Today is the third anniversary of my blog. As I mentioned in the second-anniversary blog post, it has been a roller-coaster ride with tremendous ups and a few downs.
 
Three years does not seem a lot of time, but many things have changed, for better or worse. I started the blog in September 2020, when the world was closed due to the pandemic. However, significant efforts were made to find a vaccine, thus allowing the world to reopen slowly, even after a series of surges generated by new variants of the virus.
 
For a few years, the world, especially the great powers, has slowly turned economic, financial, data, and people exchanges into geopolitical weapons. To learn more, check out the great work The Power Atlas: Seven battlegrounds of a networked world. Some scholars state that a new era of deglobalization is moving forward as more countries build barriers to the free flow of trade, data, services, and people. The securitization of the economy, particularly semiconductors, critical minerals, and digital technology, is impacting the whole planet.
 
The disruption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the exponential race to launch the system that could be the winner has turned the world upside down. There is not a day when a new large language model is not released that supposedly will outperform all others. Students and teachers struggle to find the right approach to using AI, while many workers feel that machine learning will take their jobs and livelihoods. Even though many have asked to pause the development of AI, the race is growing exponentially while governments, societies, and people are trying to make sense of it and find the best approaches to regulate it.
 
An interesting turn is the great concern of AI´s ethics. I clearly understand the worries about making AI work ethically. However, that level of concern about ethical behavior is not shown when talking about humans, governments, and organizations. Why do we not ask for ethical regulations of politicians and governments? Is fighting discrimination in the real world easier than in the digital realm?
 
Three years ago, zoom diplomacy, vaccine diplomacy, and AI diplomacy were brand new terms. Today, even after the reopening of the world, most of the meetings worldwide are being held online, saving money and time but missing the human connection. Digital nomads have turned the globe into their offices, and many people have yet to return, if they ever do, to an office building.
 
Nowadays, diplomacy might be living its fifth evolutionary tipping point, with the confrontation between traditional views of sovereignty and innovative forms of global governance (Neumann, 2020). The big problem is that time is running out, particularly regarding climate change. Just read the headlines this summer regarding the scorching temperatures worldwide.
 
In terms of public diplomacy, the changes in the last years have been difficult to adjust. The transformation of Twitter into something else impacts the digital strategies of many countries, especially for basic accounts. Closing the door of data for research purposes is making it more challenging to listen and engage with audiences. The arrival of deep fakes, like Pope Francis wearing a puffer white jacket, is affecting the credibility of social media, reducing opportunities for governments to engage with foreign audiences. Disinformation is breaking havoc and helping radical views of people, politicians, and governments, making it more difficult to find common ground and collaborations.
 
Regarding consular diplomacy, the pandemic pushed it into the forefront of every ministry of foreign affairs. Foreign ministers and public servants at home, ambassadors, diplomats, and consular officers overseas all work together to help stranded citizens abroad while countries close their borders. Many MFAs are still struggling to meet the demand for documentary services, as the backlog of visas, passports, and other consular documents has not been solved. 
 
Lately, there has been a growing amount of research on consular diplomacy, but the field has not yet matured. Many studies have identified consular services as a prime target for using AI systems to manage them.
 
Despite the challenges that humanity confronts today, blogging has been a great experience that has opened the door to things I would not have thought of. Here are some of the milestones that I have achieved in the last three years of having my blog: 

• Publishing my article Beyond Traditional Boundaries: The Origins and Features of the Public-Consular Diplomacy of Mexico in the Journal of Public Diplomacy.  
• Teaching has been an extraordinary experience, full of challenges and rewards.
• Connecting with scholars and practitioners from around the world, some of whom I now call friends, has been extremely rewarding, allowing me to expand my ideas. 
• Writing has not been easy, especially if you do it in another language, but it has pushed me to think deeply about the influence of languages in the world, diplomacy, and my own life. I even got Writer´s block!
• Learning has been amazing, from pedagogical techniques to the intricacies of academic publishing, blogging, SEO strategies, and lately, everything about AI.
• Reading a substantial number of articles, books, studies, blogs, and even tweets to write about current events and apply new teaching pedagogies. 
• Experimenting with new artificial intelligence applications. See below for one example. 
• Participating and presenting at various international conventions. 
• Sharing ideas, bibliography, resources, and some of Mexico´s key experiences.

 
I am optimistic that the next three years will be better than the last, maybe just because we are reaching a breaking point. But also because people worldwide want a better future for themselves and their children.
 
Neumann, I. B (2020). Diplomatic tense: A social evolutionary perspective on diplomacy. Manchester Univesity Press.
 
Experimenting with AI 
​
Below is a list created by generative AI about the significant milestones of diplomacy in the last three years. Do you agree with the results?
 
Prompt: You are a professor of diplomatic studies. Identify the major changes in the practice of diplomacy that have occurred since January 2020, giving a brief description and using bullets. Please be specific and concise.
 
Bing.chat (creative mode) response:
Some of the major changes in the practice of diplomacy that have occurred since January 2020 are:

• The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and its global impact, which challenged the multilateral cooperation and coordination, as well as the health and humanitarian response of the UN and other international organizations.
• The rise of tensions and conflicts in various regions, such as the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, which required diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation and promote dialogue and peace. Some examples are the Iran nuclear deal, the Libya civil war, the Ethiopia-Eritrea border dispute, and the India-China border standoff.
• The shift in the U.S. foreign policy under the Biden administration, which signaled a return to multilateralism and engagement with allies and partners, as well as a renewed commitment to human rights, democracy, and climate action.
• The emergence of new issues and challenges that require global cooperation and innovation, such as cyber security, digital diplomacy, artificial intelligence, and space exploration.

 
Bard by Google: 
Sure, here are the major changes in the practice of diplomacy that have occurred since January 2020:

• The rise of virtual diplomacy: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced diplomats to conduct much of their work online, through video conferencing and other virtual platforms. This has led to a new normal for diplomacy, with many experts predicting that virtual diplomacy will continue to be an important tool even after the pandemic is over.
• The increasing importance of soft power: In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries have turned to soft power, such as cultural diplomacy and educational exchanges, to maintain their influence abroad. This is because soft power is seen as a more effective way to build relationships and cooperation in the long term.
• The growing role of non-state actors: Non-state actors, such as international organizations, businesses, and civil society groups, are playing an increasingly important role in diplomacy. This is because they often have more expertise and resources than governments, and they can be more nimble and flexible in responding to challenges.
• The need for more inclusive diplomacy: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for more inclusive diplomacy that takes into account the needs and concerns of all stakeholders. This includes women, youth, and marginalized groups.
• The challenges of cyber diplomacy: The rise of cyberwarfare and other forms of cyber threats has created new challenges for diplomacy. Governments are now grappling with how to deter and respond to these threats in a way that does not escalate tensions.

These are just some of the major changes that have occurred in the practice of diplomacy since January 2020. It remains to be seen how these changes will shape diplomacy in the years to come
 
Perplexity
Major changes in the practice of diplomacy since January 2020 include:

• Diplomacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: The pandemic has affected the way diplomacy is conducted, with many meetings and negotiations taking place virtually
• Diplomatic transformation: The Trump administration's attacks on U.S. diplomacy and decades of neglect have led to a need for a renewal of diplomatic capacity, with a focus on reinventing diplomacy for a new era 
• U.S.-China relations: The relationship between the U.S. and China has become increasingly tense, with China asserting itself more aggressively and the U.S. taking a more confrontational approach
• Emerging issues in economic diplomacy: Economic diplomacy has become more important, with countries using development aid, multilateral institutions, economic sanctions, and trade barriers to achieve their goals

 
Overall, the changing nature of diplomacy in the 21st century requires sustained attention and adaptation to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.


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.

 UPDATED JULY 2023

When I started the blog, I did not know a lot of articles and studies about consular diplomacy. I have compiled some resources about the subject in the last two years. The focus is on consular activities related to diplomacy and foreign policy, with a Mexican tilt. Below are some of the works I have identified, which I will update every few months.
 
This list is in alphabetical order but incomplete, and I would greatly appreciate any suggestions. Please feel free to send them in the comments section below or via email. 
 
I apologize for not using any reference-management software, but I do not know how to integrate it into the blog. 
 
July 2023 update:

BOOK CHAPTERS. 
 
Arredondo, R. (2023). Las Relaciones Consulares. In Ricardo Arredondo, Diplomacia. Teoría y Práctica, (pp. 315-374). Aranzadi.
 
Celorio, M. (2018). El papel de la diplomacia consular en el contexto transfronterizo: el caso de la CaliBaja. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 271-285). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Díaz de León, F. J. & Peláez Millán, V. (2018). La gestión consular integral mexicana en Estados Unidos. Su evolución al servicio de la diáspora y sus objetivos estratégicos. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 125-152). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
González Gutiérrez, C. & Schumacher, M. E. (1998). La cooperación Internacional de México con los mexicano-americanos en Estados Unidos: El caso del Programa para las Comunidades Mexicanas en el Extranjero. In Olga Pellicer & Rafael Fernández de Castro (coords.), México y Estados Unidos: Las rutas de la cooperación, (p- 1-23). Instituto Matías Romero and ITAM. 
 
Fernández, A. M. (2011). Consular Affairs in an Integrated Europe. In Jan Melissen and Ana Mar Fernández, Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 97-114). Martinus Nijhoff. 
 
Fernández Pasarín, A. M. (2015). Towards an EU Consular Policy. In David Spence and Josef Bátora (eds.), The European External Action Service: European Diplomacy Post-Westphalia, (pp. 356-369). Palgrave Macmillan. 
 
García y Griego, M. & Verea Campos, M. (1998). Colaboración sin concordancia: La migración en la nueva agenda bilateral México-Estados Unidos. In Mónica Verea Campos, Rafael Fernández de Castro & Sidney Wintraub (coords.), Nueva Agenda Bilateral en la Relación México-Estados Unidos, (pp. 107-134). Fondo de Cultura Económica 
 
Hernández Joseph, D. (2018). Lecciones de la protección consular para la diplomacia consular. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 91-108). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Mendoza Sánchez, J. C. (2018). La diplomacia consular ante la demografía y la sociedad de Estados Unidos en el siglo XXI. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 153-183). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Tripp, J. O. (2018). La diplomacia consular mexicana y los riesgos de la hidrocefalia administrativa. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 217-229). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
JOURNAL ARTICLES
 
Chabat, J. (1987). Algunas reflexiones en torno al papel de los consulados en la actual coyuntura. Carta de Política Exterior Mexicana, 7(2).
 
Fernández, A. M. (2008). Consular Affairs in the EU: Visa Policy as a Catalyst for Integration? The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 3(1), p. 21-35.
https://doi.org/10.1163/187119008X266164
 
Fernández, A. M. (2009). Local consular cooperation: Administrating EU internal security abroad. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(4), p. 591-606.
 
Fernández Pasarín, A. M. (2010). La dimension externa del Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia: el caso de la cooperación consular local. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, núm. 91, p. 87-104. OPEN ACCESS (In Spanish). 
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (1998). Mexicans in the United States: An Incipient Diaspora. Voices of Mexico (43). OPEN ACCESS.
 
Maftel, J. (2020). Application of the Principle of Mutual Consent in Consular Relations between States. Acta Universitatis Danubius, 16(2), p. 88-105. OPEN ACCESS.
 
Melissen, J. (2020). Consular diplomacy's first challenge: Communicating assistance to nationals abroad. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 7(2), p. 217-228. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.298  OPEN ACCESS.
 
Muro Ruiz, E. (2012). La diplomacia federativa de los gobiernos locales y los consulados mexicanos en Estados Unidos de América, en un multiculturalismo latino. Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de México, 60(254), p. 29-56. https://doi.org/10.22201/fder.24488933e.2010.254.30192
 
Potter, P. (1926). The Future of the Consular Office. American Political Science Review, 20(2), p. 284-298. 
 
Puente, J.I. (1930, January). The Nature of the Consular Establishment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 78, p. 321-345. OPEN ACCESS.
 
Romero Vara, L., Alfaro Muirhead, A.C., Hudson Frías, E., & Aguirre Azócar, D. (2021). Digital Diplomacy and COVID-19: An Exploratory Approximation towards Interaction and Consular Assistance on Twitter. Comunicación y Sociedad, e7960. https://doi.org/10.32870/cys.v2021.7960. OPEN ACCESS.
 
Saliceti, A. I. (2011). The Protection of EU Citizens Abroad: Accountability, Rule of Law, Role of Consular and Diplomatic Services. European Public Law, 17(1), pp. 91-109. 
 
Schiavon, J. (2015). Consular Protection as State Policy to Protect Mexican and Central American Migrants. Central America-North America Migration Dialogue (CANAMID) Policy Brief #7.
 
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS 
 
Acuerdo Interinstitucional entre los Ministerios de Relaciones Exteriores de los Estados Parte de la Alianza del Pacífico pare el Establecimiento de Medidas de Cooperación Consular en Materia de Asistencia Consular. (2014, February 10). (In Spanish).
 
Agreement on Consular Assistance and Co-Operation between the Government of the Republic of Latvia, the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. (2019, December 6). 
 
Instituto Matías Romero (2018, October). Mexico and California’s Strategic Relationship: True Solidarity in Times of Adversity. Foreign Policy Brief 15. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. 
 
Mendoza Yescas, J. & Sotres Brito, X. (2022, August). Acceptance of High-Security Consular Identification Card in Arizona: An Example of Consular Diplomacy. Foreign Policy Brief 21. Instituto Matías Romero. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores.
 

 BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST (04/23)
 
BOOKS:
 
Bada, X. & Gleeson, S. (eds.). (2019). Accountability Across Borders: Migrant Rights in North America. The University of Texas Press. 
 
Bada, X. & Gleeson, S. (2023). Scaling Migrant Worker Rights: How Advocates Collaborate and Contest State Power. The University of California Press. Especially chapter two: The Mexican Consular Network as an Advocacy Institution. OPEN ACCESS.

Berridge, G.R. (2022). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. 6th edition. Palgrave Macmillan and the DiploFoundation. 
 
Carrigan, W.D. and Webb, C. (2013). Forgotten Dead: Mob violence against Mexicans in the United States, 1848-1928. Oxford University Press. 
 
Casey, C. A. (2020). Nationals Abroad Globalization, Individual Rights, and the Making of Modern International Law. Cambridge University Press
 
Délano Alonso, A. (2018). From here and there: Diaspora Policies, Integration, and Social Rights Beyond Borders. Oxford University Press. 
 
De Goey, F. (2014). Consuls and the Institutions of Global Capitalism. Routledge.
 
Fernández de Castro, R, (coord.). (2018). La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump. El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Gómez Arnau, R. (1990). México y la proteccion de sus nacionales en Estados Unidos. Centro de Investigaciones sobre Estados Unidos de América, UNAM. (IN SPANISH)
 
Græger, N. and Leira, H. (eds.). (2020). The Duty of Care in International Relations: Protecting Citizens Beyond the Border. Routledge.
 
Heinsen-Roach, E. (2019). Consuls and Captives: Dutch-North African Diplomacy in the Early Modern Mediterranean. University of Rochester Press.
 
Hernández Joseph, D. (2015). Protección Consular Mexicana. Ford Foundation & Miguel Ángel Porrúa. (IN SPANISH)
 
Herz, M. F. (1983). The Consular Dimension of Diplomacy: A Symposium. Institute of the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University. 
 
Hofstadter, C. G. (2020). Modern Consuls, Local Communities and Globalization. Palgrave Pivot.
 
Lafleur, J.M. & Vintila, D. (2020). Migration and Social Protection in Europe and Beyond (Volume 2): Comparing Consular Services and Diaspora Policies. IMISCOE Research Series. OPEN ACCESS

Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In J. Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. (pp. 3-27). Palgrave MacMillan. 
 
Melissen, J. and Fernandez, A. M., (eds.) (2011). Consular Affairs and Diplomacy. Martinus Nijhoff. 
 
Moyano Pahissa, Á. (1989). Antología Protección Consular a Mexicanos en los Estados Unidos 1849-1900.Archivo Histórico Diplomático Mexicano, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. (IN SPANISH)
 
Muñoz Martinez, M. (2018). The Injustice Never Leaves You: Ant-Mexican Violence in Texas. Harvard University Press. 
 
Platt, D. C. M. (1971). The Cinderella Service: British Consuls since 1825. Archon Books. 
 
BOOK CHAPTERS
 
Berridge. G. R. (2022). Consulates. In G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, (pp. 141-157). Palgrave and DiploFoundation.
 
Calva Ruíz, V. (2018). Diplomacia Consular y acercamiento con socios estratégicos. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 205-216). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH) 
 
De Moya, M. & Bravo, V. (2021). Conclusion: Lessons Learned and Future Research. In V. Bravo & M. De Moya (eds), Latin American Diasporas in Public Diplomacy, (pp. 311-324). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74564-6_13
 
Fernández de Castro, R. & Hernández Hernández, A. (2018). Introducción. In R. Fernández de Castro(coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 17-25). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Fernández Pasarin, A. M. (2016). Consulates and Consular Diplomacy. In C. Constantinou, P. Kerr & P. Sharp (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy. Sage Publishing. 
 
Gómez Zapata, T. (2021). Civil Society as an Advocate of Mexicans and Latinos in the United States: The Chicago Case. In V. Bravo & M. De Moya (eds.), Latin American Diasporas in Public Diplomacy, (pp. 189-213). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74564-6_8
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (1997). Decentralized Diplomacy: The Role of Consular Offices in Mexico´s Relations with its Diaspora. In Rodolfo O de la Garza and Jesús Velasco (eds.), Bridging the Border: Transforming Mexico-U.S. Relations, (pp. 49-67). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (2006). Del acercamiento a la inclusión institucional: la experiencia del Insittuto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior. In C. Gónzalez Gutiérrez (coord.), Relaciones Estado-diáspora: aproximaciones desde cuatro continentes, Tomo 1, (pp. 181-220). Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. (IN SPANISH)
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (2018). El significado de una relación especial: las relaciones de México con Texas a la luz de su experiencia en California. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 253-269). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Heijmans, M. y Melissen, J. (2007). MFAs and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs Cinderella in the Limelight. En K.S. Rana y J. Kurbalija (eds.), Foreign Ministries Managing Diplomatic Networks and Optimizing Value (pp. 192-206). Malta: DiploFoundation.
 
Laveaga Rendón, R. (2018). Mantenerse a la Vanguardia: Desafío para los Consulados de México en Estados Unidos. In R. Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 231-251). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Leira, H. & Græger, N. (2020). Introduction: The Duty of Care in International Relations. In N. Græger & H. Leira (eds.), The Duty of Care in International Relations: Protecting Citizens Beyond the Border, (pp. 1-17). Routledge.
 
Leira, H. & Neumann, I. B. (2011). The Many Past Lives of the Consul. In J. Melissen & A. M. Fernández, (eds.), Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 223-246). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188761.i-334.69
 
Leira, H. & Neumann, I. B. (2017). Consular Diplomacy. In P. Kerr & G. Wiseman (eds.), Diplomacy in a globalizing world: Theories and Practice. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. 
 
Melissen, J. (2011). Introduction The Consular Dimension of Diplomacy. In J. Melissen & A. M. Fernández, (eds.), Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 1-17). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188761.i-334.6
 
Melissen, J. (2022). Consular Diplomacy in the Era of Growing Mobility. In Christian Lequesne (ed.), Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the World. Diplomatic Series, Vol. 18. (pp. 251-262). Brill Nijhoff.

Mendoza Sánchez, J. C., & Cespedes Cantú, A. (2021). Innovating through Engagement: Mexico’s Model to Support Its Diaspora. In L. Kennedy (ed.), Routledge International Handbook of Diaspora Diplomacy. Routledge.
 
Neumann, I. and Leira, H. (2020). The evolution of the consular institution. In I. Neumann, Diplomatic Tense,(pp. 8-25). Manchester University Press. 
 
Okano-Heijmans, M. (2011). Changes in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy. In J. Melissen & A. M. Fernández, (eds.), Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 21-41). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188761.i-334.13
 
Okano-Heijmans, M. (2013). Consular Affairs. In A. Cooper et al., (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, (pp. 473-492). Oxford University Press. 
 
Rana, K. S.  (2011). The New Consular Diplomacy. In K. S. Rana, 21st Century Diplomacy. A Practitioner's Guide. Continuum.
 
Schiavon, J. A. & Ordorica R., G. (2018). Las sinergias con otras comunidades: el caso Tricamex. In R.Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 185-203). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Torres Mendivil, R. (2018). La diplomacia consular: un paradigma de la relación México-Estados Unidos. In R.Fernández de Castro (coord.), La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, (pp. 109-124). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & El Colegio de San Luis. (IN SPANISH)
 
Ulbert, J. (2011). A History of the French Consular Services. In J. Melissen & A. M. Fernández, (eds.),Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, (pp. 303-324). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188761.i-334.96
 
Valenzuela-Moreno, K. A. (2021). Transnational Social Protection and the Role of Countries of Origin: The Cases of Mexico, Guatemala, Bolivia, and Ecuador. In V. Bravo & M. De Moya (eds.), Latin American Diasporas in Public Diplomacy, (pp. 27-51). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74564-6_2
 
JOURNAL ARTICLES
 
Bada, X., & Gleeson, S. (2015). A New Approach to Migrant Labor Rights Enforcement. Labor Studies Journal,40(1), 32-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X14565112.
 
Birka, I., Klavinš D., & Kits, R. (2022). Duty of Care: Consular Diplomacy Response of Baltic and Nordic Countries to COVID-19. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 17(2022), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10115.
 
Bravo, V., & De Moya, M. (2018). Mexico’s public diplomacy efforts to engage its diaspora across the border: Case study of the programs, messages and strategies employed by the Mexican Embassy in the United States. Rising Powers Quarterly, 3(3), 173-193. 
 
Cárdenas Suárez, H. (2019). La política consular en Estados Unidos: protección, documentación y vinculacion con las comunidades mexicanas en el exterior. Foro Internacional, LIX(3-4), 1077-1113. https://doi.org/10.24201/fi.v59i3-4.2652. (IN SPANISH)
 
Crosbie, W. (2018). A Consular Code to Supplement the VCCR. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302019
 
Délano, A. (2009). From Limited to Active Engagement: Mexico’s Emigration Policies from a Foreign Policy Perspective. International Migration Review, 43(4), 764-814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00784.x.
 
Délano, A. (2014). The diffusion of diaspora engagement policies: A Latin American agenda. Political Geography, 41, 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.11.007.
 
De la Vega Wood, D. A. (2014). Diplomacia consular para el desarrollo humano: una visión desde la agenda democrática. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior 101, May-August, 167-185. (IN SPANISH)
 
Durand, J., Massey, D. S. & Parrado, E. A. (1999). The New Era of Mexican Migration to the United States. The Journal of American History, 86(2), 518-536.
 
Gómez Maganda, G. and Kerber Palma, A. (2016). Atención con perspectiva de género para las comunidades mexicanas en el exterior. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, No. 107, May-August, 185-202. (IN SPANISH) 
 
González Gutiérrez, C. (1999). Fostering Identities: México´s Relations with Its Diaspora. The Journal of American History, 86(2), 545-567. https://doi.org/10.2307/2567045
 
Græger, N. & Lindgren, W. Y. (2018). The Duty of Care for Citizens Abroad: Security and Responsibility in the In Amenas and Fukushima Crises. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 188-210. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302009
 
Hernández Joseph, D. (2012). Mexico’s Concentration Consular Services. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy,7(2), 227-236. https://doi.org/10.1163/187119112X625556.
 
Haugevic, K. (2018). Parental Child Abduction and the State: Identity, Diplomacy and the Duty of Care. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302010
 
Leira, H. (2018). Caring and Carers: Diplomatic Personnel and the Duty of Care. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302007
 
Leira, H. and de Carvalho, B. (2021). The Intercity Origins of Diplomacy: Consuls, Empires, and the Sea. Diplomatica 3 (1), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1163/25891774-03010008
 
Lottaz, P. (2020). Going East: Switzerland´s east consular diplomacy toward East and Southeast Asia. Traverse: Zeitschrift für Geschichte = Revue d´historie 27(1), 23-34.
 
Marina Valle, V., Gandoy Vázquez, W. L., and Valenzuela Moreno, K. A. (2020). Ventanillas de Salud: Defeating challenges in healthcare access for Mexican immigrants in the United States. Estudios Fronterizos, 21 (e043). https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2020.1714462
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2023). Beyond Traditional Boundaries: The Origins and Features of the Public-Consular Diplomacy of Mexico. Journal of Public Diplomacy 2(2), 48-68.
 
Martínez-Schuldt, R. D. (2020). Mexican Consular Protection Services across the United States: How Local Social, Economic, and Political Conditions Structure the Sociolegal Support of Emigrants. International Migration Review, 54(4), 1016-1044.
 
Melissen, J. (2020). Consular diplomacy's first challenge: Communicating assistance to nationals abroad. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 7(2), 217-228. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.298

Melissen, J. & Okano-Heijmans, M. (2018). Introduction. Diplomacy and the Duty of Care. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-23032072
 
Navarro Bernachi, A. (2014). La perspectiva transversal y multilateral de la protección consular. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior (101), May-August, 81-97. (IN SPANISH)
 
Necochea López, R. (2018). Mexico´s health diplomacy and the Ventanilla de Salud program. Latino Studies(16), 482-502. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41276-018-0145-8
 
Okano-Heijmans, M. & Price, C. (2019). Providing consular services to low-skilled migrant workers: partnerships that care. Global Affairs, 5(4-5) 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2020.1714462
 
Rangel Gomez, M. G., Tonda, J., Zapata, G. R., Flynn, M., Gany, F., Lara, J., Shapiro, I, & Ballesteros Rosales, C. (2017). Ventanillas de Salud: A Collaborative and Binational Health Access and Preventive Care Program. Frontiers in Public Health 5. 30 June. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00151.
 
Schiavon, J. A. & Cárdenas Alaminos, N. (2014). La proteccón consular de la diáspora mexicana. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior (101), May-August, 43-67. (IN SPANISH)
 
Torres Mendivil, R. (2014). Morfología, tradición y futuro de la práctica consular mexicana. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior 101, May-August, 69-79. (IN SPANISH)
 
Tsinovoi, A. and Adler-Nissen, R. (2018) Inversion of the “Duty of Care”: Diplomacy and the protection of Citizens Abroad, from Pastoral Care to neoliberal Governmentality. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (13) 2, 211-232. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-11302017
 
Xia, L. (2021). Consular Protection with Chinese Characteristics: Challenges and Solutions. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 16 (2-3), 253-274. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10068.
 
Valenzuela-Moreno, K. (2019). Los consulados mexicanos en Estados Unidos: Una aproximación desde la protección social. INTERdisciplina, 7(18), 59-79. https://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/inter/article/view/68460/61387.
 
OTHER WORKS
 
Batalova, J. (2008). Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. 23 April. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states-2006.
 
Bruno, A. y Storrs, K. L. (2005). Consular Identification Cards: Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation. Congressional Research Services. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL32094.pdf.
 
Global Consular Forum. (2016). Seoul Consensus Statement on Consular Cooperation, 27 October.

González, C., Martínez, A. & Purcell, J. (2015). Report: Global Consular Forum 2015, Wilton Park, July. Global Consular Forum.
 
Haynal, G., et al. (2013). The Consular Function in the 21st Century: A report for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. 

Israel, E. & Batalova, J. (2020). Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. 5 November. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states-2019.
 
Kunz, R. (2008). Mobilising diasporas: A governmentality analysis of the case of Mexico. Working Paper Series, “Glocal Governance and Democracy” 3. Institute of Political Science, University of Lucerne. https://zenodo.org/record/48764?ln=en#.YyZZyC2xBaR. 
 
Laglagaron, L. (2010). Protection through Integration: The Mexican Government’s Efforts to Aid Migrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/IME_FINAL.pdf
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2021). El surgimiento de la Diplomacia Consular: su interpretación desde México. Unpublished essay. (IN SPANISH)
 
Murray, L. (2013). Conference report: Contemporary consular practice trends and challenges, Wilton Park, October. Global Consular Forum. 
 
Noe-Bustamante, L., Flores, A. & Shah, S. (2019). Facts on Hispanics of Mexican origin in the United States, 2017. Pew Hispanic Center. 16 September. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/fact-sheet/u-s-hispanics-facts-on-mexican-origin-latinos/. 
 
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
 
Global Affairs Canada. (2017). Evaluation of the Consular Affairs Program. Diplomacy, Trade and Corporate Evaluation Division, Global Affairs Canada. https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/assets/pdfs/publications/evaluation/2018/cap-pac-eng.pdf
 
Gradilone, E. (2012). Diplomacia Consular 2007 a 2012. Ministério das Relações Exteriores (Brazil) and Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão. https://funag.gov.br/biblioteca-nova/produto/1-182-diplomacia_consular_2007_a_2012

Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior. (2018). Población Mexicana en el Mundo: Estadística de la población mexicana en el mundo 2017. 23 July.http://www.ime.gob.mx/estadisticas/mundo/estadistica_poblacion_pruebas.html.
 
Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior. (2021). ‘Revista “Casa de México”’. 22 January. 
https://www.gob.mx/ime/articulos/revista-casa-de-mexico.
 
Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. (2019). Fortalecimiento de la Atención a Mexicanos en el Exterior, Libro Blanco 2012-2018. (IN SPANISH)
 
OTHER BLOG POSTS (BESIDES THIS BLOG)
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2021). Public-Consular Diplomacy at its Best: The case of the Mexican Consular ID card program. CPD Blog. 4 February. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-its-best-case-mexican-consular-id-card-program.
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2021). Public-Consular Diplomacy That Works: Mexico’s Labor Rights Week in the U.S. CPD Blog. 6 October. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-works-mexicos-labor-rights-week-us.
 
Márquez Lartigue, R. (2022). Public-Consular Diplomacy That Heals: Binational Health Week Program. CPD Blog. 8 June. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-heals-binational-health-week-program. 
 
​Manor, I. (2022, January 25). Are Consular Tweets a New Form of Crisis Signaling? 
Exploring Digital Diplomacy blog. https://digdipblog.com/2022/01/25/are-consular-tweets-a-new-form-of-crisis-signaling/

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

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

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

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

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

 
1. Introduction
 
Recently, I had the opportunity to finally read the seminal book on Consular Diplomacy titled Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, edited by Jan Melissen and Ana Mar Fernández. This work allowed me to rethink what is Consular Diplomacy.
 
Ten years have passed since its publication in 2011. Since then, there has been more changes to diplomacy in general and the consular institution in particular. An example of the relevance of Consular Diplomacy today is the response of all ministries of foreign affairs to the COVID-19 pandemic that required a massive effort to repatriate and assist nationals stranded overseas as the world closed in March 2020. 
 
The book is divided into three sections:

1. Themes in Contemporary Consular Affairs,
2. The Consular Services of Great Powers, and
3. The History of the Consular Institution.

 
It includes articles about the history and recent developments of consular affairs of Spain, France, the Netherlands, China, Russia, and the United States, as well as consular experiences of the European Union.
 
The order of the book is a little bit odd because it starts with consular affairs´ contemporary issues and ends with the consular history of three European nations. However, it is a great read that has tons of fascinating information and ideas.
 
If you can only read a few chapters, I suggest checking out the following:

• “Introduction The Consular Dimension of Diplomacy” by Jan Melissen,
• “Chapter One Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy” by Maaike Okano-Heijmans, and
• “Chapter Nine The Many Past Lives of the Consul” by Halvard Leira and Iver B. Neumann.

 
In the introduction, Jan Melissen identifies four conceptual or empirical observations about the development of the consular institution:

1. The “Core function of consular affairs has radically been transformed through history…
2. One way or another the consular function has always been enmeshed with diplomacy…
3. The `consulate perspective´ has always been tied up with unfolding transnational relations instead of mere inter-state relations…[and]
4. The growth in the structural demand for different types of consular services responded to sweeping economic and social change in periods that were characterized by a thickening of international relations.”[i]

 
These four observations are beneficial for the reader, as they help navigate through the book´s twelve chapters and explore the concept of Consular Diplomacy.
 
2. Reconsidering Consular Diplomacy
 
After reading the book, one of the first things that hit me was that each country has a unique consular affairs history, from China´s recent interest in assisting its citizens overseas to the Netherland´s reliance on honorary consuls.
 
Learning the consular history of six countries gave me a different perspective of Consular Diplomacy in general, and specifically about the development and characteristics of Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy. I think this is one of the reasons that comparative studies in International Relations are so critical.
 
For example, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, millions of Russian citizens suddenly lived in foreign countries, which happened to Mexicans after the 1846-1848 Mexico-U.S. War. In both cases, the two countries' governments had to step up their consular work to assist and protect their nationals, now living abroad.
 
Another example is the problems raised from the extraterritoriality clauses of international treaties with Western powers. In Mexico´s history, foreign government´s interventions on behalf of their citizens were critical in shaping its foreign policy principles. Therefore, learning a bit about the origins of the Capitulations treaties signed between the Ottoman Empire and European powers was enlighten.
 
Halvard Leira and Iver B. Neumann´s explanation about why the Ottoman Empire granted European nations extraterritorial jurisdiction of their own citizens is excellent for understanding a different perspective from the traditional view of European imposition of those terms.[ii] The book clearly demonstrates that the Capitulations had a significant impact on the development of the consular institution, particularly its judicial attributions.
 
Before, I thought that Mexico´s consular institution was distinctive. However, after reading the book, now I realize that each country´s consular affairs had a specific evolution that is different from all others. Of course, there are common patterns and trends, but each nation experiences them in unique ways. The themes are similar, but the differences are in the details.
 
This new perspective is helping me to have a deeper understanding of the differences between the consular services offered by each country, such as the distinction of providing funds for the repatriations of human remains offered by Mexico to only assisting in the paperwork done by the U.S., Canada, and others.
 
This new understanding is making me rethink the concept of Consular Diplomacy, which is closely related to the history of the country´s consular institution.
 
Another realization is that every country, in general, has the same diplomatic objectives, but in consular affairs, it varies depending on its specific evolution and the relationship between the government and its citizens. Therefore, I believe that Consular Diplomacy is hard to generalize. There is a need to look deeper into what Melissen states as “the long-time neglect of the societal dimension of world politics and diplomacy”[iii] to grasp the idea of diplomatic activities in the consular realm.
 
3. The division between diplomacy and consular affairs persists but is narrowing
 
The second impression of the book is that the link between diplomacy and consular affairs has always been there, but it has changed as societies and the international arena evolved. Even today, after the rise of the Consular Diplomacy, the division between the two still exists.
 
There is not a single path for the relationship between the two. Each country has its own. However, the incorporation of consular responsibilities to the ministries of foreign affairs from the 17th Century onward is a common feature in most nations.
 
The consular history of the six countries demonstrates the highly complex interaction of the two services. To me, their amalgamation in the early 20th Century did not diminish the perception of consular affairs as a Cinderella´s service.
 
It is not till the end of the 20th Century, as Maaike Okano-Heijmans explains in “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy”, that consular affairs become a true priority not only for the foreign ministries but the government as a whole.[iv]
 
It is then, when globalization speeded up, together with the digital revolution and the democratization of diplomacy, when Consular Diplomacy was able to break through its `glass ceiling´ and become an openly acknowledged core activity of foreign ministries.
 
The modernization and standardization processes that consular affairs have endured in the last 20 years to meet the ever-higher expectation of the public is a clear example of the new status of consular services.
 
Even after the unification of the diplomatic and consular services, most countries still see them as separate entities. The existence of two Vienna Conventions (one for each) is the perfect example of this division. By the early 1960s, when the conventions were discussed, the fusion of the two services was widespread. Why was it so difficult to merge both in just one convention?
 
4. A greater understanding of the evolution of the consular institution.
 
The book allows the reader to understand better the multiple responsibilities that consuls had, from being judges, tax collectors, trade promoters, and sometimes even chaplains.[v] No wonder there is still a lot of misconceptions about what consuls do nowadays. Even the word `Consul´, is still mixed up with `Counsel´ (law-related) and `Councilor´ (city authority), which in the past were some of the main attributions of the position.
 
Through centuries, and as the Westphalia state-system developed, the consular institution experienced a gradual process of specialization of its functions. Consuls slowly were stripped of some of their core responsibilities[vi] and focused on two critical issues of today´s consular affairs: documentary services and assistance to citizens in distress abroad.
 
At the same time, it seems that a process of homogenization took place in international relations that affected the consular institution. As the articles about the six countries exhibit, consular affairs worldwide suffered the same transformations and are now mostly limited to documentary services and the protection of their nationals. Maybe the concentration on these two activities helped in its rise to the top of the foreign policy agenda?
 
In contrast, there is not such massive evolution of the functions of diplomats. Since the early days, their fundamental responsibilities of representation, negotiation, and communication, including information gathering, have changed little, even with drastic advances in communications and transportation.
 
5. The connection between public and consular diplomacies
 
It is stimulating to see that Melissen links Public and Consular Diplomacies. “In spite of all their differences, consular work and public diplomacy are somehow kindred activities. To all intents and purposes, both are evidence of new priorities and changing working practices in foreign ministries.”[vii]
 
I think the association between public and consular diplomacies is particularly relevant in the visa policies that directly affect the country´s image among the other nation´s citizens, as the article about the EU´s visa policy clearly showcases.[viii]
 
I consider that, in some cases, both go hand-in-hand and are closer than we usually think. In the case of Mexico´s it may be one and the same, as I wrote in my blog post titled “Public-Consular Diplomacy at its Best: The case of the Mexican Consular ID program”. Besides, Diaspora Diplomacy is also related to Public and Consular foreign policy efforts.
 
The idea of the connection between Public and Consular Diplomacies needs to be looked at in a deeper perspective. Hopefully, I can do this in the not-so-distant future.
 
 
6. Conclusion
 
Jan Melissen wanted the book to “hopefully break some new ground”[ix], which I think it definitely did. Since its release, there have not been works of such dimensions;[x] therefore, it is still the standard-bearer of Consular Diplomacy and a must-read for anybody interested in the consular institution.
 
Consular Affairs and Diplomacy is an excellent contribution to the field of study, as it associates the history and development of the consular functions with contemporary tendencies of consular affairs. It also demonstrates the always present interrelation of diplomacy and consular services, regardless of its priority ranking.
 
In a time of a drastic reduction of the State in the international arena, consular affairs are an area that has experienced the opposite. This is partly because of the ever-growing demand and expectations of citizens abroad (and their families at home). Also, since the consular function was never part of the great division between foreign and domestic policies.[xi]
 
For me, the work made me think again about Consular Diplomacy, mainly as a result of the relationship between the government and its citizens, not just part of foreign policy and diplomacy.
 
There is definitely a need for more works like Consular Affairs and Diplomacy. Hopefully, there will be more coming as Consular Diplomacy continues to rise in the field of International Relations and Diplomacy studies.
 
You can also read additional posts about consular diplomacy, such as:

• Global Consular Forum: Consular diplomacy in the 21st Century
• Consular diplomacy: Cinderella no more, but not yet a princess
• Recent studies on consular diplomacy: reevaluating the consular institution
• Mexico´s public-consular diplomacy
• New publications on consular diplomacy

[i] Melissen, Jan, “Introduction The Consular Dimension of Diplomacy” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, Jan Melissen and Ana Mar Fernández (Ed), 2011, pp. 1-4.
[ii] Leira, Halvard and Neumann, Iver B., “The Many Past Lives of the Consul” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, pp. 225-245.
[iii] Melissen, Jan, “Introduction” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, Jan Melissen and Ana Mar Fernández (Ed), 2011, p. 2.
[iv] Okano-Heijmans, Maaike, “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, pp. 21-42.
[v] See, for example the consular responsibilities of French consuls in Ulbert, Jörg, “A history of the French Consular Services” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, pp. 307-313.
[vi] For example, in France, with the creation of trade attachés in 1919, consulates were stripped from one of their original responsibilities: trade.
[vii] Melissen, Jan, “Introduction” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, p. 2.
[viii]  Wesseling Mara, and Boniface, Jérôme, “New Trends in European Consular Services: Visa Policy in the EU Neighbourhood” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, pp. 115-144.
[ix] Melissen, Jan, “Introduction” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, p. 1.
[x] Since the book´s publication, there are some very interesting works released, like the The Hague Journal of Diplomacy´s special volume dedicated to `The Duty of Care´, published in 2018, and Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior volume on Consular Diplomacy (2014), and the books La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en Tiempos de Trump (2018), The Duty of Care in International Relations: Protecting Citizens Beyond Borders (2019), and Modern Consuls, Local Communities and Globalization (2020).
[xi] Melissen, Jan, “Introduction” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, 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.

 
Following up on my previous blog post about the surge of “new” diplomacies and the discussion of whether these initiatives a real diplomatic instruments or just imposters, today I will analyze the case of Consular Diplomacy.
 
The conclusion is that while Consular Diplomacy meets all the qualifications to be considered a real diplomatic tool to attain a foreign policy goal, the lack of studies seriously hinders its development. Therefore, it is finally leaving Cinderella's status but is not yet considered a princess, like Public or Cultural Diplomacies.
 
Note: The reference to consular affairs as “Cinderella” was made by D.C.M. Platt in his book The Cinderella Service: British Consuls since 1825. Maaike Okano-Heijmans and Jan Melissen used the term in their paper Foreign Ministries and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs: Cinderella in the Limelight.
 
1. Previous post summary “New” Diplomatic Tools: Imposter Diplomacy or the Real Deal?
 
Shaun Riordan and Katharina E. Höne have expressed their concern about the tendency to incorporate into the diplomatic realm all sorts of activities, which carries the risk of losing the meaning of Diplomacy.[i]
 
To uncover Imposter Diplomacy and confirm the realness of new diplomatic tools, Höne proposes that “rather than a categorical rejection [of the new diplomacies], the proper response is to sharpen our intellectual tools and get to work [and] 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.”[ii]
 
In the previous post, I already analyzed Public and Gastronomic Diplomacies. I conclude that the former could be categorized as a new diplomatic tool, while the latter is still too early, despite investments made by various governments.[iii]
 
2. Consular Diplomacy rising
 
Despite being older than traditional Diplomacy and at one point much more widespread, the consular function has always been relegated. Only now, in the 21st Century, consular services have received greater attention by not only public officials, including diplomats, but also by politicians, regular citizens, and the media.
 
In the paper, Foreign Ministries and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs: Cinderella in the Limelight, Maaike Okano-Heijmans and Jan Melissen explain why consular affairs changed from being the Cinderella of diplomacy to be a high priority for the ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs), the general public, the media, and politicians worldwide.
 
However critical the increasing number of terrorist attacks, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, the 2010-11 Arab Spring, and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic, Okano-Heijmans and Melissen indicate that the greater interest in consular issues did not develop with the arrival of the internet or social media. It arose during the intra-war years and resulted in the integration of diplomatic and consular services.[iv] and later, with the changes in communications, technology, and transportation.
 
One reason why consular issues are just now rising into prominence in the diplomatic world is that the amalgamation of the consular and diplomatic services is relatively recent, from a historical perspective. In 2022 and 2024 will be the 100th anniversary of the two branches' fusion in Norway and the US, respectively. However, it is a lot more recently for other countries like Great Britain (1943) and Italy (1952).[v]
 
I think that the merging of both services has not been totally completed. The view from inside and outside the Foreign Ministries about the two divisions remains separated. For example, there are two different Vienna Conventions, one specific for Diplomatic Relations and the other regarding Consular Relations. This came about when the combination of the two services already happened in many countries.
 
All this is a bit ironic because, as Jan Melissen states in “Introduction The Consular Dimension of Diplomacy” for most ordinary people, the Ministry's face is not a diplomat seating in an embassy, but a consular official either providing documentary services or consular assistance or promoting trade and better relationships with local and state authorities and civil societies.[vi]
 
It is relevant to know that consular services are more in-tuned with the new realities of 21st Century Diplomacy, such as its focus on strengthening performance thru a service-oriented perspective, the familiarity of intermestic issues, and greater collaboration with new partners.[vii] The consular function's qualities help consular affairs be more visible inside and outside the MFA, ascending to a new level.
 
3. Is Consular Diplomacy a new diplomatic tool?
 
I will now follow Höne´s recommendation of evaluating the new tools by looking at Diplomacy as a practice, its relation to the state, and its purpose.
 
3.1 The practice of Consular Diplomacy
 
As mentioned before, consular posts predate permanent embassies in Europe for a couple of hundred years. While in the beginning, consuls were not public officials, sometimes performed duties as authorities. In the hey-days of consular affairs, during the 19th Century, consular officials were also involved in diplomatic activities, even if they were not recognized.[viii]
 
From a comparative standpoint, consular affairs is a lot older than almost all diplomatic tools, such as Public, Cultural, and Multilateral Diplomacies. Its problem is that it is considered a technical function, not as crucial as any diplomatic activity. The countries´ little interest in consular affairs is demonstrated by the fact that the first and only international convention on the subject was negotiated in the 1960s.
 
From a practical perspective, I can understand the different visions between diplomats and consuls. The question of representation and what it entails in terms of protocol, image, and status is enormous among the two.
 
It is totally dissimilar to work in the halls of palaces, presidential offices, and the MFAs than in ports, jails, and other local venues. The distinction is a heavy-weight on consuls' images, and even today, when they are no longer seen as Cinderellas, consular officials have not yet arrived at palaces, presidential offices, or foreign ministers´ desks.
 
Consular affairs is an established responsibility of MFAs that date back centuries, and it has developed into a profession and a practice. There are no doubts about Consular Diplomacy's existence and heritage; however, it has not yet reached a point to be recognized as a useful foreign policy instrument, with a few exceptions. The fact that almost none country utilizes the term regularly is a perfect example that still is underrecognized, even if MFAs undertake actions that could fall into its category.
 
3.2 Relation to the state
 
Despite the growing outsourcing of certain consular functions and the greater collaboration between consulates and authorities, civil society, and their diaspora, it is evident that it is a government´s responsibility to provide consular services to its citizens abroad and other groups.
 
Consular officials in their corresponding districts are the only ones to execute activities such as visiting prisons and jails, issuing passports and birth certificates, and promoting the country´s image in the host nation. It is a non-delegable function restricted to government officials. Therefore, I can attest that Consular Diplomacy fulfills the requirement to be considered a diplomatic tool rather than an imposter. It can only be performed by the government and its representatives.
 
3.3 Pursuing Foreign Policy goals
 
There is no doubt that consular affairs are a vital function of the ministry of foreign affairs. However, it is a bit more challenging to attest whether these activities help achieve its Foreign Policy (FP) goals.
 
For countries with relatively low immigration and limited travel opportunities for their citizens, consular affairs might be just a public policy that happens to be offered overseas.
 
In contrast, states with significant diaspora communities and extensive traveling communities might incorporate some FP goals into the management of their consular affairs, such as providing efficient consular services to their nationals and foreign citizens or enhancing consular collaboration with other countries.
 
In many cases, the MFA´s primary concern is the domestic dimension rather than an actual foreign policy objective; however, consular cases' reputational impact is quite high and is the main reason for its recent upgrade.[ix]
 
For both types of countries, a high visibility consular case can turn into a diplomatic situation affecting bilateral relations, even making decisions against their national interests.[x]
 
3.4 Consular Diplomacy´s missing dimension: studies
 
As I did in the Public and Gastronomic Diplomacies cases, I am also reviewing the Consular Diplomacy´s study field. Sadly, in this area, this new diplomatic tool is still in its infancy.
 
The only known course about the topic “Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy” is offered by the DiploFoundation. However, it has not being offered for the last few years, perhaps demonstrating the lack of interest in the subject.
 
As Okano-Heijmans and Melissen indicate, “consular affairs [do not] appeal sufficiently to students of diplomacy to merit much study and reflection;”[xi] therefore, there is a severe absence of studies about this matter.
 
Regarding scholarly work, the only book about the issue is the 2011 Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, edited by Jan Melissen and Ana Mar Fernández. Astonishingly, the book is ten years old, and since then, no new scholarly book about the subject has appeared.
 
There is the book The Duty of Care in International Relations: Protecting Citizens Beyond the Border published in June 2019. Also, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy dedicated the issue #2, Vol. 13, March 2018, to the topic and was titled “Diplomacy and the Duty of Care.” I am not sure if both discuss Consular Diplomacy, as I have not read them yet.
 
In Mexico, a special issue (#101) of the Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior about the subject was published in 2014. Additionally, the book La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en Tiempos de Trump, written from a practitioner's perspective, came out in 2018.
 
I just learned that Brazil´s MFA issued in 2012 a report titled Diplomacia Consular 2007 a 2012. A few countries, like Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, have sponsor studies about consular affairs, but none of them use the term Consular Diplomacy often.
 
I don´t understand why there is minimal production of scholarly works and practitioners' essays about this matter. Around the world, there are more consular officers than diplomats performing other duties. As mentioned above, consular agents are the faces of the MFAs to citizens overseas and domestic audiences.
 
One reason might be that consular officials are always too busy solving the newest crisis and a high-level consular assistance case or issuing consular documents to write about their experiences. Privacy limitations are also an obstacle for more research, but I am sure they can be overcome to have more studies about consular affairs.
 
Another cause might be the scarcity of funding, if there is money at all, for research in the field; thus, there are no incentives for up-and-coming scholars, universities, and think tanks to tackle the issue.
 
As the Global Consular Forum[xii] has demonstrated, many countries are interested in expanding the collaboration in consular affairs and are willing to exchange best practices; thus, there is no lack of interest in many MFAs about the subject.
 
With consular services’ new visibility and the need to improve them, I believe that Consular Diplomacy research will grow, but it needs a boost.
 
4. Conclusions: Does Consular Diplomacy is an imposter or the real deal?
 
For a citizen, the consular function does not carry the significance of the “glamour” of diplomatic life, negotiating a world-changing agreement in New York or Geneva's halls. However, in time of need, very few public officials have the preparation, ability, and ingenuity to solve their problems. Consuls are like the police or the fire department; you just call them in an emergency, but they can change your life.
 
There is an enormous need for more consular studies, but not just to evaluate its performance but to contribute to the surge of a real Consular Diplomacy one day. Ironically, Consular Diplomacy fulfills all the qualifications of a “new” diplomatic tool; however, there is such a tiny body of work that it is hard to confirm its realness.
 
Consular Diplomacy as a “new” diplomatic tool is finally out of its Cinderella´s reference; however, there is still a long way to reach the status of a princess.

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

• Global Consular Forum: Consular diplomacy in the 21st Century
• Recent studies on consular diplomacy: reevaluating the consular institution
• Rethinking consular diplomacy
• Mexico´s public-consular diplomacy
• New publications on consular diplomacy

[i] Riordan, Shaun, “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies”, Center on Public Diplomacy Blog, June 21, 2017 and Höne, Katharina E., “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up!”, DiploFoundation Blog, June 30, 2017.
[ii] Höne, Katharina E., 2017.
[iii] Márquez Lartigue, Rodrigo, ““New” Diplomatic Tools: Imposter Diplomacy or the Real Deal?” In Consular and Public Diplomacies Blog, February 22, 2021.
[iv] Heijmans, Maaike and Melissen, Jan, in Foreign Ministries and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs: Cinderella in the Limelight, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, June 7, 2006, p. 5.
[v] Berrigde, G.R., Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, p. 136.
[vi] Melissen, Jan, “Introduction The Consular Dimension of Diplomacy” in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, p. 3.
[vii] Melissen, Jan, 2011, pp. 4-6.
[viii] Heijmans, Maaike and Melissen, Jan, in Foreign Ministries and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs: Cinderella in the Limelight, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, June 7, 2006, pp. 3-4.
[ix] Heijmans, Maaike and Melissen, Jan, 2006, pp. 6-7.
[x] Okano-Heijmans, Maaike, “Changes in Consular Assistance and the emergence of Consular Diplomacy” in in Consular Affairs and Diplomacy, 2011, pp. 24-26.
[xi] Heijmans, Maaike and Melissen, Jan, 2006, p. 1.
[xii] The Global Consular Forum is “an informal, grouping of countries, from all regions of the world fostering international dialogue and cooperation on the common challenges and opportunities that all countries face today in delivery of consular services.” Wilton Park, “Global Consular Forum 2015 (WP1381)”.
 
 
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer, or company.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are only two more chapters to review of the book Mexican Consular Diplomacy in Trump´s Era, so today, I will comment on the essay written by Ambassador José Octavio Tripp titled “Mexican Consular Diplomacy and the risks of administrative hydrocephalus.”
 
The chapter´s main point is that Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy's success in the United States has the risk of demanding too much from the consular network, developing hydrocephalus. He describes how, through the years, the consulates ´responsibilities have nearly fourth-fold, without the same amount of additional resources.
 
As the reader will learn, this essay is the perfect description of the consular affairs modernization process that most countries have undertaken in the second part of the 20th century referred to in the work of Maaike Okano-Heijmans and Jan Melissen titled Foreign Ministries and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs: Cinderella in the Limelight.
 
Additionally, it closely follows the definition of Consular Diplomacy presented by Maaike Okano-Heijmans, a scholar of the Clingendael Institute, in the paper “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy”.
 
In his essay, Ambassador Tripp explains that the consulates could suffer from abnormal and harmful growth, similar to a brains´ hydrocephalus if they continue to expand their obligations.[i] He proposes developing a plan that evaluates what works and what does not, focusing on Mexico's foreign policy goals.
 
In the section titled “Genesis”, Tripp explains that September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are the origin of Mexico's Consular Diplomacy. It resulted from the end of the circular migration of Mexican due to growing immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior of the U.S.[ii]
 
He discusses the efforts taken by the government of Mexico in its Consular ID card program, indicating that was the iconic activity of Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy at that time.[iii]
 
Interestingly, Tripp includes a definition of Consular Diplomacy from the then Undersecretary for North America, Sergio M. Alcocer Martínez de Castro, in the introduction to the volume dedicated to Consular Diplomacy of the Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior:
“public policy, that besides dealing with the traditional tasks of documentation services and protection to citizens, explores new action areas, such as the promotion of Mexico´s economic and technological interest, with the double purpose to empower Mexicans abroad and promote the national interest.”[iv]
 
However, the Ambassador indicates that this definition is insufficient because it did not include some of its elements, such as communitarian activism and consular political-administrative management.[v]
 
In the second part of the chapter, Tripp describes the growing consular responsibilities from the 1990s onward, indicating that they have jumped from seven traditional duties to nearly 50 overall.[vi]
 
The Ambassador explains the development of new consular responsibilities in three major areas:

1. Economic, educational-cultural, and cooperation promotion.
2. Lobbying of consular districts´ stakeholders, community leaders, and Central American consulates.
3. Administrative assistance to other Mexican authorities.[vii]

 
Tripp emphasizes that this list did not include all the administrative responsibilities that, even though they are not classified as services, they utilize the consulates´ limited time and resources.[viii]
 
Afterward, he briefly describes some of the new tasks that the consulates have to perform, as seen in Figure 1 at the bottom of the post.
 
As the consulates' duties grew, the Ambassador explains, so the media's attention to Consular Affairs. So, in a high visibility case, the consul has to deal not only with local authorities but also with multiple Mexican actors.[ix]
 
The Ambassador identifies two essential characteristics of Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy:

• The growing number of programs and obligations.
• Its political and social relevance, as a result of the expansion of its responsibilities.[x]

 
Tripp identifies positive and negative consequences of the transformation of the Mexican Consular Diplomacy:

• Positive:
  • Satisfying the Mexican community's needs in the U.S., including providing services that no other country offers to its citizens abroad.
  • Improving the image and the weight of consular affairs in Mexico´s foreign policy and the country´s overall public policy.
  • Growing international reputation and consular cooperation requests.[xi]
• Negative:
  • Overstretch consulates, and its inherent exhaustion of human resources.
  • Limitless expectative of citizens.
  • Inefficient use of resources and the inability to respond to Mexico´s fundamental interests.[xii]

 
The expansion of Mexico´s international reputation, together with offering unique services to its Diaspora, indicates that Consular Diplomacy will continue to develop in the future. However, the Ambassador warns about the risks of excessively burdensome consular work.[xiii]
 
Tripp states that it is imperative to develop a comprehensive plan that establishes the priorities and delineates its limits, so Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy can be sustainable in the long run. It is essential to limit its growth and eliminate no-priority tasks.[xiv]
 
As part of the planning process, the Ambassador includes the need to define the consulate´s vocation or niche. For example, he distinguishes a border consulate's priorities from one located in a high tech or research region. Furthermore, he indicates the necessity of having a flexible evaluation process that focuses on the consulate's efficiencies of its main tasks.[xv]
 
The chapter is a valuable contribution because it shows the impressive growth of consular duties and its risks. It also describes the greater weight of consular affairs in Mexico´s foreign policy and the growing interests of the media and politicians.
 
Besides, Tripp proposes developing a plan that eliminates non-fundamental tasks and seeks to limit citizen´s expectations of consular protection and services.
 
The Ambassador indicates that Mexico increased its reputation, not only amongst Mexicans but internationally, so he found a new source of soft power and a tool for nation-branding.
 
Additionally, implicitly, he states other Mexican authorities' interest to have an international presence or expand its programs to cater to Mexicans abroad. 
 
Interestingly enough, the consulates have responded to the augmentation of its responsibilities successfully, although, as the Ambassador commented, it might distract resources from their fundamental obligations. I believe that they have done that efficaciously by expanding the partnerships with local and state allies.
 

[i] Tripp, José Octavio, “La diplomacia consular mexicana y los riesgos de la hidrocefalia administrativa” en La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en Tiempos de Trump, 2018, p. 217.
[ii] Ibid. p. 218.
[iii] Ibid. p. 219.
[iv] Ibid. p. 219.
[v] Ibid. p. 219.
[vi] Ibid. p. 220.
[vii] Ibid. p. 220.
[viii] Ibid. p. 220.
[ix] Ibid. p. 226.
[x] Ibid. p. 226-227.
[xi] Ibid. p. 227.
[xii] Ibid. p. 228.
[xiii] Ibid. p. 227.
[xiv] Ibid. p. 228.
[xv] Ibid. p. 228-229.

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 the last couple of days, I have been reading the spectacular book Antología Protección Consular a Mexicanos en los Estados Unidos 1849-1900, written by Ángela Moyano Pahissa.
 
After the author reviewed what I think must have been thousands of official documents and correspondence written by consuls of Mexico, the Mexican delegation in Washington, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, she divided the book into five chapters that deal with specific problems:

1. Protection of Mexicans chased in the lost territories after the war.
2. Protests for irregularities in the administration of justice to Mexicans.
3. Protests for the occupation of land owned by Mexicans.
4. Protests for violent acts against Mexicans.
5. Protection of Mexicans or people from Mexican descendant that requested their repatriation to Mexico at the end of the 19th century.

 
In each, Moyano Pahissa included a selection of official documents that reflect the ideas, challenges, and solutions regarding these specific problems that resulted from the Mexico - U.S. War of 1846-1848 and the loss of half of its territory. It is incredible to read that some of them have not changed since then.
 
After reading the book, I now better understand the colossal influence that the annexation to the U.S. of the former Mexican territory had on the Mexicans living in those lands and the development of Mexico’s Consular Diplomacy.
 
From having to ratify their land ownership through a complicated and unfair process, to the need to decide in a year the nationality they wanted to have, Mexicans suffered greatly in the United States after 1848.
 
Besides, there was a direct attack not only against their culture but themselves. “Some historians state that in the decade from 1850 to 1860, Anglo-Americans lynched between three to four thousand Mexicans of a total population of ten thousand.”[i]
 
The systematic loss of property rights, in violation of Article VIII of the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, had significant consequences for Mexicans. Even though property requirements to be able to vote were almost eliminated by then, payment of taxes was still a common requirement to vote, thus limiting their possibility to participate in politics and influence policies.
 
Therefore, Mexico’s government had to enhance the defense of its nationals’ rights north of the border, including the establishment of consular offices in places that before was its own country.
 
Back then, Consuls of Mexico had to respond to information requests by the President’s office about high profile cases reported in the press, when they involved Mexicans, either as victims or as perpetrators. They also presented complaints to U.S. authorities for the delay in court cases, the imposition of high cash bail amounts, or extended detention periods.
 
Mexican consular agents also had to be in constant communications with local and state authorities and the Mexican community, creating cooperation networks.  Border consulates had additional challenges like smuggling and attacks on Mexican communities by outlaws, and tribes.
 
If all this sounds similar to what Maaike Okano-Heijmans, a scholar of the Clingendael Institute, described as Consular Diplomacy in “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy,” is because it is!
 
The loss of property rights, the problem of questionable citizenship, the attack on Mexican culture and people, combined with widespread discrimination that Mexicans faced after 1848 in the lost territories, catapulted the government of Mexico to develop an incipient Consular Diplomacy, way before it was the norm across the world.[i]  

Some of the characteristics of today´s Mexican Consular Diplomacy developed during this period, such as:

1. Registering Mexicans at the nearest consulate.
2. Providing some legal advice and representation.
3. Intervening in labor disputes.
4. Striving to have consular offices and agents in places with high concentration of Mexicans.
5. Adapting to the regional context.
6. Collaborating with other actors.
7. Participating in diplomatic issues at the local level.

 


[i] Moyano, Pahissa, Ángela, Antología Protección Consular a Mexicanos en los Estados Unidos 1849-1900, México, 1989, p. 113.
[i] Heijmans, Maaike and Melissen, Jan in Foreign Ministries and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs: Cinderella in the Limelight, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, June 7, 2006, p. 4.
​
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 this post I analyze the chapter “Mexico´s Integral Consular Management in the United States” written by Francisco Javier Díaz de León and Víctor Peláez Millán of the book La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump (Mexican Consular Diplomacy in Trump´s era).
 
In this chapter, Díaz de León and Peláez Millán evaluate Mexico’s comprehensive consular administration in the United States. They conclude that even though it has been able to face challenges and adapt to new circumstances, it lacks a long-term strategic vision.
 
The chapter is divided into three sections:

1. Mexican Diaspora in the United States in Trump’s era: fear, hope, and support.
2. Integral Consular Diplomacy Management.
3. Areas of opportunities: Strategic Vision of Mexico’s comprehensive consular management.

 

1. Mexican Diaspora in the United States in Trump’s era: fear, hope, and support.

 
In the first section, Díaz de León and Peláez Millán analyze the political context and the Mexican community’s conditions during Donald Trump’s presidency. They highlight the permanent fear experienced by Mexicans, particularly those undocumented, as a result of the aggressive Anti-immigrant and Anti-Mexican rhetoric and policies, at all levels, including some segments of U.S. society.
 
The authors identify the “legitimacy of bullying” against Mexicans across the nation, starting from the White House. Following the President’s lead, many local, county, and state authorities and politicians presented anti-immigrant actions to curb immigration.
 
Simultaneously, the authors indicate that “the Mexican diaspora is not alone; it has the support of a wide range of organizations and collaboration networks of civil rights and pro-immigration groups, legal representation, community development, [and] educational, health and financial services providers…”[i] This support is the result of the work of the 50 Mexican consulates that, since 1990, included community affairs activities to the traditional protection and documentation services.[ii]
 
Recognizing this new situation, in early 2017, the government of Mexico authorized more than 50 million dollars to implement the new strategy entitled Fortalecimiento para la Atención a Mexicanos en Estados Unidos (Strengthened Assistance to Mexicans in the United States), also referred to as FAMEU. Its objective was to support the Mexican community in the United States during these trying times.[iii]
 
Some of the strategy results in 2017 were the establishment of the Centros de Defensoría (Legal Defense Centers) that provided advice to more than 580,000 people and offered legal assistance and representation to 29,000 Mexicans.[iv]
 
Besides, the Centro de Información y Asistencia a Mexicanos (CIAM), Mexico’s 24 hours consular assistance calling center, received nearly 300,000 phone calls, and the Ventanilla de Asesoría Financiera (Financial Advice Desk) benefitted more than 124,000 Mexicans.[v]

2. Integral Consular Diplomacy Management. 

In the chapter’s second part, Díaz de León and Peláez Millán explain that the consulates of Mexico have a comprehensive work that includes three areas: protection, documentation services, and community affairs, also know as the consular tripod.
 
The authors incorporate to the concept of Mexico’s Consular Diplomacy additional objectives: improve the Mexican community’s well-being and promote their empowerment and inclusion to the host society.[vi] This is an extra element to the Consular Diplomacy ideas that Daniel Hernández Joseph and Reyna Torres Mendivil present in their book’s respective chapters.
 
Díaz de León and Peláez Millán explain that in recent years, the consular network executed an innovation process to improve the quality of its services.[vii] Some of the results were:

1. The expansion of the Mobile Consulate program.
2. Access to birth certificates issued in Mexico.
3. Establishment of the Centros de Defensoría (Legal Defense Centers).
4. Collaboration with civil rights organizations.
5. Expansion of community empowerment activities.[viii]

 
Nevertheless, the authors recognize lagging areas, such as training, budget planning, computing equipment, and administrative systems’ reengineering.[ix]  
 
Díaz de León and Peláez Millán state that it is indispensable to identify ways to improve and maximize the use of available resources in addition to work with new partners. It will allow the consulates to respond to the immediate needs of the Mexican community while focusing on the strategic goal of promoting their empowerment and integration.[x]

3. Areas of opportunities: Strategic Vision of Mexico’s comprehensive consular management.  

Regarding areas of opportunities, the authors of the chapter distinguish the following
three:
a) Assuming a proactive role in the construction of a favorable ecosystem for the Mexican Diaspora.
b) Establishing a systematic outreach mechanism towards the 23 million Mexican-American.
c) Strengthening the consulate’s political activities that will add value to Mexico’s Consular Diplomacy.  

The critical element is to incorporate these prospects and the consular services improvement process into a long-term strategic vision that will allow the consulate to achieve the overall foreign policy objectives proactively.
 
Díaz de León and Peláez Millán conclude that the Mexican community appreciates and trusts the Mexican consular network.[xi] Also, Mexico’s Consular Diplomacy enjoys “the legitimacy and credibility to confront the current challenges and take advantage of the opportunities, regardless of U.S. immigration policies and activities.”[xii] Its most significant challenge is to develop a far-reaching plan to benefit the Mexican community north of the border.
 
This reading is a valuable contribution to the concept of the Consular Diplomacy of Mexico as the authors incorporate the Mexican Community’s empowerment as one of its goals. It also poses two crucial questions: a) How to maximize available resources assigned to its consular network? b) How to attract other relevant actors to collaborate in these efforts? Their answer could be the path for the much needed long-term strategic vision.
 
Besides, it is also significant because Díaz de León and Peláez Millán identify three areas of opportunity which could be implemented to continue the transformation of the consular services and programs offered by Mexican consulates in the U.S.
 
 
[i] Díaz de León, Francisco Javier and Peláez Millán, Victor, “Mexico´s Integral Consular Management in the United States” in La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, Rafael Fernández de Castro (coord.), Mexico, 2018, p. 131.
[ii] Ibid. p. 131.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid. p. 132.
[v] Ibid. p. 133.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] This is similar to other country´s consular services modernization initiatives, as referred by Heijmans, Maaike and Melissen, Jan, in Foreign Ministries and the Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs: Cinderella in the Limelight, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, June 7, 2006, p. 7.
[viii] Ibid. p. 136.
[ix] Ibid. p. 137.
[x] Ibid. p. 137-138.
[xi] Ibid. p. 148.
[xii] Ibid. p. 147.

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.