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
This post was originally published February 4, 2021, by the CPD Blog at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy here uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-its-best-case-mexican-consular-id-card-program. We look forward to sharing widely and hope you´ll do the same. The Mexican Consular ID card (MCID or Matrícula Consular) program is considered a successful public-consular diplomacy initiative. It resulted in significant benefits for the Mexican community living in the United States, creating long-lasting partnerships between Mexican consulates and local authorities, and financial institutions. With the focus on security in the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Mexico's government decided to increase the security features of the MCID, which has been produced by the consulates since 1871. Consular offices started issuing the new high-security consular IDs cards in March 2002 while there were changes in banking regulations due to the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Besides the new security features, the Matrícula included additional information useful for local authorities and banks, such as the bearer's U.S. address. These added characteristics allowed banks, police departments and sheriffs' offices across the United States to appreciate it as a valuable tool and begin to recognize it as a form of ID. Despite pressure from anti-immigrant groups, the Treasury Department reaffirmed banks' possibility of accepting foreign government-issued identification documents, including the MCID, in September 2003. Wells Fargo was the first bank to accepted it and opened 400,000 bank accounts using the Matrícula from November 2001 to May 2004. Other financial institutions quickly followed. Therefore, by 2010, 400 financial institutions did the same, and 17 consulates signed 45 agreements with banks and credit unions. The Mexican Consular ID card was also seen as a step toward the financial inclusion of Latinos and immigrants; hence, the Federal Deposits Insurance Corporation (FDIC) promoted the collaboration with Mexico's consular network across the United States through the New Alliance Task Force. The benefit for the Mexican community was dramatic and very concrete. Having a bank account opened the door of financial inclusion. The Matrícula acceptance jumped dramatically in a short time. Consequently, as of July 2004, the Mexican Consular ID card “was accepted as valid identification in 377 cities, 163 counties, and 33 states…as well as…1,180 police departments…and 12 states recognize the card as one of the acceptable proofs of identity to obtain a driver's license.” After a hard pushback against issuing driver's licenses to undocumented migrants, some states reconsidered their position. “As of July 2015, 12 states…issued cards that give driving privileges...[to them]. Seven of these came on board in 2013.” Some states recognize the Matrícula as a form of identification for obtaining a driver's license, even as the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 is finally moving forward. The search for the acceptance of the consular ID cards pushed consulates, for the first time as a large-scale operation, to reach out to potential partners, including banks, credit unions, city mayors, country supervisors, chiefs of police and sheriffs' officers across the U.S. They also met with local institutions such as libraries and utility companies to promote the benefits of the Matrícula Consular. It was a massive public-consular diplomacy initiative undertaken by the Mexican consular network across the United States. The focus was on advocacy, explaining the advantages of recognizing the MCIC as a form of identification for their institutions. It resulted in establishing a direct dialogue with thousands of authorities and financial institution officers, which in many cases developed into strategic alliances or at least meaningful collaborations. The benefit for the Mexican community was dramatic and very concrete. Having a bank account opened the door of financial inclusion, which includes being eligible for certain credits and loans, facilitating and reducing the cost of wiring money home, increasing the possibility to save and invest, and bypassing the usage of money lenders and wiring services to cash paychecks and sending money. Besides, having a form of identification also allowed them to come forward as witnesses of crimes, identify themselves to the police, access medical care, have greater participation in PTA meetings, and in some states, access to driver's licenses. For Mexico´s consulates, the Matrícula Consular opened the door for the collaboration with the Federal Reserve in the Directo a Mexico program, reduced the costs of remittances, and promoted its investment in their home communities, mainly through the 3x1 matching fund's program. As an outcome of the MCIC program's tremendous success, other countries followed with their own consular ID card programs. The Matrícula program experienced significant updates in 2006 and 2014. Today it continues to be a valuable resource for the Mexican community living in the United States. In 2019, 811,951 consular ID cards were issued by consular offices north of the border, with a monthly average of 67,663. The Mexican Consular ID card program is an excellent example of public-consular diplomacy, where Mexican consulates work toward establishing partnerships with local, county and state authorities to benefit the Mexican community. The program also showcases Mexico's successful consular diplomacy and the value of engaging with local and state stakeholders in its overall foreign policy. 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. While preparing for a new project, I came across a 2017 press bulletin of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark announcing the designation as the first-ever Tech ambassador as part of its new #TechPlomacy initiative. Mr. Casper Klynge, a Danish career ambassador, arrived in the summer of 2017 in Silicon Valley. Things were not as smooth as they could be, as it took him nine months to meet with a senior official of a tech giant only to have a campus tour and a bag full of company goodies instead.[i] In January 2020, the ambassador resigned for a post in Brussels working for Microsoft, a company that seems to better understand his role, according to Adam Satariano in his article The world´s first Ambassador to the tech industry as he frequently talked with the company´s president. [ii] In August 2020, the Danish Foreign Ministry appointed Anne Marie Engtoft as the new Tech ambassador.[iii] She is the youngest ever ambassador of Denmark. Why Tech companies? At first, it seems odd that it was specifically a Tech Ambassador, as there has never been Oil Ambassadors or Finance Ambassador from different countries. But the article “Big tech companies are so powerful that a Nation sent an Ambassador to them” explains very clearly why these tech mammoths[iv] are incredibly different from the rest of multinational corporations: “It isn’t just their sheer size and scale that place tech companies alongside nation-states. They are categorically different from the industrial corporations of previous eras. They are transnational entities that deal in data and information, more than physical products. This allows them to slip the bounds of national origins much easier than any other company. And both their structure and their form differ from those of their ancestors.”[v] Digital platforms are “infrastructure for markets, communication, and information dissemination… [and as such they] mediate between communities, they are able to set rules and regulations that govern the behavior of markets, publishers, people, politics and so on.”[vi] They also “govern the spaces they control. And by developing new technologies that are deployed as platforms, they can govern entirely new spaces before national governments are even aware that a new governor has emerged.” (ibid) So, these businesses are totally different from traditional ones, so Ambassador Klynge is correct in stating that “These companies have moved from being companies with commercial interests to actually becoming de facto foreign policy actors.”[vii] New duties. According to a report,[viii] the ambassador had some traditional duties of any high-ranking diplomat in charge of trade and investment in an embassy, a consulate or trade or Investment promotion office abroad. It means that among his responsibilities were the promotion of Danish export and foreign investment attraction. But the main objectives of the tech ambassador position are to establish a dialogue and create relationships, not only with the tech giants but think tanks, and universities, among others, and to relate information about the fast-changing technology that could have an impact on Denmark. “…Part of the job involves intelligence gathering to help his government design policies before companies roll out new technologies such as advanced artificial intelligence, facial recognition tools, new health care platforms or autonomous vehicles in Denmark.”[ix] These tasks are not constrained by a geographical district, like a regular embassy or consulate, as the office has a global mandate[x] that includes overseeing offices in New Delhi, Seoul, and Shanghai.[xi] Ambassador Klynge, in an interview, explained that “We had to build a new team, we had to establish our own policies, we had to find out how to penetrate the tech companies in a way [that] you can have a strategic political discussion.”[xii] New challenges. Understandably, some companies took a while to understand the tech ambassador´s role because there are not used to this type of international engagement. One definition of Diplomacy is a system of communications and norms, so a country knows precisely what are the duties and responsibilities of any ambassador of a foreign nation. And are traditions, such as granting immunity to the envoy, since the Greek city-states times. In the context of arranging meetings, in the “real” diplomatic world, high-ranking officials understand that they would have to meet with an ambassador, considering the basics of reciprocity. In the tech world, there is no such thing as reciprocity. Officials of most countries would have difficulties arranging a meeting with senior management of the tech giants, as most of them only meet at the highest level, e.g., heads of state and top ministers. This could be an impossibility for small nations, even for a highly regarded country such as Denmark. So, naming an ambassador to Silicon Valley makes a lot of sense, with global responsibilities. However, as mentioned, this innovative approach could cause some confusion. I imagine Mr. Klynge was recognized by the U.S. Department of State as the Danish Consul General in Palo Alto, California, where his office is located, or some sort of Special Envoy, as there cannot be another ambassador besides the one accredited to Washington DC. It would also be interesting to see how China, India, or other countries where he travels recognized him as ambassador, with all its privileges, including inviolability and immunity. As the excellent introductory essay of The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy explains, there have been many changes in the diplomacy of the 21st Century, but the States are still the leading players. Even with the massive increase of actors in the international arena, including companies, and the blending of borders, the States maintain their importance. Technology platforms are creating their own digital worlds, controlling most of the rules of engagement, establishing its governance, regardless of the users' nationality or location. No wonder there is a growing push for greater regulation of these new powerful international actors. Interestingly, while announcing the designation of a new tech ambassador, the Danish Foreign Minister recognized the need to adjust this initiative, explaining that it “require[s] a new strategy and a relaunch of the tech initiative. We [Danish MFA] simply need to produce a tech version 2.0 and attain a more goal-orientated Danish effort to encourage the tech giants to become good, ‘global community’ citizens.”[xiii] Innovation is essential, and a Tech ambassador could be a new form of diplomacy, particularly with the Tech giants that are not your ordinary multinational corporation such as Ford, Shell, or Bank of America. [i] Satariano, Adam, “The world´s first Ambassador to the tech industry”, New York Times, September 3, 2019. [ii] Kristensen, Carsten, “World´s First Tech Ambassador resigns”, Inside Scandinavian Business, January 20, 2020. [iii] W., Christian, “Denmark to get new tech ambassador”, CPH Post, August 24, 2020. [iv] The five U.S. tech giants are Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. To learn about their economic power and competitive edge, see Crescioli, Tommaso, “Tech Giants and Competition: A Political Economy Perspective”, E-International Relations, October 27, 2020. [v] Blumenthal, Paul, “Big tech companies are so powerful that a Nation sent an Ambassador to them”, Huffington Post, June 23, 2018. [vi] Blumenthal, Paul, ibid. [vii] Satariano, Adam, ibid. [viii] Stokel-Walker, Christopher, “The First Silicon Valley ambassador is out to make nice with tech giants”, Wired, November 6, 2017. [ix] Blumenthal, Paul, ibid. [x] Denmark names first ever tech ambassador, Denmark MFA, 2017. [xi] Sanchez, Alejandro W., “The rise of the Tech Ambassador”, Diplomatic Courier, March 23, 2018. [xii] Johnson, Khari, “Tech giants, small countries, and the future of techplomacy”, Venture Beat, October 8, 2019. [xiii] W. Christian, ibid. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. Opening note: I borrowed the idea of seen Mexico´s image from a broken mirror from Guillermo Máynez Gil´s article titled “El espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros.”[i] I like the reference to a funhouse mirror because it reflects a person’s image but in a distorted way. So, the person can be identified but is presented in a very different way. In this post, I will argue that Mexico’s image abroad is distorted, like a reflection in a funhouse mirror, as a result of three circumstances: certain cultural expressions; U.S. influence in broadcasting to the world their own version of Mexico, and lack of policies and programs to projects its image overseas. Introduction. Every number of years, there is always a discussion about the need to improve Mexico´s image abroad, because according to Mexicans, it is skewed and does not reflect the country’s reality. As the reader saw in my post about these issues, a country´s image and reputation overseas is critical to its prosperity. Simon Anholt, creator of the terms Nation-brand, Competitive Identity, and the Good Country indicates that every country competes to get “a share of the world´s consumption and tourism, to attract investors, students, and business person, also to gain the respect of other governments, the international media and the people of other countries.”[ii] In this post, I will talk about Mexico´s image so the reader can better understand the different elements that influence how the country is perceived overseas and why it might have a bad international image. It is interesting to see that different authors such as Leonardo Curzio, Simon Anholt, Jaime Díaz, and Mónica Pérez, agree that there is a large gap between Mexico´s reality and the perceptions that most of the world has about the country, which in general is not favorable, with a few exceptions, mainly in the Americas. Anholt mentions that Mexico´s negative perception is so strong that it weighs down some of its best attributes, such as its cultural heritage and natural beauty. According to the 2010 Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brand Index, most of the persons surveyed in 20 nations see the country as less beautiful than Finland. It does not have more cultural heritage than Scotland, and it is less attractive as a tourist destination than Belgium.[iii] This is how much weight the perception and reputation can affect the country´s greatest attributes. Hence, the reputation of a country abroad is very relevant for its development and wellbeing. I divided this post into four sections: 1. Cultural expressions that are not-so-great-for-a-positive international reputation. 2. The consequences of somebody else projecting your country’s image. 3. Mexico´s lack of policies and tools to broadcast its own image abroad. 4. Final thoughts. But before moving on, let´s be honest. Mexico´s image and reputation outside Latin America are not good, and even quite bad, particularly amongst the U.S. public. Some of the most popular brand index positions Mexico in the bottom half, with few exceptions:
And in some, such as the Soft Power30, Mexico does not even make the list. 1. Cultural expressions that are not-so-great-for-a-positive international reputation. As mentioned before, Mexico´s image abroad is weak; however, there is a need to recognize that the international media is not to blame why foreign audiences have a “distorted” perception of Mexico that not corresponds to its reality as a G20 nation. Additionally, it is necessary to acknowledge that part of the problem is that Mexico has some cultural traits that probably are not conducive to be perceived in an upbeat fashion. Dr. Leonardo Curzio, a scholar that I much admire, in the article “La imagen de México”[v] explains in detail some of these cultural expressions that could hinder the country´s image abroad. Dr. Curzio ascertains that one of the best ways to reach out to foreign audiences is the country´s artistic and cultural output, especially through music. He pinpoints that Mexico´s traditional music is melancholic, nostalgic, or tragic.[vi] Thus, “Mexico has an image of a country that knows how to lament masterly, and that is what [Mexico] projects to the world.”[vii] Besides, Dr. Curzio also details that Mexico´s most famous monuments are several pyramids, not brand new buildings or infrastructure projects.[viii] Not even the Jumex and Soumaya museums' extraordinary designs or the award-winning and innovative Torre Reforma can compete with one of the new seven wonders of the world: the Mayan site in Chichén Itza, or the monumental city of Teotihuacán. Another cultural trait that might hold back the best of Mexico´s reputation, Curzio thinks, is that its national heroes are linked to tumultuous times. Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa are the country´s leaders with the most prominent international projection.[ix] Besides, Mexico´s great heroes are not institution-builders but liberators that can starts movement but struggle to finish them.[x] Dr. Curzio indicates that in the construction of the image of Mexico, stability is overshadowed by turbulence. Also, Mexico broadcasts a picture of an unjust country with sporadic revolutionary violence.[xi] Curzio adds that “the violence associated with [Mexico´s] history is complemented by [its] artistic expressions, which a lot of them have a systematic and persistent death cult.”[xii] He exemplifies this by citing José Guadalupe Posada or Frida Kahlo’s works, present in all tourist stores and museums of Mexico. For a current example, the reader can participate in a virtual tour of the exhibition “La Muerte en la Historia de México” (The death in Mexico´s history) at the Museo Nacional de la Muerte, which I did not it existed in Aguascalientes until now. Every day the celebration of the “Day of the dead,” a UNESCO´s Intangible Cultural Heritage, is gaining popularity abroad, including the opening scene of James Bond´s movie Spectre or the award-winning Disney movie “Coco.” Besides, for a very long time, Mexican Cultural Diplomacy has focused on the exhibition of our significant pre-hispanic cultural heritage and our muralist movement. Until recently, alive Mexican artists like Gabriel Orozco or Damián Ortega have international recognition beyond the artistic circles. In conclusion, while strong, Mexico has some cultural expressions that do not help portray an image of a modern and innovative nation. Some of these expressions are well-known overseas and tend to eclipse other attributes that could be more attractive or perceived more positively by foreign publics. 2. The consequences of somebody else projecting your country’s image. In a very stimulating article titled “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de Mexico,”[xiii] Simon Anholt elucidates why Mexico has such a wide gap between its reality and how the world perceives it. He identifies as one fundamental issue that Mexico´s image abroad has partially been shaped, not by its own work but through U.S. lenses. I think it is troublesome for two reasons: a) The U.S. national identity had partially developed in contrast to Mexico, even before the two nations were created: WASP tradition vs. contra-reformation Catholic and indigenous heritage. Therefore, for the U.S., Mexico and its population have always represented the “other.” This perception is compounded by millions of Mexicans living north of the border, mostly from rural areas and with little education. So there is an intrinsic confrontation between the two, and as Leonardo Curzio explains, Mexico has not been able to transform what unites the two countries into a regional identity.[xiv] Maybe this could be the main reason. b) U.S. broadcast and entertainment industries have dominated the world airwaves and now the internet. So, the images of Mexico portrayed by these companies are not neutral and have an underlying intent related to showcasing its “otherness” to the U.S. public. Additionally, in specific periods, there were propaganda campaigns organized by U.S authorities, media, and broadcasting businesses to harm Mexico´s image, such as during its revolution and in the intra-wars years. A weak neighbor is better than a strong one. Dr. Curzio indicates that “in the construction of mutual images between Mexico and the United States, the former historically has received the worse part.”[xv] So, Mexico has a quite complicated situation as a neighbor of the U.S, which has the strongest voice in the world. Now I understand why a citizen of Africa or Asia thinks that “Taco Bell” is authentic Mexican cuisine, the country is made up only of drylands and deserts, or that its population is lazy. These are the images that the U.S. entertainment industry has transmitted over and over to everybody. An example of Mexico being portrayed by the U.S. entertainment industry is the Disney movie “Coco,” created by a U.S. citizen. Another one is Cirque du Soleil´s Luzia spectacle.[xvi] So, even as beautiful as they are, the images they project of Mexico are like a funhouse mirror. To make matters worse, Mexico, with a few exceptions, has not been able to implement a long-term communications strategy to counterbalance U.S. images of the country, as the reader will see in the next section. Simon Anholt expresses surprise by the U.S and Canada’s opinion of Mexico as one of the world’s pariahs. He describes this perception as contempt by the two populations with substantial economic, social, cultural, and political connections.[xvii] He speculates that a reevaluation of Mexico´s image by the U.S. population is only possible if the country obtains tangible benefits of its position in the world, similar to what happened with Ireland in the case of Great Britain.[xviii] 3. Mexico´s lack of policies and tools to broadcast its own image overseas. Even though the international media portraits Mexico as a violent, traditional country, there has been a lack of serious efforts to change this situation. As the reader will learn, there were some but very limited. Simon Anholt and Leonardo Curzio coincide that Mexico needs to have a policy to really affect its reputation. However, by looking at the article published by coordinators of Mexico´s Nation-Brand project from 2010 to 2012,[xix] it seems that the effort was mainly focused on tourism, and its measurements were limited to marketing “impacts” rather than as a decisive step forward toward a better reputation. Dr. Curzio, in his seminal book Orgullo y Prejuicios: Reputación e imagen de México identifies three major problems of Mexico´s image:
As a solution to these challenges, Curzio suggests the need for developing three elements: substance, narrative, and appropriate communications channels.[xxiii] He indicates that except for the 1968 Olympic Games[xxiv] and NAFTA´s promotion in 1993, [xxv] the country has not developed a systematic activity to show contents that defy the stereotypes defined by the entertainment industry. Besides, it has not invested the necessary time, money, and talent to create TV and movie characters that portray a Mexican as loyal and trustworthy.[xxvi] Similarly, Anholt indicates that Mexico´s relative silence after NAFTA’s approval has not helped compensate for its image´s weakness. Neither the insufficient investments in tourism, trade and investment promotion as well as in cultural diplomacy in proportion to its monumental cultural heritage.[xxvii] The country does not have an international broadcasting program, where it can present its views to the world in addition to its cultural traditions and its modern side. Dr. Curzio calls these “appropriate channels of communication.” However, he indicates that the targeted audience has to be defined before identifying these communication conduits. [xxviii] Anholt indicates that the lack of institutions that assist in promoting Mexico's image, such as international cultural institutes or public diplomacy networks, could be an advantage because it is more difficult to change organizations that already exist than establishing new from scratch.[xxix] Curzio indicates that it is a paradox that the country has some giant entertainment companies with vast outreach, such as Televisa; however, the country does not have any channel to projects its image. And it also lacks in the production of content that could be interesting for foreign audiences.[xxx] On the bright side, as Guillermo Máynez Gil discovers in his article “El espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros.”[xxxi] Mexico is like a broken mirror, and each fractured piece portraits a different image according to the viewer’s perspective. Therefore, for an epicurean, Mexico is a wildly delicious country to feast on; for biologists, anthropologists, and archeologists, the nation is paradise and refuge for U.S and Canadian snowbirds.[xxxii] Máynez Gil explains that the number of foreigners living in Mexico is an example of its attractiveness, considering the cost of living and quality.[xxxiii] However, to be honest, comparatively with other nations, the number of foreigners living in Mexico is low. 4. Final thoughts. So if we combined Mexico´s not-so-great-for-a-good-reputation cultural expressions, and a very solid but outdated image abroad, together with the U.S broadcast of its perception of Mexico and lack of a long-term strategy, it does not surprise the low esteem that the country has abroad, particularly beyond the Americas. As seen in this post, Mexico´s image has some challenges that need to be overcome to be regarded by the world´s population as a positive and strong nation. It has to transform the broken funhouse mirror into a regular one, so it is appreciated as it really is. Simon Anholt´s idea of the Good Country, or how countries' images are related to what the nation contributes for the wellbeing of the planet, not just its citizens, could be a way forward for Mexico to change its reputation overseas. [i] Máynez Gil, Guillermo, “El espejo roto: percepción de México entre los extranjeros” in Este País, №261, January 2013, pp. 8–12 [ii] Anholt, Simon, “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, p. 111 [iii] Anholt, Simon, 2012, p. 118. [iv] This might seem old or outdated, but was the last issue of its type and is relevant because the countries are ranked “based on how are described in major media.” East West Global Index 200, 2011. It was also a year that was not great for Mexico in global news. [v] Curzio, Leonardo, “La imagen de México” in La Política Exterior de México: Metas y obstáculos, Guadalupe González G and Olga Pellicer (coords.), México, Siglo XXI Editores, 2013, pp. 27–50. [vi] Curzio, 2013, p. 36 [vii] Ibid, 2013, p. 36. [viii] Ibid, 2013, p. 37. [ix] Ibid, 2013, p. 37. [x] Ibid. 2013, p. 38. [xi] Ibid, 2013, p. 38. [xii] Ibid, 2013, p. 38. [xiii] Anholt, Simon, “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, pp. 109–130. [xiv] Curzio, Leonardo, Orgullo y Prejuicios: Reputación e imagen de México, México, UNAM-CISEN Miguel Ángel Porrúa, 2016, p. 23–25. [xv] Curzio, 2016, p. 23. Dr. Curzio reaches this conclusion after reviewing the following study: Terrazas y Basante, Marcela, Gurza Lavalle, Gerardo, de los Ríos, Patricia, Riguzzi, Paolo. Las relaciones México — Estados Unidos 1756–2010, 2 vols. Mexico, Insitutio de Investigaciones Históricas, CISEN-UNAM, SRE, 2012. [xvi] Cirque du Soleil is a Canadian company, with very strong ties to the U.S. For a brief description of Luzia as conduit of Mexico´s image, see Carrera, Felipe, “”Luzia,” a Creative and Innovative Cultural Intervention”, Center for Public Diplomacy Blog, October 8, 2018. Also see, Hernández, Daniel,·”´Luzia´is Cirque de Soleil´s valentine to Mexico”, The Frame, January 31, 2018, and “Beyond Tacos and Burritos: How Circus show and Movie Coco influence the country image of Mexico”, Place Brand Observer, February 15, 2018. [xvii] Anholt, 2012, p. 119. [xviii] Anholt, 2012, p. 126. [xix] Díaz, Jaime and Pérez, Mónica “Marca México: una estrategia para reducir la brecha entre la percepción y la realidad” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, pp. 169–186. [xx] Curzio, 2016, p. 15. [xxi] Curzio, 2016, p. 16. [xxii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxiii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxiv] In recent years, there has been new research about the cultural diplomacy effort during the Olympics Games, also known as Cultural Olympics. See, Castañeda, Luis M., Spectacular Mexico: Design, propaganda and the 1968 Olympics, 2014; Witherspoon, Kevin, Before the Eyes of the World: Mexico and the 1968 Olympic Games, 2014; and México: la Olimpiada Cultural. [xxv] To learn more about Mexico´s public diplomacy initiatives regarding the approval of NAFTA see, Villanueva, César, Representing Cultural Diplomacy: Soft Power, Cosmopolitan Constructivism and Nation Branding in Mexico and Sweden, Sweden, 2007; Villanueva, César, “Cooperación y diplomacia cultural: experiencias y travesías. Entrevista al embajador Jorge Alberto Lozoya” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №85, February 2009, pp. 253–267; and Starr, Pamela K., “Mexican Public Diplomacy: Hobbled by History, Interdependence and Asymmetric Power” in Public Diplomacy Magazine, №2, Summer 2009, pp. 49–53. [xxvi] Curzio, 2016, 25. [xxvii] Anholt, 2012, p. 124–125. [xxviii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxix] Anholt, 2012, p. 128. [xxx] Curzio, 2016, p. 16–17. [xxxi] Máynez Gil, Guillermo, “El espejo roto: percepción de México entre los extranjeros” in Este País, №261, January 2013, pp. 8–12 [xxxii] Máynez Gil, 2013, p. 10. [xxxiii] Máynez Gil, 2013, p. 11–12. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. The main objective of Public Diplomacy is to influence foreign citizens to achieve a country´s foreign policy goal. Therefore, an essential element to be considered is the nation´s image and reputation. People are more likely to accept other country´s actions if they have a good reputation, or at least it does not have a negative image. The concepts Soft Power and Nation Branding have been discussed and debated in the last decades, creating an enormous amount of bibliography. From the rejection of the term from his creator[i] to the millions of dollars invested in many countries´ efforts to improve their image and reputation, both expressions are still being debated, and there is no consensus on their definitions and accomplishments. I believe that debates are great for the development of a field of study, but one has to be careful about what you read. As both ideas come from many different academic areas, from strategic communications and marketing to psychology and sociology and from international affairs to nationalism, there are multiple, often opposing, perspectives on these subjects. Interestingly enough, several world ranking systems have been created for both topics, such as the old Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brand Index, Country Brand Index by Future Brand; Country Brand Ranking by Bloom Consulting; Elcano Global Presence Index by Real Instituto Elcano; Nations Brand Report and Global Soft Power Index by Brand Finance; Soft Power30 by Portland Communications; and Soft Power Survey by Monocle magazine. I think these issues are particularly complicated as both delve into the core of the idea of the nation, the identity of its people, and the generation and use of power in the international arena. In the area of Soft Power and Nation Branding, the ministry of foreign affairs has a small role, as other government and non-government actors come in to play, from Tourism, Investment and Trade Promotion boards, all the way to the office of the executive branch. And all have their agendas and speak “different” languages. Another issue is that both deal with perceptions that is difficult as could be, particularly when talking about countries and millions of citizens. A particular development in the topic is that Nation Branding, Soft Power, and Public Diplomacy are concepts that even if they are different, they are intertwined and feed into each other, augmenting the confusion. For example, in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, different authors discuss the three terms in various ways, as it can be seen in the titles of some of the book's chapters: -Making a National Brand by Wally Olins, -The EU as Soft Power: the Force of Persuasion by Anna Michalksi -Rethinking the “New” Public Diplomacy by Brian Hocking -Power, Public Diplomacy and the Pax Americana by Peter van Ham. Another example is the analysis made by Gyorgy Szonzi in Public Diplomacy and National Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences of five different ways on how Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding interrelate, depending on how both terms are conceptualized. In table 1 there is a schematic view of the three concepts. It could be useful for a more precise idea of the differences between these terms, even if all are talking about the same After this long warning, now let´s talk about these two concepts. Regarding Nation Branding, I recommend these three readings: a) the Council on Foreign Relations´ backgrounder Nation Branding Explained; b) “Place Branding: The State of Art” by Peter van Ham and Melissa Aronczyk´s Branding the Nation: The Global Business of National Identity, which I enjoyed immensely. And let´s not forget the copious writings of two British Nation Branding eminences: Simon Anholt[ii] and the late Wally Olins.[iii] For a comprehensive bibliography on the subject, including texts in German, I suggest you visit Oliver Zöllner´s Reading List.[iv] Nation Branding derives from the corporate world, specifically from marketing and consumer behavior disciplines. A Nation Branding effort involves not only the participation of the ministry of foreign affairs but is a whole-country approach. It has a similar premise of Soft Power: the force or strength of attraction and also includes culture and foreign and domestic policy as sources of the nation´s brand, therefore its reputation and influence abroad. And for Soft Power, Joseph Nye explains in the article “Think Again: Soft Power”, what it is and not is Soft Power, giving very concrete examples. He complains that many analysts have confusion about power resources vs. behavior and states that “whether power resources produce a favorable outcome depends on the context.”[v] So, it is not all black (Hard Power) or white (Soft Power), but many shades of gray, depending mostly on behavior and context. Nye describes that a country´s soft power derives from “three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).”[vi] Therefore, it seems to me that Soft Power is more than just public diplomacy or nation branding. As we have seen, Soft Power and Nation Branding are challenging concepts to grasp. Both are intertwined, and they are always cited in Public Diplomacy studies. I hope this was useful. Now that I have revised the basic concepts discussed in this blog, in the next three postings, I will focus on a topic that is not well-known outside Mexico: its Consular Diplomacy. I will review most chapters of the book La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en los tiempos de Trump, (Mexican Consular Diplomacy in Trump´s Era) coordinated by Rafael Fernández de Castro, a well-known Mexican foreign policy analyst and currently the director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies of the University of California, San Diego. [i] Simon Anholt is credited to have created the term Nation Branding in 1996. Notwithstanding, later on Anholt rejected the term instead using Competitive Identity. For more information see Anholt, Simon, Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions, New York, 2007. [ii] See for example Anholt, Simon, Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions, New York, 2007; and Places: Identity, Images and Reputation, New York, 2010. [iii] See Olins, Wally, “Branding the Nation – the Historical Context” in Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4-5, p 241-248; “Making a National Brand” in Jan Melissen (ed), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, New York, 2005; and Wally Olins and Jeremy Hildreth, “National Branding: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow” in Nigel Morgan, Annette Pritchard and Roger Pride (eds.), Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation, 3er edition, Oxford, 55-66. [iv] Although I noticed that there is not a single article specifically about Mexico. [v] Nye, Joseph, “Think again: Soft Power” in Foreign Policy, February 23, 2006 [vi] Nye, Joseph, “Think again: Soft Power DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. Of the three different diplomacies discussed in this blog, Public Diplomacy is the most established concept. Not only was conceptualized first, as the term was created in 1965 by a U.S Diplomat. It also has one Journal (Place Branding and Public Diplomacy)[i], and there are a few graduate degree programs offered by U.S universities (Center for Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California and Syracuse University in New York) and several short course offered by other educational institutions. There is also an ever-growing body of work that ranges from theoretical analysis to practitioners´ tales and even different groups and associations. These development have not yet happened in the Consular Diplomacy and Gastrodiplomacy fields of study. But what is Public Diplomacy? As in any developing field of study, there is a wide range of ideas of what consists of Public Diplomacy. But let´s start with the beginning. According to Nicholas J. Cull in “Public Diplomacy” before Gullion: The evolution of a phrase” Edmund Gullion, an experienced U.S. diplomat and dean of the oldest graduate school focused on international affairs used "public diplomacy" for the first time in 1965. The idea is that if diplomats work with the counterparts (mostly diplomats and other government officials) of the host Foreign Affairs Ministry and some other government authorities, this is considered Diplomacy. But if the same diplomats are engaging directly with the host-country citizens, not just government officials, with a purpose, then this is called Public Diplomacy. An essential element is that the involvement has to have a purpose or a goal, otherwise I think, is a different kind of activity rather than Public Diplomacy. Everywhere in the Public Diplomacy literature, you will find that the diplomats want to win the “hearts and mind” of the people of the host country, but I said, with a reason! The Center for Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California has a mind-boggling amount of resources, from blog posts to papers and from special reports to the Public Diplomacy magazine. But most importantly, the Center has a section about the definition of Public Diplomacy that is easy to understand, particularly if you are new to the topic. I recommend reading it before jumping in the battle of the concept. Later on, I will work on bringing some of the different conceptualization of Public Diplomacy, but the next post will be about Consular Diplomacy. For more information about Public Diplomacy, please visit the section of Interesting Links [i] Exchange The Journal of Public Diplomacy was a magazine run by graduate students at Syracuse University, but it seems that stopped publishing, as the last issue is from 2014. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company ST
|
Rodrigo Márquez LartigueDiplomat interested in the development of Consular and Public Diplomacies. Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|