodiplomacy as “how countries conduct cultural diplomacy through promotion of their cuisine.”[iii] He explains that it “uses a country’s culinary delights as means to conduct public diplomacy and to raise nation brand awareness.”[iv] The author explains that Gastrodiplomacy is not only food tastings and cooking demonstrations offered by embassies, but a “ concerted public diplomacy campaign by a national government that combines culinary and cultural diplomacy – backed up by monetary investment – to raise its national brand status…”[v] Rockower also differentiates this concept from other similar ideas, like culinary or food diplomacies,[vi] citing the work done by Sam Chappel-Sokol in “Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds”. In the second part of the article, Rockower briefly explains the Gastrodiplomacy efforts developed by Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as dwelling a bit about some people-to-people Gastrodiplomacy initiatives such as the Conflict Kitchen restaurant in Pittsburg, U.S.A (now closed). As mentioned before, the other scholar who delves into the concept of Culinary Diplomacy is Sam Chappel-Soko, who includes what Rockower defines as Gastrodiplomacy. In his article (see above), he delineates culinary diplomacy “as the use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation.”[vii] And states that there are two types: public and private, being the former part of public and cultural diplomacy, while the latter “occurs behind closed doors.”[viii] It is interesting to appreciate that most scholarly articles about Gastrodiplomacy focus on several efforts by Asia-Pacific nations such as Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia, Japan, and Taiwan, with a few others like Peru´s Gastrodiplomacy.[ix] However, little to nothing has been written from a Gastrodiplomacy perspective about Mexico´s efforts to obtain the recognition of its cuisine as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity by the UNESCO (achieved in 2010 after a failed attempt in 2005 titled “People of Corn, Mexico´s Ancestral Cuisine”),[x] Neither about the prolonged under-the-radar Consular Diplomacy activities around Mexican food in the United States in the first decade of the new millennium. One reason could be that these activities are not considered Gastrodiplomacy, so there is no room to include them in scholarly studies and other articles. Another one could be that most of the papers and reports are written in Spanish. Additionally, it seems there has been an absence of the analysis undertaken, not just by the government, but by scholars and practitioners alike. I believe this is the real reason why the Gastrodiplomacy strategy implemented by Mexico is not well known. Therefore, one of the goals of the blog is to share with the world these efforts. You can see a few papers about this topic in the Interesting Links section. For a comprehensive list of published studies about Gastrodiplomacy, you can visit this webpage: Levantine Public Diplomacy organization. [i] The Economist, “Food as ambassador, Thailand´s gastrodiplomacy”, February 21, 2002. [ii] See Riordan, Shaun, “Stop inventing “New Diplomacies” in CPD blog, June 21, 2017; Höne, Katharina, “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up” and Brown, John, “Diplomacies from public to pubic”, Huffington Post, March 23, 2016. [iii] Rockower, Paul “Recipes for gastrodiplomacy” in Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2012, p. 235. [iv] Ibid. [v] Ibid. p. 236. [vi] Paul Rockover indicates that food diplomacy “…involves the use of food aid and food relief in a crises or catastrophe” in “The State of Gastrodiplomacy” Public Diplomacy Magazine, No. 11, Winter 2014, p 12. [vii] Chappel-Sokol, Sam, “Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds” in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 8, 2013, p. 162. [viii] Ibid. [ix] For a deeper analysis of the cuisine diplomacy of these six countries from an strategic communication perspective see Juyan Zhang´s “The Food of the Worlds: Mapping and Comparing Contemporary Gastrodiplomacy Campaigns” in International Journal of Communication Vol. 9, 2015, p. 568-591. [x] Interesting enough, in “Comida Peruana para el Mundo: Gastrodiplomacy, the Culinary Nation Brand and the Context of National Cuisine in Peru” Rachel Wilson recognizes that one of the main objectives of Peru´s Gastrodiplomacy effort was “having its cuisine deemed part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity…” in Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011, p. 13. 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. “… the 2020 coronavirus crisis has made assistance to nationals in en masse crises the most visible 21st century function of ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs).”[i] If people have questioned the existence of Consular Diplomacy, the pandemic caused by COVID-19 has been a wakeup call. Almost all countries across the globe faced the challenge of bringing home citizens that were stuck overseas as most of the world closed its border for traveling. Because of its staggering size, even the wealthiest countries were not prepared for the scale of the consular assistance demanded as a result of the pandemic. Consular officials around the world have to negotiate not only with local and central authorities but also airlines, tour operators, and sometimes even individual hotels or Airbnb hosts to assist their citizens. All these while receiving an unprecedented demand for help, via telephone, but more often, social media from abroad and at home. There is a shared understanding that the most developed plans to provide consular assistance in a crisis fell short as the COVID-19 pandemic presented embassies, consular offices, and foreign ministries with enormous demand from all across the world, almost at the exact time. At this trying times, consular officials need to be recognized for dealing, the best they could, with this crisis of global dimensions. Here you can find some of the responses to the need to repatriate hundreds of thousands, if not millions of citizens that were stranded overseas as country after country closed their borders to quell the pandemic. The Lowly Institute of Australia stated that “In April 2020, the scale of the consular crisis has become crystal clear. Of Australia’s one million-strong diaspora and several hundred thousand short-term trip-makers, 200,000 have returned home in the past three weeks. The United Kingdom reported spending £75 million to repatriate 300,000 of its citizens abroad. The United States has repatriated 43,000 Americans from 78 countries since late January. The list goes on.”[ii] In Canada, the “Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne has taken some unconventional means to bring home thousands of Canadians stranded abroad by the COVID-19 pandemic, from securing landing rights for planes over text message to directly negotiating flight fares with airline CEOs.”[iii] So, by the end of May, the Canadian government was able to repatriate close to 40,000 people from 100 countries on 356 flights.[iv] Even private companies, in this case, Sunwing Airlines, were assisting in the repatriation efforts, by giving away without charge empty seats in their planes to nearly 5,000 that were not customers of the airline. In total, the airline stated that it brought back over 60,000 Canadians stranded abroad. Besides working on bringing back home its citizens, Global Affairs Canada convened the Ministerial Coordination Group on COVID-19, formed by 15 countries, which announced a Declaration on Maintaining Essential Global Links amid the pandemic on April 17, 2020. The U.S. State Department stated that by April 1, 2020, “has helped more than 30,000 Americans stranded in 60-plus countries board 375 U.S.-bond flights.[v] However, some of its citizens complained about its slow reaction compared with other countries such as Germany. In response, a State Department spokesperson commented that “the State has never undertaken an evacuation effort of such geographic breadth, scale, and complexity in its 230-year history.”[vi] Regardless of the complaints, on June 12, 2020, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a resolution “commending career professionals at the Department of State for their extensive efforts to repatriate United States citizens and legal permanent residents during the COVID-19 pandemic”.[vii] The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico has also worked on the repatriation of nationals overseas. It publishes on social media a daily update on the number of Mexicans safely returned home and nearly weekly statistics of Mexicans who unfortunately had COVID-19, including the almost 2,173 who died abroad. By July 29, embassies and consulates of Mexico around the world assisted in the repatriation of nearly 16,500 Mexicans stranded abroad. In an unprecedented consular action, on July 11, 2020, a Mexican Air force airplane repatriated 245 urns with the remains of Mexicans that died from COVID-19 in the area of responsibility of the Consulate General of Mexico in New York City. By sheer volume, 1.3 million persons repatriated via commercial flights since the beginning of the pandemic, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom had one of the biggest challenges. Meanwhile, the European Union estimates it helped with the repatriation of 590,000 of its citizens abroad. Every country across the globe had to assist their nationals, and sometimes citizens of other countries, during the pandemic. We just have to recognize their commitment and public service in these challenging times. Thank you all consular officials around the world! Before closing, I want to bring to your attention a fascinating research paper by a great Consular Diplomacy scholar, Jan Melissen. In it, he describes that a more significant challenge for ministries of foreign affairs than provide consular assistance to their national abroad is how to communicate with them to change behaviors successfully. The paper has two versions: the short one posted in the Devpolicyblog, and the more scholarly work in Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies Journal. [i] Melissen, Jan, “Nationals in crisis and diplomacy´s domestic communication challenge” in DevpolicyBlog, April 27, 2020. [ii] Oliver, Alex, “Post-COVID-19 diplomacies will be refinanced”, in the World after COVID-19 by the Lowly Institute [iii] Carbert, Michele “Minister takes unconventional diplomatic steps to repatriate stranded Canadians amid COVID-19” in the Globe and Mail, April 14, 2020. [iv] Harris, Kathleen, “Government operation to bring home pandemic-stranded Canadians almost complete, says MP” in CBC, May 22, 2020. [v] Williams, Abigail and Li, David K. “State Department warns Americans stranded overseas that time is running out” in NBC News, April 1st, 2020. [vi] Cachero, Paulina, “Americans stranded abroad complain that other countries are evacuating their citizens way faster than the US government is” in The Insider, April 3, 2020. [vii] S.Res.567 - A resolution commending career professionals at the Department of State for their extensive efforts to repatriate United States citizens and legal permanent residents during the COVID-19 pandemic, United States Senate, 116th Congress, June 11, 2020. 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. As I continue to explore the three main concepts of the blog, it is the turn for Consular Diplomacy. As a diplomat, one thing that strikes me about the idea of Consular Diplomacy is that it has been part of the “traditional” Diplomacy for a long time. For most of history, most countries’ first foreign posts where consulates and not embassies.[i] Consular officials existed before the arrival of permanent representatives and ambassadors. In many states, such as Mexico, a joint diplomatic and consular corps forms its Foreign Service, not one or the other. So why now we have Consular Diplomacy? Is it not part of traditional Diplomacy? Maaike Okano-Heijmans, a scholar of the Clingendael Institute, published the paper “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy” in February 2010. In it, she defines Consular Diplomacy as “international negotiation on a consular (legal) framework and individual consular cases that attract substantial attention from the media, public and politicians.”[ii] She argues that this is a new development, starting at the end of the 1990s. It is not something that happened before, or that has always occurred.[iii] These changes came as a result of the increase of globalization, the growing power of the media, and heightened expectations by nationals who travel overseas.[iv] Okano-Heijmans describes the changes that occurred, so “the government´s responsibility to protect its citizens (abroad) is no longer just a consular matter, but increasingly a diplomatic concern.”[v] Then she presents a theoretical background to better explain the existence of Consular Diplomacy as a new field of study as well as the relevance of negotiations of consular issues at the bilateral and multilateral levels. In general terms, she presents two forms of Consular Diplomacy:
Later, I will review additional forms of Consular Diplomacy. A significant development in Consular Diplomacy was the establishment of the Global Consular Forum in September 2013, after a meeting in Wilton Park, Great Britain. A report of the meeting was published. Like-minded countries decided that the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs of 1963 was lagging behind the consular practice in the 21st century; therefore, they agree to create this Forum. Since then, there have been two more meetings in Cuernavaca, Mexico, in May 2015 (report) and Seoul, Korea, in October 2016 (summary). And the work of the Forum has continued since then. The Forum in itself is a significant development toward the consolidation of Consular Diplomacy as a new area of study, as foreign ministries from all continents, in an informal multilateral platform, gather to
If these actions are not Consular Diplomacy, I do not know then what would be it. An exciting development is the existence of the course Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy that the DiploFoundation offers as part of its curricula. In the next post, I will discuss about Consular Diplomacy during the COVID-19 pandemic, further proof of its existence. You can also read additional posts about consular diplomacy, such as:
[i] For a brief overview of the confluence of consular affairs and diplomacy see Jestin, Mathieu, “The Affirmation of “Consular Diplomacy” during the modern period”, in Encyclopédie pour un histoire nouvelle de l´Europe, online, November 10, 2017. [ii] Okano-Heijmans, Maaike, “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy”, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ´Clingendael´, February 2010, p.1 . [iii] Idem. [iv] Idem, p. 2. [v] Idem, p. 8. [vi] Idem, p. 23. [vii] Idem. [viii] Global Consular Forum, “Mission and Overview” 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. Of the three different diplomacies discussed in this blog, Public Diplomacy is the most established concept. Not only was conceptualized first, as the term was created in 1965 by a U.S Diplomat. It also has one Journal (Place Branding and Public Diplomacy)[i], and there are a few graduate degree programs offered by U.S universities (Center for Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California and Syracuse University in New York) and several short course offered by other educational institutions. There is also an ever-growing body of work that ranges from theoretical analysis to practitioners´ tales and even different groups and associations. These development have not yet happened in the Consular Diplomacy and Gastrodiplomacy fields of study. But what is Public Diplomacy? As in any developing field of study, there is a wide range of ideas of what consists of Public Diplomacy. But let´s start with the beginning. According to Nicholas J. Cull in “Public Diplomacy” before Gullion: The evolution of a phrase” Edmund Gullion, an experienced U.S. diplomat and dean of the oldest graduate school focused on international affairs used "public diplomacy" for the first time in 1965. The idea is that if diplomats work with the counterparts (mostly diplomats and other government officials) of the host Foreign Affairs Ministry and some other government authorities, this is considered Diplomacy. But if the same diplomats are engaging directly with the host-country citizens, not just government officials, with a purpose, then this is called Public Diplomacy. An essential element is that the involvement has to have a purpose or a goal, otherwise I think, is a different kind of activity rather than Public Diplomacy. Everywhere in the Public Diplomacy literature, you will find that the diplomats want to win the “hearts and mind” of the people of the host country, but I said, with a reason! The Center for Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California has a mind-boggling amount of resources, from blog posts to papers and from special reports to the Public Diplomacy magazine. But most importantly, the Center has a section about the definition of Public Diplomacy that is easy to understand, particularly if you are new to the topic. I recommend reading it before jumping in the battle of the concept. Later on, I will work on bringing some of the different conceptualization of Public Diplomacy, but the next post will be about Consular Diplomacy. For more information about Public Diplomacy, please visit the section of Interesting Links [i] Exchange The Journal of Public Diplomacy was a magazine run by graduate students at Syracuse University, but it seems that stopped publishing, as the last issue is from 2014. 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 ST
|
Rodrigo Márquez LartigueDiplomat interested in the development of Consular and Public Diplomacies. Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|