1. Introduction As mentioned in my previous post, “Why we need more diplomatic studies?” a significant development in today´s diplomatic practice is the explosion of novel instruments or tools used to attain a country´s foreign policy goals. However, some scholars have questioned if these “new” ways to do Diplomacy are even real while highlighting the risk that entails calling everything Diplomacy. This blog post will discuss whether these innovative diplomatic tools are really new or imposters, using as examples an analysis of Public Diplomacy and Gatrodiplomacy. The conclusion is that some are original, while others are rebranded instruments, but a thorough examination is required to unmask phonies. Besides, these activities need to be part of a Foreign Policy strategy to be called Diplomacy. When I think about new diplomatic instruments, I always remember the article written by Shaun Riordan titled “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies.”[i] In it, he complains about the tendency to incorporate into the diplomatic realm all sorts of activities, which carries the risk of losing the meaning of Diplomacy. I agree with Riordan that “the conceptual confusion arises from the failure to distinguish between tools that can be used as part of a broader diplomatic strategy and the subject matter of diplomacy.”[ii] Besides, in the article “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up!”, Katharina E. Höne of the DiploFoundation agrees with Riordan stating that “If everything is diplomacy, then nothing is. An ever-expanding concept eventually becomes meaningless.”[iii] However, Höne declares that “rather than a categorical rejection [of the new diplomacies], the proper response is to sharpen our intellectual tools and get to work [and] in order to tell the imposter from the innovator, we need to look closely at diplomacy as a practice, its relation to the state, and the purposes of these new diplomacies.”[iv] After thinking about this issue for the last couple of months, chiefly because it is the main objective of this blog, I believe there is a need to use these new terminologies, even if the practice has occurred since ancient times and are just rebranded. So, I concurred with Höne that it is required to analyze these diplomatic instruments to separate the new authentic tools from the fake ones. So, let’s get to work! 2. Origins of the expansion of diplomatic tools Jessica Lilian De Alva Ulloa and Rafael Velázquez Flores explain the expansion of diplomatic tools during the Cold War, where every activity was part of the ideological competition between the Soviet Union and the United States. Diplomatic initiatives in different fields such as sports, education, space, and culture were developed as part of their foreign policy.[v] After the fall of the Soviet Union, “the disappearance of one of the superpowers brought changes to global diplomacy. As a result, new forms of diplomacy appeared, like environmental, migration and refugees, and human rights.”[vi] Besides, in the article “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, John Brown explains that “a special place in the increased “adjectivization” of diplomacy (pardon the jaw-breaking term, but it does describe what’s going on) can be traced in part to the British scholar Mark Leonard, who in his 2002 book, Public Diplomacy, introduced … terms [such as]: Co-operative Diplomacy; Competitive Diplomacy; Diaspora Diplomacy; Business Diplomacy; and Niche Diplomacy.”[vii] In turn, G.R. Berridge has written that the “rejuvenation of some of the key features of traditional diplomacy has gone unnoticed – partly because it has been masked by the attachment of new labels to old procedures and partly because the novel has a greater fascination than the tried and tested.”[viii] The tendency to adjectivized diplomacies already existed previously. Terms such as gunboat and shuttle diplomacies were part of the diplomatic toolbox of the U.S.[ix] However, it is not just the tools that expanded, particularly in the 21st Century, but Diplomacy itself grew into what some have called “new diplomacy.” 3. Expansion of the concept of Diplomacy One reason why the explosion of the so-called “new” diplomacies is that Diplomacy itself has expanded outwards.[x] Before creating the first genuinely international organization (IO), the International Telegraph Union, in 1865, there were no diplomatic negotiations outside the States. Now there is an enormous practice of IO diplomacy, not only between member states inside an OI but also amid IOs and states, thus greatly expanding the scope of Diplomacy with these new interactions. Additionally, state and local authorities, NGOs, corporations, individuals, including terrorist, and criminal organizations, have extended their engagement in international affairs. For example, there were only 176 international NGOs in 1909 compared to 48,000 in 2000.[xi] Some of these actors' participation has not been hindered by not forming part of the diplomatic services of their countries, thus do not enjoy the same privileges and immunities as diplomats.[xii] Furthermore, some of these practices have evolved immensely, so whole new departments have been created at many ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs), producing lots of documents, best practices, some with excellent results and other significant failures. Besides, as MFAs have expanded their transparency and accountability, the information usually is publicly available for evaluation and comparison. According to G.R. Berridge, “what we have now is neither and or nor a new diplomacy but, instead, a blend of the two, which has produced a mature diplomacy. It is also one fortified by a respected legal regime.”[xiii] The digital revolution and the enlargement of trade and communications have also allowed the radical growth of international exchanges, commerce, and participation, unsealing new opportunities and threats to the diplomatic craft in general and the country´s foreign policy in particular. As the reader will see in the next section, social media platforms allowed the development of digital public diplomacy in ways that were not possible just a few years ago. Also, the availability of specialized food products from faraway lands allowed governments to implement Gastrodiplomacy efforts that were impossible before. In the next section, I will evaluate Public Diplomacy and Gastrodiplomacy using the proposed framework by Katharina E. Höne, focusing on their purpose, relationship with the State, and who does it. 4. Analysis of two diplomatic instruments. 4.1 Public Diplomacy The best example of a relatively new tool, I believe, is Public Diplomacy (PD). The term has taken off worldwide, and many if not most MFAs have included it in their foreign policy toolbox. For many years, connecting with certain groups was a recurrent task for any ambassador or envoy to gather information about the receiving State's conditions. More importantly, it was an opportunity to persuade or influence them to change a policy or a position towards the sending State. The practice by Embassies of engaging foreign audiences outside government officials is not new.[xiv] However, connecting to ordinary people has dramatically changed, becoming a lot more specialized and adopting innovative communication technics to accomplish the intended goals. If radio, TV, and fax magnified the opportunities for diplomats to engage with citizens in the receiving, the digital transformation has unlocked multiple prospects to talk, and more importantly, listening, directly to individuals and targeted groups of the receiving State and the sending one too. The field of study of PD has multiplied,[xv] and I think it is one reason for greater interest in Diplomacy as a whole. For many of us, PD was the entry point for formally study Diplomacy, even if we have practiced it for a long time. Nowadays, several universities and other learning institutions worldwide offer multiple PD courses, from one-day workshops to Master´s degrees. Several specialized journals and magazines[xvi] have appeared in recent years, such as South Korea´s brand new Journal of Public Diplomacy, which has expanded the options for publishing academic articles about the topic. 4.1.2 Does PD is a real diplomatic tool or just hype? Using the analytical tool proposed by Katharina E. Höne, let´s dissect PD. Concerning the relationship with the State, it is clear that governments are key sponsors of Public Diplomacy initiatives, which are part of an overall foreign policy strategy. Even if these activities are supported by NGOs, individuals, and other institutions, the core functions are performed by embassies and diplomats.[xvii] So, here it is clear that, for the most part, PD is a new tool of the diplomatic craft. I don´t believe it is a rebranded one because there are huge differences from previous practices, mostly because of the digital revolution. Of course, an in-depth analysis of each of the initiatives that governments label as PD would be needed to really know if it is an imposter or the real deal. Luckily, there is a growing body of research about it, not just in scholarly journals but magazines, blogs, and even government studies. 4.2 Gastrodiplomacy Another in-vogue tool of diplomacy is winning foreign audiences' hearts and minds thru their stomach, also known as Gastrodiplomacy. It is considered a technique that forms part of Cultural Diplomacy, and it is relatively recent. Only in 2002, The Economist coined the term after Thailand´s efforts to increase the number of Thai restaurants worldwide.[xviii] Since then, many countries, including Peru, South Korea, and Japan, have invested considerable resources in these efforts. To learn more about Mexico´s Gastrodiplomacy efforts, check out my blog “More than Tacos: Mexico´s scrumptious, yet unknown Gastrodiplomacy” and “Ten years later: Mexico´s Traditional Cuisine and Gastrodiplomacy efforts.” Until recently, local ingredients seldomly used outside the country of origin were available internationally, so they were hard or impossible to find in sufficient quantities to start a restaurant. The ever-growing migration of people, combined with an openness to try different dishes and cuisines, and the growth of agricultural exports (and locally-harvested), unlock the door for governmental efforts to promote its image abroad to gain influence and expand commercial opportunities via Gastrodiplomacy. Shaun Riordan has a significant point that “it only makes sense to talk about sporting (or educational, or scientific, or gastronomic) activities if they form part of a broader diplomatic strategy in pursuit of policy objectives. Otherwise it is just sport, education, science or lunch.”[xix] Therefore, we can only describe it as gastronomic diplomacy if it is spearheaded by the government and has a foreign policy objective. Of course, other actors, such as corporations, NGOs, or even individuals like famous chefs, can be part of its implementation through informal collaborations or formal partnerships. 4.2.1 Is Gastrodiplomacy a diplomatic imposter? In the case of Gastrodiplomacy, we can undoubtedly say that it is a new tool of the diplomatic craft, made possible by changes in transportation, migration, and people´s openness to try foreign cuisines. However, as already mentioned, if it is not part of a foreign policy effort with specific goals, it cannot be considered a type of diplomatic instrument. The issue's development lags behind Public Diplomacy and other cultural diplomatic instruments like Sports and Science diplomacies. The number of articles, scholarly or not, about the subject is still small. The most significant accomplishment was the publication of a special issue about Gastrodiplomacy in the Public Diplomacy magazine in 2014. Besides, there are no classes, seminars, or workshops that I know off just dedicated to the study and practice of Gastrodiplomacy. Therefore, it is a bit hard to argue that Gastrodiplomacy is not a diplomatic imposter. Still, the facts are that countries across the planet have invested scarce financial and human resources to instrument diplomatic efforts using cuisine, sometimes with excellent results. We might not like it, literally the food or the measures, but they are real and exist as the examples of the Gastronomic Diplomacy efforts by Mexico, Peru, and South Korea demonstrate. And given time and flourishing practitioners and scholars, we might have the first Diplomatic /Cordon Blue Chef school somewhere soon. 5. Conclusions. As the new critical theories of International Relations bring new and innovative perspectives to the fields’ scholarship, novel diplomatic instruments are unlocking opportunities for original ways of international engagement. However, some scholars think that it is not an all-out revolution of Diplomacy. For example, Berridge indicates, “What we have witnessed in recent years is not the complete transformation of diplomacy, but rather, the more -occasionally less- intelligent application of new technology and new devices to support tried and tested methods, with the added advantage that this has helped to integrate many poor and weak states into the world diplomatic system.”[xx] In contrast, Höne writes, “If diplomacy is not to become a dinosaur, new diplomacies and their careful debate should be welcomed as part of a much-needed dynamism in the field.”[xxi] Time, analysis, and country´s practices will reveal which diplomatic modes are imposters, which are rebranded efforts, and which are the real deal. For me, the key is for them to have a FP goal. Otherwise, they are not Diplomacy, and we need to invent a different form to call them, but not Diplomacy. I want to conclude this post quoting John Brown: “Below are recent media entries with adjectival modifications (vulgarisations?) of diplomacy — which, perhaps, have contributed to a refinement (dilution?) of the meaning of this unexciting but venerable word. Should one be optimistic/pessimistic about such a development? Let the reader decide. crisis diplomacy radical diplomacy food diplomacy audio diplomacy 1.5 track military diplomacy skateboard diplomacy koala diplomacy wife diplomacy Mrs. diplomacy [original link appears to be inactive] female sports diplomacy emoji diplomacy creative diplomacy poem and prose diplomacy soap opera diplomacy side-eye diplomacy Bulgakov diplomacy.”[xxii] Note: I have not forgotten about Consular Diplomacy, but the post is already quite long; therefore, I analyzed this ”new” diplomatic instrument in the next blog post titled "Consular Diplomacy: Cinderella no more, but not yet a princess". [i] Also see, Brown, John, “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, Huffington Post, March 23, 2016, and the last chapter of the book Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, by G.R. Berridge. [ii] Riordan, Shaun, “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies”, Center on Public Diplomacy Blog, June 21, 2017. [iii] Höne, Katharina E., “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up!”, DiploFoundation Blog, June 30, 2017. [iv] Höne, Katharina E., 2017. [v] De Alva Ulloa, Jessica Lilian, and Velázquez Flores Rafael, “La diplomacia: concepto, origen, desarrollo histórico y tipos” in Teoría y Práctica de la Diplomacia en México: Aspectos básicos, 2018, pp. 37-39. [vi] De Alva Ulloa, Jessica Lillian, and Velázquez Flores Rafael, 2018, pp. 39-40. [vii] Brown, John, “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, Huffington Post, March 23, 2016. [viii] Berridge, G.R., “Conclusion: The Counter-Revolution in Diplomatic Practice” in Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, p. 266. [ix] Brown, John, 2016. [x] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 20. [xi] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, 2013, pp. 7 and 9. [xii] See Höne, Katharina E., 2017 and Riordan 2017. [xiii] Berridge, G.R., 2015, p. 268. [xiv] See the chapter “Public Diplomacy” by Berridge, G.R., in Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, pp. 198-209. [xv] See for example this great research about PD articles in peer-reviewed journals, Sevin, Efe, Metzgar, Emily T., and Hayden, Craig, “The Scholarship of Public Diplomacy: Analysis of a Growing Field”, International Journal of Communication Vol. 13, 2019, pp. 4814–4837. [xvi] Such as the Public Diplomacy Magazine and other publications of the Center on Public Diplomacy, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, among other [xvii] Here the focus on the instrumentation of PD campaigns, including the organization of educational and cultural exchanges which are initiatives where individuals participate directly. [xviii] The Economist, “Food as ambassador, Thailand´s gastrodiplomacy”, February 21, 2002. [xix] Riordan, Shaun, 2017. [xx] Berridge, G.R., 2015, p. 268. [xxi] Höne, Katharina E., 2017. [xxii] Brown, John, 2016. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer, or company.
0 Comments
A few days ago, Mexico celebrated the tenth anniversary of its traditional cuisine as an Intangible Cultural Heritage by UNESCO. I believe it is an important milestone as it was the first cuisine included in the registry. The other two registries had a different perspective, the French meal emphasizes processes, while the Mediterranean diet focuses on ingredients, according to Gloria López Morales,[i] Founder and President of the Conservatorio de la Cultura Gastronómica Mexicana, a non-profit organization registered at the UNESCO. To learn more about Mexico´s Gastrodiplomacy efforts to achieve this goal, check out the post More than Tacos: Mexico´s scrumptious, yet unknown Gastrodiplomacy. So, what has happened in the last ten years? There are three significant developments since then: 1. Internally, the inclusion of our traditional cuisine in the UNESCO registry has given us an enhanced sense of pride. We always thought our food was great, but this was its international validation. Besides, it also created a revolution in our food scene; suddenly, some of our top chefs, such as Enrique Olvera and Jorge Vallejo, became international figures and were listed in the 50 Best Restaurant lists, climbing almost to the top.[ii] The recognition also makes them part of several documentaries such as Netflix´s Chef´s Table, or even their own shows such as Gabriela Camara`s Netflix show Una historia de dos cocinas, about Contramar restaurant in Mexico City and its sister in San Francisco. More importantly, our traditional cuisine had the attention of not only sociologists, food experts, and chefs but authorities and the general public. The rise of the Cocineras Tradicionales[iii] or Traditional female cooks and all the events that were built around their expertise is just remarkable. Part of the registration on the UNESCO´s list is to protect the heritage, so, in this case, the traditional cuisine was not just protected but was reappraised and revitalized. For example, there have been yearly national conferences for cocineras tradicionales, and also at the state level. They are also participating in international meetings and tours, such as one in Southern France in late 2019. It also helped in the regional cuisine phenomenon, which helps maintain the unique cuisines of regions and small towns across Mexico. Mexico's report about its efforts regarding this registry is due before the end of 2020, so it will be interesting to read it when it is published. 2. Externally, it helped in the promotion of Mexico as a tourist destination. In many promotional materials and ad campaigns, there were the reference of Mexican food as Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Cocineras Tradicionales. 3. Regarding UNESCO´s Intangible Cultural Heritage registry, it was the Campeche meeting in 2008 that generated enough momentum for the world to look at cuisine as a cultural heritage.[iv] Now, 26 countries have 18 “food preparation” elements in the registry.[v] Even after achieving the ultimate goal of the registry, Mexico has continued to embrace some Gastrodiplomacy strategies. The Institute of Mexicans Abroad continued to promote Mexican gastronomy after some of the programs came to an end in 2012, like supporting the Foro Mundial de la Gastronomia Mexicana. The forum has taken place six times since 2013. The one in 2018 took place in the United States under the titled “Viva la Comida Mexicana en Norteamérica,” and its objectives was to: “Strengthen the development of Mexican cuisine abroad through education, commercial expansion, and promotion of the entire value chain that constitutes the national and regional gastronomic heritage. To give continuity to the projects of support to the traditional cooks as carriers of the Gastronomic Patrimony of the country.”[vi] Additionally, in 2016 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs embarked on Gastrodiplomacy across the world with the designation of “Chefs Diplomatic corps” or Cuerpo Diplomático de Cocineros and the Young Talent internships in 12 embassies and consulates, as part of the “Ven a Comer” initiative launched the same year. So, let´s eat some traditional Mexican food as part of the celebration. Provecho!! [i] García Ocejo Mercedes, “Cómo la UNESCO designó a la gastronomía mexicana Patrimonio de la Humanidad” in El Heraldo de México, March 22, 2020. [ii] In the 2019 list, Olvera´s restaurant Pujol was number 12 and Cosme 23, while Jorge Vallejos´ Quintonil occupied the 24th position. [iii] The Cocineras tradicionales or traditional female cooks represent the traditional Mexican cuisine because most of them inherited the knowledge from their ancestors and carry on this heritage. For an interesting review of their role, see Matta, Raúl, “Mexico´s culinary heritage and cocineras traditionales (traditional female cooks)” in Food and Foodways, Vol. 27, Num. 3, 2019, p 211-231. [iv] Romagnoli, Marco “Gastronomic heritage elements at UNESCO: problems, reflections and intepretations of a new heritage category” in International Journal of Intangible Heritage, Vol 14, 2019, p. 165. [v] See UNESCO ´s ¨food preparation” category of the registry in the following link https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists?term[]=vocabulary_thesaurus-10 [vi] VI Foro Mundial de Gastronomía Mexicana website, “About Us, Objectives”, 2018. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. As mentioned in the previous post, Mexico´s Gastrodiplomacy efforts have not been analyzed or recognized; therefore, they are relatively unknown. A few articles cite the diplomatic efforts of the government of Mexico[i] regarding its work to register its traditional cuisine in the list of UNESCO´s Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2010, together with “The Gastronomic meal of the French”. It was the first inscription in the registry of a traditional practice around food. After this historical achievement, other countries such as South Korea, Japan, Turkey, and nations around the Mediterranean have successfully registered a total of 18 “food preparation” elements with the participation of 26 countries. [ii] Before moving in a bit deeper, it is worth asking: do efforts of registering food preparations as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity can be considered Gastrodiplomacy? If not, is this the reason why Mexico´s efforts in this regard have not been included as Gastrodiplomacy, or are there other reasons? Most articles analyzing countries´ Gastrodiplomacy campaigns, particularly the ones about Peru, South Korea, and Japan, included the stated goal of the inscription of its culinary traditions in UNESCO´s list. Therefore, I can assume that this activity forms part of these countries' Gastrodiplomacy efforts. Consequently, Mexico´s actions to achieve this goal must also be considered as Gastrodiplomacy. In 1996, Mexican scholars started the idea of the “recognition of particularly culinary practices as complete expressions of a living and dynamic heritage.”[iii] In 2002, a group of Mexican multidisciplinary academics, led by Yuriria Iturriaga and Cristina Barron, joined forces to begin the preparation of the nomination of the cultural food system of the Mexican people as an Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.[iv] A key player of all these efforts and the follow up is Gloria López Morales, Founder and President of the Conservatorio de la Cultura Gastronómica Mexicana, a non-profit organization registered at the UNESCO. The 2005 nomination of Mexico titled “People of Corn, Mexico´s Ancestral Cuisine. Rituals, Ceremonies and Cultural Practices of the Cuisine of the Mexican People.” was rejected.[v] However, a debate started about the recognition of cuisine and other food and beverage related traditions as part of the registry,[vi] which concluded in 2010 with the inscription of Mexico´s traditional cuisine and the Gastronomic meal of the French as the first ones, as mentioned above. During this time, just before the presentation and, particularly, after the rejection of the registry in late 2005, the government of Mexico began an aggressive but under-the-radar Consular Diplomacy initiative in the United States and Canada, focused on food and cultural heritage. It was part of an overall Gastrodiplomacy strategy to achieve the inscription of Mexican cuisine as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. One of the first activities of the consular Gastrodiplomacy effort was the organization of a “Jornada Informativa”[vii] focused on Mexican chefs and restaurant owners in the United States and Canada in June 2005, a few months before the UNESCO rejected Mexico´s nomination. As a result of the meeting, most of the participants agreed to establish an organization of Mexican restaurants and food distributors in the United States and Canada.[viii] The Mexican Restaurant Association (MERA) held its first national summit in 2009, as part of the 5th Trinational Mexican Gastronomy and Culture Week.[ix] Unfortunately, it later disappeared. Another initiative that developed during that 2005 meeting was the creation of the Trinational Gastronomical Festival or “Semana Trinacional de Gastronomía.” This activity took place around the celebration of the Day of the Dead (November 1st and 2nd, 2005),[x] with the participation of most of the Consulates of Mexico in North America, [xi] together with Mexican restaurants and other organizations, such as Mexican beer distributors, Tequila and Mezcal producers.[xii] The Festival continued for another six years until 2011. All participants of the Jornada Informativa del IME: Programa Trinacional de Gastronomía Mexicana signed a letter to the Director-General of UNESCO in support of Mexico´s nomination to the designation as Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, that was going to be voted on November 2005.[xiii] As these initiatives demonstrate, there was a comprehensive effort by the government of Mexico, together with non-governmental organizations, to highlight the value of its traditional cuisine, and to have it recognized as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity. It included precise actions in the multilateral arena of UNESCO,[xiv] but also a specific work plan for the Mexican restaurant community in the United States and Canada, supported by the network of Consulates of Mexico in North America. Using Paul Rockewer´s definition of Gastrodiplomacy as a “…concerted public diplomacy campaign by a national government that combines culinary and cultural diplomacy – backed up by monetary investment – to raise its national brand status…”[xv] I believe that Mexico´s efforts clearly can be considered as Gastrodiplomacy. One can ask, was the goal achieved? In the end, in 2010, Mexico´s traditional cuisine was included in the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, reaffirming its position as a robust international cuisine and hopefully winning hearts, minds, and stomachs all across Canada and the United States. Even after these initiatives ended later, the government of Mexico has continued to promote it´s cuisine abroad through different activities. These will be analyzed in another post, hoping to confirm that are actual Gastrodiplomacy actions. [i] See Wilson, Rachel, “Comida Peruana para el Mundo: Gastrodiplomacy, the Culinary Nation Brand and the Context of National Cuisine in Peru” in Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No.. 1, 2011, p. 15; Zhang, Juyan, “The Food of the Worlds: Mapping and Comparing Contemporary Gastrodiplomacy Campaigns” in International Journal of Communication Vol 9, 2015, p. 569; Chappel-Sokol, Sam, “Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds” in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 8, 2013, p. 165; and Bestor, Theodore C., “The Most F(l)avored Nation Status: The Gastrodiplomacy of Japan´s Global Promotion of Cuisine”, in Public Diplomacy Magazine, Winter 2004, p.58. [ii] See UNESCO ´s ¨food preparation” category of the registry in the following link https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists?term[]=vocabulary_thesaurus-10 [iii] CONACULTA, “Relatoria, Capítulo 1: El Expediente Pueblo de Maíz, La Cocina Ancestral de México” in Cuadernos Patrimonio Cultural y Turismo, No. 10, 2014, p. 14. [iv] Ibid. Note: thru the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity 90 intangible masterpieces were recognized in three different sessions (2001, 2003 and 2005). It was not till 2006 when the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, adopted in 2003, came in to force. Therefore, in the 2008 meeting, those 90 masterpieces were recognized as elements of the Convention. [v] To find out some of the reason why it was rejected read Medina, F. Xavier, “Mediterranean diet, culture and heritage: Challenges for a new conception” in Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 12, Num. 9A, September 2009, p. 1618. [vi] For an analysis of the discussions whether a cuisine or food can be an UNESCO´s intangible cultural heritage of humanity see Romagnoli, Marco “Gastronomic heritage elements at UNESCO: problems, reflections and intepretations of a new heritage category” in International Journal of Intangible Heritage, Vol 14, 2019 p. 158-171 and De Miguel Molina, Maria, et al., “Intangible Heritage and Gastronomy: The Impact of UNESCO Gastronomy Elements” in Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4, October 2016, p. 293-310 [vii] The “Jornadas Informativas” or “Migrant-Focused Conferences” are organized by the Institute of Mexican Abroad (IME) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico that brought to the country different groups of authorities, organizations, and leaders in the U.S. and Canada to learn about Mexico´s efforts toward its immigrant population in those countries and exchange best practices. Each conference or Jornada has a specific theme or focus, such as Health, Financial Education or Gastronomy. For more information about the IME and a description of the Jornadas see: Laglagadore, Laureen Protection through Integration: The Mexican Government´s Efforts to Aid Migrants in the United States, Migration Policy Instituto, January 2010. Additionally visit Jornadas Informativas del IME (in Spanish). [viii] Laglagaron, p. 22. [ix] “Inicia V Semana Trinacional de Gastronomía y Cultura Mexicana”, in Protocolo, October 30, 2009. The national summit of MERA was held in Kansa City, Missouri, during the official opening of the festivities that took place across North America. [x] This was a very clever way to also promote the Day of the Dead, a 2003 UNESCO´s Oral and Intangible Cultural Heritage designation of 2013, for the celebration of the trinational gastronomic week. [xi] Ponce, Karla, “Día de Muertos en Tres Países” in El Universal, October 28, 2005. [xii] Martinez M., Pedro Salvador, “Comiendo con los Muertos” en la Semana de Gastronomia y Cultura Mexicana en EU, Canadá y México”, in Azteca 21, October 24, 2005. [xiii] Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, 25a Jornada Informativa del IME: Programa Trinacional de Gastronomía Mexicana. SRE, 2005, p. 80. [xiv] See Marco Romagnoli (2019) He states that “Mexico organized an international and scientific meeting in Campeche in 2008 to enhance and promote the heritage value of cuisine.” Its outcome was the “Declaración de Campeche”. Additionally, Mexico supported Peru´s proposal for an expert meeting that took place in France in April 2009, which “paved the way for the acceptance of culinary nominations and inscriptions by UNESCO in 2010”. p. 165 [xv] Rockower, Paul “Recipes for gastrodiplomacy” in Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2012, p. 236. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.
The third component of the new kind of doing diplomacy is Gastrodiplomacy. As I mentioned in the first post, the term was created in 2002 by The Economist in an article about Thailand's efforts to “…boost the number…” of Thai restaurants around the world and “to make it easier for foreign restaurants to import Thai food…”[i] Since then, a substantial number of studies and articles about Gastrodiplomacy were created, particularly by Paul Rockower, founder of the Levantine Public Diplomacy organization. Besides, Sam Chappel -Sokol also developed what he calls “culinary diplomacy”, which is different from Gastrodiplomacy, as you will learn later on this post. The highlight of the study of winning hearts and minds through the stomach was the publication of an issue about Gastrodiplomacy in the Public Diplomacy magazine in 2014. As far as I know, from recent online searches, it seems that the term is less used nowadays. Maybe because it was a mere fad or because, as some have written,[ii] it was not real diplomacy at all, but just a tool of public/cultural diplomacy that did not deserve a particular category in the academic world. In his seminal work of 2012 “Recipes for gastrodiplomacy”, Rockower defines Gastrodiplomacy as “how countries conduct cultural diplomacy through promotion of their cuisine.”[iii] He explains that it “uses a country’s culinary delights as means to conduct public diplomacy and to raise nation brand awareness.”[iv] The author explains that Gastrodiplomacy is not only food tastings and cooking demonstrations offered by embassies, but a “ concerted public diplomacy campaign by a national government that combines culinary and cultural diplomacy – backed up by monetary investment – to raise its national brand status…”[v] Rockower also differentiates this concept from other similar ideas, like culinary or food diplomacies,[vi] citing the work done by Sam Chappel-Sokol in “Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds”. In the second part of the article, Rockower briefly explains the Gastrodiplomacy efforts developed by Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as dwelling a bit about some people-to-people Gastrodiplomacy initiatives such as the Conflict Kitchen restaurant in Pittsburg, U.S.A (now closed). As mentioned before, the other scholar who delves into the concept of Culinary Diplomacy is Sam Chappel-Soko, who includes what Rockower defines as Gastrodiplomacy. In his article (see above), he delineates culinary diplomacy “as the use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation.”[vii] And states that there are two types: public and private, being the former part of public and cultural diplomacy, while the latter “occurs behind closed doors.”[viii] It is interesting to appreciate that most scholarly articles about Gastrodiplomacy focus on several efforts by Asia-Pacific nations such as Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia, Japan, and Taiwan, with a few others like Peru´s Gastrodiplomacy.[ix] However, little to nothing has been written from a Gastrodiplomacy perspective about Mexico´s efforts to obtain the recognition of its cuisine as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity by the UNESCO (achieved in 2010 after a failed attempt in 2005 titled “People of Corn, Mexico´s Ancestral Cuisine”),[x] Neither about the prolonged under-the-radar Consular Diplomacy activities around Mexican food in the United States in the first decade of the new millennium. One reason could be that these activities are not considered Gastrodiplomacy, so there is no room to include them in scholarly studies and other articles. Another one could be that most of the papers and reports are written in Spanish. Additionally, it seems there has been an absence of the analysis undertaken, not just by the government, but by scholars and practitioners alike. I believe this is the real reason why the Gastrodiplomacy strategy implemented by Mexico is not well known. Therefore, one of the goals of the blog is to share with the world these efforts. You can see a few papers about this topic in the Interesting Links section. For a comprehensive list of published studies about Gastrodiplomacy, you can visit this webpage: Levantine Public Diplomacy organization. [i] The Economist, “Food as ambassador, Thailand´s gastrodiplomacy”, February 21, 2002. [ii] See Riordan, Shaun, “Stop inventing “New Diplomacies” in CPD blog, June 21, 2017; Höne, Katharina, “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up” and Brown, John, “Diplomacies from public to pubic”, Huffington Post, March 23, 2016. [iii] Rockower, Paul “Recipes for gastrodiplomacy” in Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2012, p. 235. [iv] Ibid. [v] Ibid. p. 236. [vi] Paul Rockover indicates that food diplomacy “…involves the use of food aid and food relief in a crises or catastrophe” in “The State of Gastrodiplomacy” Public Diplomacy Magazine, No. 11, Winter 2014, p 12. [vii] Chappel-Sokol, Sam, “Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds” in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 8, 2013, p. 162. [viii] Ibid. [ix] For a deeper analysis of the cuisine diplomacy of these six countries from an strategic communication perspective see Juyan Zhang´s “The Food of the Worlds: Mapping and Comparing Contemporary Gastrodiplomacy Campaigns” in International Journal of Communication Vol. 9, 2015, p. 568-591. [x] Interesting enough, in “Comida Peruana para el Mundo: Gastrodiplomacy, the Culinary Nation Brand and the Context of National Cuisine in Peru” Rachel Wilson recognizes that one of the main objectives of Peru´s Gastrodiplomacy effort was “having its cuisine deemed part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity…” in Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011, p. 13. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. ST
|
Rodrigo Márquez LartigueDiplomat interested in the development of Consular and Public Diplomacies. Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|