While preparing for a new project, I came across a 2017 press bulletin of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark announcing the designation as the first-ever Tech ambassador as part of its new #TechPlomacy initiative. Mr. Casper Klynge, a Danish career ambassador, arrived in the summer of 2017 in Silicon Valley. Things were not as smooth as they could be, as it took him nine months to meet with a senior official of a tech giant only to have a campus tour and a bag full of company goodies instead.[i] In January 2020, the ambassador resigned for a post in Brussels working for Microsoft, a company that seems to better understand his role, according to Adam Satariano in his article The world´s first Ambassador to the tech industry as he frequently talked with the company´s president. [ii] In August 2020, the Danish Foreign Ministry appointed Anne Marie Engtoft as the new Tech ambassador.[iii] She is the youngest ever ambassador of Denmark. Why Tech companies? At first, it seems odd that it was specifically a Tech Ambassador, as there has never been Oil Ambassadors or Finance Ambassador from different countries. But the article “Big tech companies are so powerful that a Nation sent an Ambassador to them” explains very clearly why these tech mammoths[iv] are incredibly different from the rest of multinational corporations: “It isn’t just their sheer size and scale that place tech companies alongside nation-states. They are categorically different from the industrial corporations of previous eras. They are transnational entities that deal in data and information, more than physical products. This allows them to slip the bounds of national origins much easier than any other company. And both their structure and their form differ from those of their ancestors.”[v] Digital platforms are “infrastructure for markets, communication, and information dissemination… [and as such they] mediate between communities, they are able to set rules and regulations that govern the behavior of markets, publishers, people, politics and so on.”[vi] They also “govern the spaces they control. And by developing new technologies that are deployed as platforms, they can govern entirely new spaces before national governments are even aware that a new governor has emerged.” (ibid) So, these businesses are totally different from traditional ones, so Ambassador Klynge is correct in stating that “These companies have moved from being companies with commercial interests to actually becoming de facto foreign policy actors.”[vii] New duties. According to a report,[viii] the ambassador had some traditional duties of any high-ranking diplomat in charge of trade and investment in an embassy, a consulate or trade or Investment promotion office abroad. It means that among his responsibilities were the promotion of Danish export and foreign investment attraction. But the main objectives of the tech ambassador position are to establish a dialogue and create relationships, not only with the tech giants but think tanks, and universities, among others, and to relate information about the fast-changing technology that could have an impact on Denmark. “…Part of the job involves intelligence gathering to help his government design policies before companies roll out new technologies such as advanced artificial intelligence, facial recognition tools, new health care platforms or autonomous vehicles in Denmark.”[ix] These tasks are not constrained by a geographical district, like a regular embassy or consulate, as the office has a global mandate[x] that includes overseeing offices in New Delhi, Seoul, and Shanghai.[xi] Ambassador Klynge, in an interview, explained that “We had to build a new team, we had to establish our own policies, we had to find out how to penetrate the tech companies in a way [that] you can have a strategic political discussion.”[xii] New challenges. Understandably, some companies took a while to understand the tech ambassador´s role because there are not used to this type of international engagement. One definition of Diplomacy is a system of communications and norms, so a country knows precisely what are the duties and responsibilities of any ambassador of a foreign nation. And are traditions, such as granting immunity to the envoy, since the Greek city-states times. In the context of arranging meetings, in the “real” diplomatic world, high-ranking officials understand that they would have to meet with an ambassador, considering the basics of reciprocity. In the tech world, there is no such thing as reciprocity. Officials of most countries would have difficulties arranging a meeting with senior management of the tech giants, as most of them only meet at the highest level, e.g., heads of state and top ministers. This could be an impossibility for small nations, even for a highly regarded country such as Denmark. So, naming an ambassador to Silicon Valley makes a lot of sense, with global responsibilities. However, as mentioned, this innovative approach could cause some confusion. I imagine Mr. Klynge was recognized by the U.S. Department of State as the Danish Consul General in Palo Alto, California, where his office is located, or some sort of Special Envoy, as there cannot be another ambassador besides the one accredited to Washington DC. It would also be interesting to see how China, India, or other countries where he travels recognized him as ambassador, with all its privileges, including inviolability and immunity. As the excellent introductory essay of The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy explains, there have been many changes in the diplomacy of the 21st Century, but the States are still the leading players. Even with the massive increase of actors in the international arena, including companies, and the blending of borders, the States maintain their importance. Technology platforms are creating their own digital worlds, controlling most of the rules of engagement, establishing its governance, regardless of the users' nationality or location. No wonder there is a growing push for greater regulation of these new powerful international actors. Interestingly, while announcing the designation of a new tech ambassador, the Danish Foreign Minister recognized the need to adjust this initiative, explaining that it “require[s] a new strategy and a relaunch of the tech initiative. We [Danish MFA] simply need to produce a tech version 2.0 and attain a more goal-orientated Danish effort to encourage the tech giants to become good, ‘global community’ citizens.”[xiii] Innovation is essential, and a Tech ambassador could be a new form of diplomacy, particularly with the Tech giants that are not your ordinary multinational corporation such as Ford, Shell, or Bank of America. [i] Satariano, Adam, “The world´s first Ambassador to the tech industry”, New York Times, September 3, 2019. [ii] Kristensen, Carsten, “World´s First Tech Ambassador resigns”, Inside Scandinavian Business, January 20, 2020. [iii] W., Christian, “Denmark to get new tech ambassador”, CPH Post, August 24, 2020. [iv] The five U.S. tech giants are Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. To learn about their economic power and competitive edge, see Crescioli, Tommaso, “Tech Giants and Competition: A Political Economy Perspective”, E-International Relations, October 27, 2020. [v] Blumenthal, Paul, “Big tech companies are so powerful that a Nation sent an Ambassador to them”, Huffington Post, June 23, 2018. [vi] Blumenthal, Paul, ibid. [vii] Satariano, Adam, ibid. [viii] Stokel-Walker, Christopher, “The First Silicon Valley ambassador is out to make nice with tech giants”, Wired, November 6, 2017. [ix] Blumenthal, Paul, ibid. [x] Denmark names first ever tech ambassador, Denmark MFA, 2017. [xi] Sanchez, Alejandro W., “The rise of the Tech Ambassador”, Diplomatic Courier, March 23, 2018. [xii] Johnson, Khari, “Tech giants, small countries, and the future of techplomacy”, Venture Beat, October 8, 2019. [xiii] W. Christian, ibid. 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
Opening note: I borrowed the idea of seen Mexico´s image from a broken mirror from Guillermo Máynez Gil´s article titled “El espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros.”[i] I like the reference to a funhouse mirror because it reflects a person’s image but in a distorted way. So, the person can be identified but is presented in a very different way. In this post, I will argue that Mexico’s image abroad is distorted, like a reflection in a funhouse mirror, as a result of three circumstances: certain cultural expressions; U.S. influence in broadcasting to the world their own version of Mexico, and lack of policies and programs to projects its image overseas. Introduction. Every number of years, there is always a discussion about the need to improve Mexico´s image abroad, because according to Mexicans, it is skewed and does not reflect the country’s reality. As the reader saw in my post about these issues, a country´s image and reputation overseas is critical to its prosperity. Simon Anholt, creator of the terms Nation-brand, Competitive Identity, and the Good Country indicates that every country competes to get “a share of the world´s consumption and tourism, to attract investors, students, and business person, also to gain the respect of other governments, the international media and the people of other countries.”[ii] In this post, I will talk about Mexico´s image so the reader can better understand the different elements that influence how the country is perceived overseas and why it might have a bad international image. It is interesting to see that different authors such as Leonardo Curzio, Simon Anholt, Jaime Díaz, and Mónica Pérez, agree that there is a large gap between Mexico´s reality and the perceptions that most of the world has about the country, which in general is not favorable, with a few exceptions, mainly in the Americas. Anholt mentions that Mexico´s negative perception is so strong that it weighs down some of its best attributes, such as its cultural heritage and natural beauty. According to the 2010 Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brand Index, most of the persons surveyed in 20 nations see the country as less beautiful than Finland. It does not have more cultural heritage than Scotland, and it is less attractive as a tourist destination than Belgium.[iii] This is how much weight the perception and reputation can affect the country´s greatest attributes. Hence, the reputation of a country abroad is very relevant for its development and wellbeing. I divided this post into four sections: 1. Cultural expressions that are not-so-great-for-a-positive international reputation. 2. The consequences of somebody else projecting your country’s image. 3. Mexico´s lack of policies and tools to broadcast its own image abroad. 4. Final thoughts. But before moving on, let´s be honest. Mexico´s image and reputation outside Latin America are not good, and even quite bad, particularly amongst the U.S. public. Some of the most popular brand index positions Mexico in the bottom half, with few exceptions:
And in some, such as the Soft Power30, Mexico does not even make the list. 1. Cultural expressions that are not-so-great-for-a-positive international reputation. As mentioned before, Mexico´s image abroad is weak; however, there is a need to recognize that the international media is not to blame why foreign audiences have a “distorted” perception of Mexico that not corresponds to its reality as a G20 nation. Additionally, it is necessary to acknowledge that part of the problem is that Mexico has some cultural traits that probably are not conducive to be perceived in an upbeat fashion. Dr. Leonardo Curzio, a scholar that I much admire, in the article “La imagen de México”[v] explains in detail some of these cultural expressions that could hinder the country´s image abroad. Dr. Curzio ascertains that one of the best ways to reach out to foreign audiences is the country´s artistic and cultural output, especially through music. He pinpoints that Mexico´s traditional music is melancholic, nostalgic, or tragic.[vi] Thus, “Mexico has an image of a country that knows how to lament masterly, and that is what [Mexico] projects to the world.”[vii] Besides, Dr. Curzio also details that Mexico´s most famous monuments are several pyramids, not brand new buildings or infrastructure projects.[viii] Not even the Jumex and Soumaya museums' extraordinary designs or the award-winning and innovative Torre Reforma can compete with one of the new seven wonders of the world: the Mayan site in Chichén Itza, or the monumental city of Teotihuacán. Another cultural trait that might hold back the best of Mexico´s reputation, Curzio thinks, is that its national heroes are linked to tumultuous times. Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa are the country´s leaders with the most prominent international projection.[ix] Besides, Mexico´s great heroes are not institution-builders but liberators that can starts movement but struggle to finish them.[x] Dr. Curzio indicates that in the construction of the image of Mexico, stability is overshadowed by turbulence. Also, Mexico broadcasts a picture of an unjust country with sporadic revolutionary violence.[xi] Curzio adds that “the violence associated with [Mexico´s] history is complemented by [its] artistic expressions, which a lot of them have a systematic and persistent death cult.”[xii] He exemplifies this by citing José Guadalupe Posada or Frida Kahlo’s works, present in all tourist stores and museums of Mexico. For a current example, the reader can participate in a virtual tour of the exhibition “La Muerte en la Historia de México” (The death in Mexico´s history) at the Museo Nacional de la Muerte, which I did not it existed in Aguascalientes until now. Every day the celebration of the “Day of the dead,” a UNESCO´s Intangible Cultural Heritage, is gaining popularity abroad, including the opening scene of James Bond´s movie Spectre or the award-winning Disney movie “Coco.” Besides, for a very long time, Mexican Cultural Diplomacy has focused on the exhibition of our significant pre-hispanic cultural heritage and our muralist movement. Until recently, alive Mexican artists like Gabriel Orozco or Damián Ortega have international recognition beyond the artistic circles. In conclusion, while strong, Mexico has some cultural expressions that do not help portray an image of a modern and innovative nation. Some of these expressions are well-known overseas and tend to eclipse other attributes that could be more attractive or perceived more positively by foreign publics. 2. The consequences of somebody else projecting your country’s image. In a very stimulating article titled “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de Mexico,”[xiii] Simon Anholt elucidates why Mexico has such a wide gap between its reality and how the world perceives it. He identifies as one fundamental issue that Mexico´s image abroad has partially been shaped, not by its own work but through U.S. lenses. I think it is troublesome for two reasons: a) The U.S. national identity had partially developed in contrast to Mexico, even before the two nations were created: WASP tradition vs. contra-reformation Catholic and indigenous heritage. Therefore, for the U.S., Mexico and its population have always represented the “other.” This perception is compounded by millions of Mexicans living north of the border, mostly from rural areas and with little education. So there is an intrinsic confrontation between the two, and as Leonardo Curzio explains, Mexico has not been able to transform what unites the two countries into a regional identity.[xiv] Maybe this could be the main reason. b) U.S. broadcast and entertainment industries have dominated the world airwaves and now the internet. So, the images of Mexico portrayed by these companies are not neutral and have an underlying intent related to showcasing its “otherness” to the U.S. public. Additionally, in specific periods, there were propaganda campaigns organized by U.S authorities, media, and broadcasting businesses to harm Mexico´s image, such as during its revolution and in the intra-wars years. A weak neighbor is better than a strong one. Dr. Curzio indicates that “in the construction of mutual images between Mexico and the United States, the former historically has received the worse part.”[xv] So, Mexico has a quite complicated situation as a neighbor of the U.S, which has the strongest voice in the world. Now I understand why a citizen of Africa or Asia thinks that “Taco Bell” is authentic Mexican cuisine, the country is made up only of drylands and deserts, or that its population is lazy. These are the images that the U.S. entertainment industry has transmitted over and over to everybody. An example of Mexico being portrayed by the U.S. entertainment industry is the Disney movie “Coco,” created by a U.S. citizen. Another one is Cirque du Soleil´s Luzia spectacle.[xvi] So, even as beautiful as they are, the images they project of Mexico are like a funhouse mirror. To make matters worse, Mexico, with a few exceptions, has not been able to implement a long-term communications strategy to counterbalance U.S. images of the country, as the reader will see in the next section. Simon Anholt expresses surprise by the U.S and Canada’s opinion of Mexico as one of the world’s pariahs. He describes this perception as contempt by the two populations with substantial economic, social, cultural, and political connections.[xvii] He speculates that a reevaluation of Mexico´s image by the U.S. population is only possible if the country obtains tangible benefits of its position in the world, similar to what happened with Ireland in the case of Great Britain.[xviii] 3. Mexico´s lack of policies and tools to broadcast its own image overseas. Even though the international media portraits Mexico as a violent, traditional country, there has been a lack of serious efforts to change this situation. As the reader will learn, there were some but very limited. Simon Anholt and Leonardo Curzio coincide that Mexico needs to have a policy to really affect its reputation. However, by looking at the article published by coordinators of Mexico´s Nation-Brand project from 2010 to 2012,[xix] it seems that the effort was mainly focused on tourism, and its measurements were limited to marketing “impacts” rather than as a decisive step forward toward a better reputation. Dr. Curzio, in his seminal book Orgullo y Prejuicios: Reputación e imagen de México identifies three major problems of Mexico´s image:
As a solution to these challenges, Curzio suggests the need for developing three elements: substance, narrative, and appropriate communications channels.[xxiii] He indicates that except for the 1968 Olympic Games[xxiv] and NAFTA´s promotion in 1993, [xxv] the country has not developed a systematic activity to show contents that defy the stereotypes defined by the entertainment industry. Besides, it has not invested the necessary time, money, and talent to create TV and movie characters that portray a Mexican as loyal and trustworthy.[xxvi] Similarly, Anholt indicates that Mexico´s relative silence after NAFTA’s approval has not helped compensate for its image´s weakness. Neither the insufficient investments in tourism, trade and investment promotion as well as in cultural diplomacy in proportion to its monumental cultural heritage.[xxvii] The country does not have an international broadcasting program, where it can present its views to the world in addition to its cultural traditions and its modern side. Dr. Curzio calls these “appropriate channels of communication.” However, he indicates that the targeted audience has to be defined before identifying these communication conduits. [xxviii] Anholt indicates that the lack of institutions that assist in promoting Mexico's image, such as international cultural institutes or public diplomacy networks, could be an advantage because it is more difficult to change organizations that already exist than establishing new from scratch.[xxix] Curzio indicates that it is a paradox that the country has some giant entertainment companies with vast outreach, such as Televisa; however, the country does not have any channel to projects its image. And it also lacks in the production of content that could be interesting for foreign audiences.[xxx] On the bright side, as Guillermo Máynez Gil discovers in his article “El espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros.”[xxxi] Mexico is like a broken mirror, and each fractured piece portraits a different image according to the viewer’s perspective. Therefore, for an epicurean, Mexico is a wildly delicious country to feast on; for biologists, anthropologists, and archeologists, the nation is paradise and refuge for U.S and Canadian snowbirds.[xxxii] Máynez Gil explains that the number of foreigners living in Mexico is an example of its attractiveness, considering the cost of living and quality.[xxxiii] However, to be honest, comparatively with other nations, the number of foreigners living in Mexico is low. 4. Final thoughts. So if we combined Mexico´s not-so-great-for-a-good-reputation cultural expressions, and a very solid but outdated image abroad, together with the U.S broadcast of its perception of Mexico and lack of a long-term strategy, it does not surprise the low esteem that the country has abroad, particularly beyond the Americas. As seen in this post, Mexico´s image has some challenges that need to be overcome to be regarded by the world´s population as a positive and strong nation. It has to transform the broken funhouse mirror into a regular one, so it is appreciated as it really is. Simon Anholt´s idea of the Good Country, or how countries' images are related to what the nation contributes for the wellbeing of the planet, not just its citizens, could be a way forward for Mexico to change its reputation overseas. [i] Máynez Gil, Guillermo, “El espejo roto: percepción de México entre los extranjeros” in Este País, №261, January 2013, pp. 8–12 [ii] Anholt, Simon, “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, p. 111 [iii] Anholt, Simon, 2012, p. 118. [iv] This might seem old or outdated, but was the last issue of its type and is relevant because the countries are ranked “based on how are described in major media.” East West Global Index 200, 2011. It was also a year that was not great for Mexico in global news. [v] Curzio, Leonardo, “La imagen de México” in La Política Exterior de México: Metas y obstáculos, Guadalupe González G and Olga Pellicer (coords.), México, Siglo XXI Editores, 2013, pp. 27–50. [vi] Curzio, 2013, p. 36 [vii] Ibid, 2013, p. 36. [viii] Ibid, 2013, p. 37. [ix] Ibid, 2013, p. 37. [x] Ibid. 2013, p. 38. [xi] Ibid, 2013, p. 38. [xii] Ibid, 2013, p. 38. [xiii] Anholt, Simon, “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, pp. 109–130. [xiv] Curzio, Leonardo, Orgullo y Prejuicios: Reputación e imagen de México, México, UNAM-CISEN Miguel Ángel Porrúa, 2016, p. 23–25. [xv] Curzio, 2016, p. 23. Dr. Curzio reaches this conclusion after reviewing the following study: Terrazas y Basante, Marcela, Gurza Lavalle, Gerardo, de los Ríos, Patricia, Riguzzi, Paolo. Las relaciones México — Estados Unidos 1756–2010, 2 vols. Mexico, Insitutio de Investigaciones Históricas, CISEN-UNAM, SRE, 2012. [xvi] Cirque du Soleil is a Canadian company, with very strong ties to the U.S. For a brief description of Luzia as conduit of Mexico´s image, see Carrera, Felipe, “”Luzia,” a Creative and Innovative Cultural Intervention”, Center for Public Diplomacy Blog, October 8, 2018. Also see, Hernández, Daniel,·”´Luzia´is Cirque de Soleil´s valentine to Mexico”, The Frame, January 31, 2018, and “Beyond Tacos and Burritos: How Circus show and Movie Coco influence the country image of Mexico”, Place Brand Observer, February 15, 2018. [xvii] Anholt, 2012, p. 119. [xviii] Anholt, 2012, p. 126. [xix] Díaz, Jaime and Pérez, Mónica “Marca México: una estrategia para reducir la brecha entre la percepción y la realidad” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, pp. 169–186. [xx] Curzio, 2016, p. 15. [xxi] Curzio, 2016, p. 16. [xxii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxiii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxiv] In recent years, there has been new research about the cultural diplomacy effort during the Olympics Games, also known as Cultural Olympics. See, Castañeda, Luis M., Spectacular Mexico: Design, propaganda and the 1968 Olympics, 2014; Witherspoon, Kevin, Before the Eyes of the World: Mexico and the 1968 Olympic Games, 2014; and México: la Olimpiada Cultural. [xxv] To learn more about Mexico´s public diplomacy initiatives regarding the approval of NAFTA see, Villanueva, César, Representing Cultural Diplomacy: Soft Power, Cosmopolitan Constructivism and Nation Branding in Mexico and Sweden, Sweden, 2007; Villanueva, César, “Cooperación y diplomacia cultural: experiencias y travesías. Entrevista al embajador Jorge Alberto Lozoya” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №85, February 2009, pp. 253–267; and Starr, Pamela K., “Mexican Public Diplomacy: Hobbled by History, Interdependence and Asymmetric Power” in Public Diplomacy Magazine, №2, Summer 2009, pp. 49–53. [xxvi] Curzio, 2016, 25. [xxvii] Anholt, 2012, p. 124–125. [xxviii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxix] Anholt, 2012, p. 128. [xxx] Curzio, 2016, p. 16–17. [xxxi] Máynez Gil, Guillermo, “El espejo roto: percepción de México entre los extranjeros” in Este País, №261, January 2013, pp. 8–12 [xxxii] Máynez Gil, 2013, p. 10. [xxxiii] Máynez Gil, 2013, p. 11–12. 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. “Staying at the forefront: The challenge of the consulates of Mexico in the United States,” written by Rafael Laveaga Rendón, is the last chapter that I will review of the book La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en Tiempos de Trump. It has been fascinating to learn about the many aspects of Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy presented by highly regarded Mexican Diplomats. I hope it was useful for you too. Laveaga Rendón starts his essay by stating that it reflects how Mexican consulates work today and how they should continue to operate in the future. He affirms that the chapter´s main objective is to promote a debate about improving and maintaining a top-of-the-line consular network.[i] Laveaga Rendón divides his essay into six parts: 1. The evolution of the Mexican consular network in the U.S. 2. Deliberations about updating or keeping the current consular configuration. 3. Establishment of political and economic departments in key consulates. 4. Consular offices´ budget administration. 5. Outreach to the Mexican Diaspora. 6. Final thoughts.[ii] 1. The evolution of the Mexican consular network in the U.S. In this section, Laveaga Rendón briefly describes the expansion of the Mexican consular network in the U.S., starting with the Consulate in New Orleans in 1823 all the way to the end of the 20th century. From an initial focus on commercial issues, consular offices slowly prioritized assistance to its nationals in the country.[iii] He explains that in the last century, Mexico had to expand its consular network due to the U.S. growing demand for Mexican workers, the Mexican community’s proliferation, and U.S. immigration policies' evolution.[iv] The negotiation and approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement was a milestone for Mexico´s consular network. In addition to offering traditional services, the consulates have to reach out to politicians, businesspersons, and the general population to promote the trade agreement so that Congress could approve it.[v] Other challenges were the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the hardening of immigration policies at the national, state, and local levels, in addition to growing xenophobic and discriminatory attitudes.[vi] Mexico´s consular network response was to expand and improve the resources offered to the Mexican community north of the border. It developed and modernized the Consular ID card program[vii] and established the Programa de Asistencia Jurídica a Personas Mexicanas a través de Asesorías Legales Externas en los Estados Unidos de América (Legal Assistant program or PALE).[viii] 2. Deliberations about updating or keeping the current consular configuration. In this section, Laveaga Rendón focuses on the need to evaluate with objective criteria the adjustments that the consular network requires. As examples, he offers the closing of the Consulate of Mexico in Anchorage, Alaska (in Nov 2015), and the decision not to open one in Hawaii, after a detailed evaluation.[ix] He highlights the Mobile Consulate program, a consular best practice, and suggests that it could be expanded to optimize scarce resources as part of the consulate network review.[x] Laveaga Rendón proposes four principles that could be used to decide opening, closing, or relocating a consulate: a) Size of the Mexican community in the consular district. b) Vulnerabilities of Mexican, including their location far from consular offices or in areas with anti-immigrant policies. c) The region´s political, economic, and cultural relevance for Mexico. d) The consulate´s territorial coverage, directly or via Mobile Consulates.[xi] 3. Establishment of political and economic departments in key consulates. Laveaga Rendon complains that very few consulates have officers exclusively dedicated to political issues and economic promotion, which he thinks is a problem. He asserts to be successful, besides providing information, the consuls in charge of political affairs and economic promotion require to build a network of contacts. He offers as an example the border consulates that are now working on infrastructure issues and political engagement due to the reduction in consular protection cases.[xii] The Mexican diplomat proposes identifying every consulate´s specific relevance to determine personnel’s assignment to cover the political and economic promotion departments. Mexico needs to take advantage of its consular network to generate strategic information[xiii], similar to Ambassador Reyna Torres Mendivil´s suggestion made in her chapter of the book. You can read the review here. 4. Consular offices´ budget administration. Laveaga Rendón explains the extraordinary resources assigned to the consular network in 2017 as part of the FAMEU strategy and some of its results. However, he identified a few problems, such as: -Not being flexible enough so that each consulate could administrate it according to the local circumstances. -The use of funds for only one year, even though the anti-immigrant policies continued.[xiv] As a solution, he proposes that Mexico´s Treasury Department issues a budget rules exception that applies to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, considering the particular situation of the consulates in the Unites. States. Additionally, he comes up with a significant number of questions regarding budget issues of the different programs and suggests to review to improve its efficiency and effectiveness.[xv] 5. Outreach to the Mexican Diaspora. Laveaga Rendón writes that “a constant challenge for Mexico’s consulates is to maintain an open and frank communication with its Diaspora”[xvi]. The Mexican community in the U.S. is heterogeneous; therefore, the consulates have to have a differentiated approach according to the region, the age groups, and gender, for example. He briefly mentions the Red Global MX, a program of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad for high-skill Mexicans overseas.[xvii] Additionally, the Mexican diplomat explains that the expansion of the responsibilities of the Institute has led to a dispersion of its goals, thus weakening its performance. He proposes to promote the use of Spanish as a critical community outreach activity.[xviii] He emphasizes that Mexico needs to develop a comprehensive Public Diplomacy strategy to gain the community’s trust and have a real connection with it.[xix] 6. Final thoughts. Laveaga Rendón declares that Mexico has a vanguard consular network, unique in the whole world resulting from: i) Its ample presence across the U.S. with 50 offices, ii) The high number of services that provide, iii) Its advanced processes, iv) Variety of duties that performs.[xx] He also states that Mexico´s assistance to its national overseas is also in the forefront, with an extensive network of legal services providers, partnerships with different organizations, and financial resources for vulnerable Mexicans. It also has a sophisticated administrative structure.[xxi] Besides, the consulates perform a significant representation work because they maintain communication with U.S. political and economic authorities at all levels. Our best consuls become local public figures with continuous TV and Radio presence, and they are the specialists of issues related to Mexico.[xxii] Laveaga Rendón closes the chapter by recognizing Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy successes and strengths. He supports the need to evaluate its programs to improve the country´s foreign policy decision-making process. Besides, he concludes by reiterating the need to define clear criteria to open a consular office, evaluate its activities, establish political and economic promotion offices at key consulates, grant a budget-program exception, and develop differentiated programs to facilitate its contacts with the Mexican Diaspora.[xxiii] Why is it relevant to read? Similar to the chapter of Ambassador José Octavio Tripp, Rafael Laveaga Rendón focuses his essay on the challenges Mexico faces to maintain one of the world´s best Consular Diplomacies. He highlights one of the more successful programs, the Mobile Consulate, that expanded into four different types, which allows the consular network to reach out to communities far away from the consulate’s office. Seeking to be close to its community is one of the main characteristics of Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy. I agree with Laveaga Rendón´s proposal of assigning personnel that exclusively focuses on political issues and economic promotion, depending on the consulate´s vocation. Having an in-depth knowledge of the local political situation could benefit Mexico´s foreign policy. It is an untapped resource that needs to be fully exploited. The same should happen in regards to economic promotion activities. Laveaga Rendón emphasizes that Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy is one of the best. However, to prove that it is, there is a need to do a comparative study. It could be fascinating to identify the similarities and differences of several countries regarding consular affairs. [i] Laveaga Rendón, Rafael, “Mantenerse a la vanguardia: Desafío para los consulados de México en Estados Unidos” in La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en Tiempos de Trump, 2018, p. 231. [ii] Ibid. p. 232. [iii] Ibid. p. 232–234. [iv] Ibid. p. 233. [v] Ibid. p. 233. [vi] Ibid. p. 233–234. [vii] This program existed since the early 1870s and is contemplated in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Besides the registration, the consulates issued a card to the person that included the local address. In 2002, Mexico started issuing a new card with enhanced security measures that were useful for local authorities and banks. For more information, see Bruno, Andorra, and Storrs, K. Larry, “Consular Identification Cards: Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation”, Congressional Research Services, updated May 26, 2005. [viii] Ibid. p. 234. [ix] Ibid. p. 234–238. [x] Ibid. p. 238. [xi] Ibid. p. 238. [xii] Ibid. p. 238–240. [xiii] Ibid. p. 241. [xiv] Ibid. p. 242. [xv] Ibid. p. 243. [xvi] Ibid. p. 245. [xvii] Ibid. p. 245. [xviii] Ibid. p. 246–247. [xix] Ibid. p. 247–248. [xx] Ibid. p. 248. [xxi] Ibid. p. 249. [xxii] Ibid. p. 249. [xxiii] Ibid. p. 250. 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. |
Rodrigo Márquez LartigueDiplomat interested in the development of Consular and Public Diplomacies. Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|