1. Introduction
 
As I mentioned in my previous post, “Focus on Women: Specialized Consular Assistance in the United States”, today I am writing about another example of a successful public-consular diplomacy effort implemented by Mexico in the United States: The development of specialized consular care protocols.
 
This initiative resulted in the publication of three protocols that provide detailed information to consular officials to offer specialized consular assistance to victims of human trafficking and gender-based violence, as well as migrant unaccompanied children and teens. These three issues usually have a more significant impact on women than men, so they focus on them.
 
The effort is quite interesting from different perspectives:

• The collaboration with three UN specialized agencies (UNICEF, UN Women, and IOM), and in one instance with the Embassy of the United States in Mexico City. It is an example of consular diplomacy, which entails working with international organizations to provide better consular care for Mexicans in the U.S.
• The final documents were shared with other countries, mainly in Central America and at the Global Consular Forum, to exchange best practices regarding common issues all consular officials face. This activity is also part of consular diplomacy as defined by Maaike Okano-Heijmans.[i]
• The enhancement of the visibility of migrant women and children’s needs resulted in the redefinition of the consular care provided to these vulnerable groups and the promotion of more and better cooperation with local, state, and national stakeholders. Increase partnerships is also a characteristic of consular diplomacy.

 
This post will cover the origins of specialized consular care and the three protocols created as part of this initiative.
 
2. Origins of specialized consular care
 
In the late part of the first decade of the new millennium, Mexico’s Congress assigned funding to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE) to provide consular assistance to victims of mistreatment (maltrato) with particular emphasis on women, children, and senior citizens, and victims of human trafficking.[ii]
 
As part of the effort, the Department of Consular Assistance to Mexicans Abroad (DGPME, in Spanish) included in its regulations two new subprograms: Gender equality and Consular assistance to Mexican victims of human trafficking in 2012.[iii]
 
The congressional funding helped consulates to support consular cases and the establishment of new partnerships. All these activities promoted a better understanding of these vulnerable groups’ particularities and the need to have better tools to assist them, including training of consular officials and the community at large. Therefore, there was a need to work on new instruments to provide specialized assistance to vulnerable groups.
 
Besides, Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs established a new consular care model using the “pro-persona” principle as a result of the Human Rights Constitutional amendment of 2011.[iv]
 
Since then, Consulates started cooperation pilot projects with different stakeholders, including the Ventanilla de Atención Integral para la Mujer or the “Initiative for the Comprehensive Care of Women” (VAIM) in Kansas City Missouri, in 2015. See post here.
 
Meanwhile, in Mexico, the DGPME began working on the creation of a protocol to attend unaccompanied children and adolescents (UCA) detained at the border by U.S. immigration officials.
 
3. Protocol for the consular care of unaccompanied migrant children and adolescents
 
In 2014, the DGPME agreed with UNICEF Mexico´s office to develop a consular assistance protocol focusing on unaccompanied children and adolescents. This happened as the number of the detention of Central American unaccompanied minors soared in the Mexico-U.S. border due to a non-repatriation policy of non-Mexican UCA implemented by the Department of Homeland Security.
 
The protocol was a milestone in consular care, as it radically changed the way consular officials approached and interviewed Mexican unaccompanied children and adolescents. It was very revealing that the protocol investigators identify the consular interview as a critical moment for the children.[v]
 
The Minister of Foreign Affairs announced the Protocol in May 2015, together with the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and UNICEF’s Chief of Child Protection.[vi]
 
As part of its implementation, the Ministry undertook the broadest training program ever conducted. All personnel of the department of protection of 27 consulates participated in one of the six seminars that took place in three cities in the U.S.[vii] In total, 200 consular officials participated in this effort.[viii]
 
The training included children and adolescents’ psychology, so consular officials were better prepared to obtain as much information as possible in a friendly, non-threatening way. This, in turn, was very useful for their future family reunification, either in Mexico or the U.S.
 
“The Protocol has been structured based on the “inquire by informing” technique, which looks at building trust between the interviewer and the interviewed children and adolescents, so as not to depersonalize them. The Toolbox takes the same approach and is an instrument to apply the Protocol.”[ix] Thus, the Protocol’s toolkit (Caja de Herramientas) includes different items that assist the consul in interacting with UCA, such as playing cards with various images, colored pencils, and some toys.
 
Because the idea behind the protocol’s development was also to share it with other countries, an effort was made to translate it into English. For example, as part of the Regional Conference on Migration, Mexico shared the Protocol and its implementation experience.[x]
 
The launching of the protocol coincided with the negotiation of the renewal of the Mexico-U.S. Local Repatriation Agreements; therefore, there was an opportunity to agree with the DHS agencies on the facilitation of implementation of the protocol at the border.[xi]
 
An essential part of the protocol development, several specialized organizations reviewed it, so it was as comprehensive as possible.[xii] It was an innovative approach as it was the first time it was done.
 
Besides the initial training, UNICEF and the SRE agreed to do a “Train the trainer” program, so new consular officials were instructed as needed. Together with the Instituto Matías Romero (Mexico´s diplomatic academy), UNICEF created an online course about the Protocol to expand training capabilities further.[xiii] Nowadays, it is usually offered twice a year.
 
In 2015, “there were about 13,000 cases of consular protection for migrant children and the protocol and its innovative electronic registration platform helped improve monitoring and coordination with Mexican authorities such as the National Migration Institute and the National DIF.”[xiv]
 
4. Protocol for the Consular Care of Victims of Gender-Based Violence
 
While the first protocol was being rollout, the SRE started to work on the second specialized consular care protocol focused on victims of gender-based violence.[xv]
 
In November 2015, the Minister signed an agreement with Mexico’s UN Women Office to develop the Protocol for the Consular Care of Victims of Gender-Based Violence. The first draft was presented in July 2016.[xvi]
 
The protocol was finished in 2016 and published in 2017. The training was provided to officials in charge of the consular assistance departments in consulates across the U.S.
 
As in the previous protocol, a group of specialized organizations reviewed the protocol before its publication.[xvii]
 
The VAIM incorporated the Protocol’s practices and recommendations into the assistance to women, or men, who suffered from domestic violence to provide better consular care and offer all the consulate’s programs and initiative to take care of their needs.
 
The protocol helped consular officials identify local allies that could provide services to the victims, including housing, clothing, and assistance to find a job.
 
5. Protocol for the Consular Care of Mexican Victims of Human Trafficking Abroad
 
After overcoming some obstacles, in 2018, the SRE was finally able to create its third specialized protocol, which focused on Mexican victims of human trafficking abroad.
 
On March 6, 2018, the Undersecretary for North America and the Director of the International Organization for Migration Mexico’s Office signed an agreement to develop this protocol jointly.[xviii]
 
The International Organization for Migration was a perfect partner for its creation. Its Mexico office previously worked in the elaboration of at least two protocols regarding human trafficking victims. Besides, it was working on the subject in the framework of the Regional Conference on Migration.
 
One difference from the two previous protocols was that as part of the Mexico-U.S. collaboration, the Embassy of the United States in Mexico partially funded the protocol’s development.[xix] It is an example of working together to tackle a crime that is not limited by borders and where migrants are particularly vulnerable.
 
As in the previous two protocols, several specialized organizations participated in the review process.[xx] The SRE officially launched the protocol on November 22, 2018.[xxi]
 
Following the best practice of elaborating an online course to have a permanent training tool for new consular officials, in 2019, the DGPME and the Instituto Matías Romero put together a virtual module about the subject. It is now offered regularly.
 
Human trafficking, like gender-based violence, are topics that are a significant concern for law enforcement offices; therefore, they were gateways for collaboration, sometimes with authorities that did not like or care about migrants. Consulates participated in different ways, like becoming members of local task forces, establishing strategic alliances, and even signing MOUs.[xxii]
 
A great example of the collaboration that resulted from the greater emphasis on assisting human trafficking victims is the one developed with Polaris. This organization manages the national human trafficking hotline in the U.S. It has trained consular officials for several years now. Also, the consulates have participated in some Polaris outreach activities.[xxiii] Most importantly, they work together when they identify a Mexican victim of human trafficking.
 
In recognition of the assistance provided to Mexicans in the U.S., the Embassy of Mexico in Washington bestowed Polaris the Ohtli Award in September 2020.
 
6. Conclusions
 
The combination of better knowledge about the needs of the Mexican migrants in the U.S. and the new focus on the person propelled the consular network to provide specialized consular care to vulnerable groups. To achieve this goal, the SRE enlisted three international partners' assistance to develop the protocols of consular care of UAC and victims of human trafficking and gender-based violence.
 
The development and implementation of the consular care protocols changed the mindset of consular officials. Besides, the Mexican consulates actively searched for and expanded partnerships to elevate the services provided to these vulnerable groups.
 
An important reason behind the collaboration with UN specialized organisms in elaborating the three protocols was their expertise and the opportunity to incorporate international standards, not only to the document but also to its implementation.
 
By focusing on issues that heavily affect migrant women, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is moving forward to gender equality in the consular services it provides to the Mexican community in the United States. And by doing these has significantly expanded the reach of its public-consular diplomacy.
 
 
[i] Okano-Heijmans, Maaike, “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy”, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ´Clingendael´, February 2010.
[ii] Márquez Lartigue, Rodrigo, “Focus on Women: Specialized Consular Assistance in the United States”, Consular and Public Diplomacies Blog, March 8, 2021.
[iii] In 2017, the program and subprograms were updated to its current name: Normas para la Ejecución del Programa de Protección Consular a Personas Mexicanas en el Exterior, SRE, May 2017.
[iv] Calva Ruiz, Vanessa, “Diplomacia Consular y acercamiento con socios estratégicos” of the book La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, 2018, p. 206.
[v] Gallo, Karla, “En el camino hacia la protección integral de la niñez migrante”, UNICEF México Blog, August 21, 2019.
[vi] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, 3er Informe de Labores de la SRE 2014-2015, 2015, p. 195.
[vii] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, 3er Informe de Labores de la SRE 2014-2015, 2015, p. 191.
[viii] Gallo, Karla, 2019.
[ix] SRE-UNICEF, Toolbox Pedagogical Basis, 2015, p. 3.
[x] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, “The Foreign Ministry enhances its consular diplomacy and protection for Mexicans abroad”, Press Bulletin, December 29, 2015.
[xi] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, 4o Informe de Labores de la SRE 2015-2016, 2016, p. 191
[xii] To see the list of organizations that participated in the review process, view page 64 of the Protocol.
[xiii] Gallo, Karla, 2019.
[xiv] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, “The Foreign Ministry enhances its consular diplomacy and protection for Mexicans abroad”, Press Bulletin, December 29, 2015.
[xv] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, “The Foreign Ministry enhances its consular diplomacy and protection for Mexicans abroad”, Press Bulletin, December 29, 2015.
[xvi] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, 4o Informe de Labores de la SRE 2015-2016, 2016, p. 200.
[xvii] To see the list of organizations that participated in the review process, view page 96 of the Protocol.
[xviii] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Desarrollaran la SRE y la Organizacion Internacional para las Migraciones un protocolo de atención a víctimas de trata”, Press Bulletin, March 6, 2018.
[xix] Protocolo p. 101
[xx] To see the list of organizations that participated in the review process, view page 101 of the Protocol.
[xxi] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “La Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores presenta el ´Protocolo de Atención Consular para Víctimas Mexicanas de Trata de Personas´”, Press Bulletin, November 22, 2018.
[xxii] See for example the collaboration mechanism described in the Protocol, pp. 87-88.
[xxiii] Polaris Organization, “Engaging Consulates in the Fight Against Sex Trafficking from Mexico”, Polaris Blog, May 22, 2017.

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 part of the celebration of International Women´s Day, I will write about a topic that is not well known but very relevant: specialized consular assistance for Mexican women in the United States. It is one of the many examples of the successful implementation of public consular diplomacy by Mexico.
 
The conclusion is that this initiative forced the Mexican Consular network in the U.S. to seek new partnerships with local organizations that further expanded the reach of Mexico´s public consular diplomacy.
 
1. Origins of a specialized consular care
 
In the late part of the first decade of the new millennium, Mexico’s Congress assigned funding to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE) to provide consular assistance to victims of mistreatment (maltrato) with particular emphasis on women, children, and senior citizens.
 
Later on, in 2011, due to the Human Rights Constitutional amendment that adopted the “pro-persona” principle, the SRE established a new consular care model emphasizing specialized assistance to vulnerable groups.[i]
 
Mexico´s consulate began engaging with local and state authorities, NGOs, and the Mexican community to enhance the consular assistance to these groups. As part of these efforts, they strengthened their collaboration with traditional partners and expanded cooperation with new organizations. Some consulates established strategic alliances and designed new initiatives. An example of these partnerships was promoting the “Violentrometro” or the violence against women measuring ruler.
 
As part of these collaborations, the Consulate of Mexico in Kansas began a pilot program offering comprehensive services for Mexican women that visited its office or participated in their events.
 
Besides, at the Ministry´s headquarters, the Department of Consular Assistance to Mexicans Abroad (DGPME, in Spanish) spearheaded with UNICEF Mexico an effort to create a tool to improve consular assistance to unaccompanied Mexican children detained at the border.
 
In the next section, I will detail one of the most important specialized consular assistance programs that focus on women: the Initiative for Comprehensive Care of Women (Ventanilla de Atención Integral para la Mujer -VAIM-).
 
In a different post, I will write about the other program: the consular care protocols focused on unaccompanied children, gender-based violence, and human trafficking.
 
2. Initiative for Comprehensive Care of Women (Ventanilla de Atención Integral para la Mujer -VAIM-)
 
As mentioned, the Ventanilla de Atención Integral para la Mujer or the “Initiative for the Comprehensive Care of Women” (VAIM) began as a pilot program in Kansas City in May 2015.[ii]
 
Its objective is to interconnect all areas of the consulate to offer specialized assistant to Mexican women. Besides, it promotes training and sensibilization about their challenges and creating a resources and a services directory.[iii] Its ultimate goal is to empower women in all aspects of their lives.[iv]
 
“In the framework of Consular Diplomacy, the VAIM boosted actions to provide consular assistance [to women] through the establishment of an important network of strategic alliances. [The Consulate in Kansas] signed 18 memoranda of understanding that resulted in a wide range of benefits to the women that requested assistance.”[v]
 
Besides, there was a great effort to train law enforcement officers about the consular functions, collaboration mechanisms, and consular notification.[vi]
 
As part of the 2016 International Women´s Day celebration, the SRE announced the expansion of the VAIM to all the consulates in the United States.[vii]
 
It was an important milestone as it was a whole-of-consulate approach. Mexico´s consulate had to be proactive in developing and strengthening alliances with new and old stakeholders. “The creation of a strategic support structure allows increasing resources, early detection of potential cases, providing better consular care and expanding additional outreach channels.”[viii]
 
From March 2016 to June 2018, the Mexican consular network organized 5,088 VAIM outreach events with a total participation of 387,980 persons and consular assistance provided to 10,627 cases.[ix]
 
3. Conclusions.
 
The establishment of VIAM highlights the versatility of Mexico´s public consular diplomacy. As many Mexican women and children migrated north, the community's needs changed; therefore, the consular care offered by the consular network had to change too.
 
There were efforts focus on assisting women, but the VAIM was a milestone as it was comprehensive consular care, not focused on one issue, but searching to offer as many consular services as needed.  
 
I believe that the most important result of the VAIM was a change in the mindset of not only consular officials but also the Mexican community at large and local allies about the need to provide specialized consular care to Mexican women. It was a significant change as in the past, most consular assistance was provided to men, as they were the majority of migrants to the U.S.
 
Besides, it opened the door for a whole new set of allies and strategic partnerships that enhance the consular care given to Mexican women, which opened the doors for empowering them.
 
Vanessa Calva Ruiz explains that “the establishment of partnerships not only takes care of urgent needs of the Mexican community but also assist them in integrating to the host society by linking them with local actors that offer resources.”[x]
 


[i] Calva Ruiz, Vanessa, “Diplomacia Consular y acercamiento con socios estratégicos” of the book La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en tiempos de Trump, 2018, p. 206.
[ii] Gómez Maganda, Guadalupe and Kerber Palma, Alicia, “Atención con perspectiva de género para las comunidades mexicanas en el exterior” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, No. 107, May-August 2016, p. 197.
[iii] Calva Ruiz, Vanessa, 2018, pp. 208-209.
[iv] Gómez Maganda, Guadalupe and Kerber Palma, Alicia, 2016, p. 197.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Gómez Maganda, Guadalupe and Kerber Palma, Alicia, 2016., pp. 197-198
[vii] Government of México, 4º Informe de Labores SRE· 2015-2016, 2016, pp. 189, 201.
[viii] Calva Ruiz, Vanessa, 2018, pp. 209-210.
[ix] Government of México, 6º Informe de Gobierno 2017-2018, 2018, p. 681.
[x] Calva Ruiz, Vanessa, 2018, pp.213-214.

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

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

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

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

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

 
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.

In my recent post, Why Diplomacy matter? I wrote about the significance of Diplomacy in the third decade of the 21st Century and its potential to help solve humanity's current challenges. Following up on this idea, today I will focus on the reasons why we need more teaching and studying about Diplomacy.
 
Here I argue that Diplomacy needs to be more broadly teach and research because these will:

• Reduce the common mistake of thinking that Diplomacy is the same as Foreign Policy.
• Help better understand its unchanged principles throughout history while adapting to the evolution of society and technology.
• Be needed as Diplomacy undergoes two paradigm shifts due to the explosion of international actors and the digital revolution.

 
Diplomacy is a crucial ingredient in any foreign policy recipe. However, it is not always taught in universities as part of International Relations, International Business, and other related fields. It is like cooking without salt, you can eat the food, but it won´t taste as good as if the dish had some salt.
 
In my own International Relations BA program, there was not a single class dedicated to Diplomacy exclusively. Ironically, most of my classmates wanted to join the Mexican foreign service and become diplomats.
 
After joining the foreign service, I learned Diplomacy as a practitioner. I studied it formally until 2012 when I took the course “Diplomacy in the 21st Century” offered by the DiploFoundation.
 
But, what is Diplomacy? Maybe, that could have been the first question that I made in my first publication of my blog, rather than diving directly into the question of whether Public and Consular Diplomacies were real.
 
There are plenty of different descriptions of Diplomacy. Still, I like the one written by Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur in the introductory essay of The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy that expressed that “Diplomacy at is essence is the conduct of relationships, using peaceful means, by and among international actors, at least one of whom is usually a government.”[1]
 
I also like Geoff R. Berridge´s[2] definition, which indicates that “Diplomacy is an essentially political activity and, well resourced and skillful, a major ingredient of power. Its chief purpose is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies without resort to force, propaganda, or law. It achieves this mainly by communication between professional diplomatic agents.”[3]
 
Nowadays, with so many actors involved in international affairs, including individuals, it is logical that the concept of Diplomacy has to expand its conceptual boundaries outwards.[4]
 
Besides, the growing studies of different diplomatic practices outside Europe, as part of the International Relations Global South movement, has also widened the scope of our knowledge in the field.
 
Confusion between Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
 
If Diplomacy is not taught and research, people will have the perennial confusion between Foreign Policy and Diplomacy.

I understand a bit the misunderstanding between the two in today´s world, where most of the conflicts worldwide are being solved via diplomatic negotiations rather than other means, including war. So, the less use of force and other foreign policy instruments, the closer both fields are getting, blurring their distinction, and heightening the possibility of confusing both concepts.
 
But let´s be clear, not all of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs´ activities nor all international actions of a government can be classified as Foreign Policy (FP). To be considered a part of a country´s FP, the activity must be directed to achieve a goal. Otherwise, it could only be an international public policy or something else, but not FP.
 
Here, 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.”[5]
 
But, what is Foreign Policy anyways?
 
According to Jean-Frédéric Morin and Jonathan Paquin in the excellent book Foreign Policy Analysis: a Toolbox, FP is “a set of actions or rules governing the actions of an independent political authority deployed in the international environment… [or] the underlying vision -in other words, the specific conception that a state has regarding its place in the world, its national interest and the key principles that allow to defend them.”[6]
 
Reducing the confusion between Diplomacy and FP is a perfect reason why diplomacy should be taught and study more widely, not just among internationalists.
 
Old, new, and contemporary Diplomacy unchanged principles.
 
Diplomacy, old, new, and contemporary, has always been based on certain fundamental principles that have not changed and are still relevant today. This is remarkable, as, in most sciences, paradigm shifts are a constant, and schools of thoughts and theories disappear with each new discovery.
 
The unchanged principles of Diplomacy are:

1. The role of envoys. Since the beginning of time, they have always been a crucial part of the diplomatic craft. Even in today´s situation, envoys meet and negotiate via videoconferences or by telephone and WhatsApp.
2. The inviolability and immunity of diplomatic agents and premises have expanded and codified, but the idea of granting extra protections to them has been a staple of Diplomacy since ancient civilizations.
3. The functions of Diplomacy have always been communication, representation, and negotiation, even in the ever-expanding duties of diplomats.
4. The special “aura” granted to diplomats, even after the end of absolute monarchies and the ever-increasing democratization of Diplomacy.
5. The amazing adaptability of Diplomacy. As a human activity, it has to be able to adapt to the ever-changing world, from Greek city-state to nowadays´ digital diplomacy.  

 
Diplomacy´s steadfastness does not mean that it is static. Throughout history has evolved and adapted to new circumstances, including technological revolutions.  
 
As the excellent interactive historical timeline of the relationship between Diplomacy and technology shows, every technological breakthrough, from the first written language to the development of TikTok diplomacy, has generated challenges and opportunities for Diplomacy.

Diplomats, very reluctantly, have adapted to the arrival of the latest gadgets and processes. However, not all MFAs have adjusted at the same pace. There a few trendsetters and quite a significant number of laggers.
 
Even if Diplomacy has been remarkably stable, two trends are creating diplomatic paradigm shifts. One is the expansion of international actors that perform “diplomacy-like” functions, and the other is the digital revolution.
 
To better understand the impact of these transformations on the diplomatic craft, it is necessary to invest more in diplomatic studies' teaching and investigation. Only then will governments be better prepare to adapt their diplomatic institutions and practices to the new reality. Otherwise, there are going to be left behind.
 
Another critical evolution of Diplomacy is the appearance of new tools like Gastrodiplomacy and Consular Diplomacy, among others. These novel instruments have been questioned and will be discussed in the next blog post.
 

[1] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 2.
[2] A prolific author about diplomacy and Senior Fellow of the DiploFoundation. Check out his website here.
[3] Berrigde, G.R., Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, p. 1.
[4] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, 2013, p. 24.
[5] Riordan, Shaun, “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies”, Center of Public Diplomacy Blog, June 21, 2017.
[6] Morin, Jean-Frédéric and Paquin, Jonathan, Foreign Policy Analysis: a Toolbox, 2018, p. 3.

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

This 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.

While preparing for a project, I have to review my understanding of International Relations (IR) theories. I was shocked to see how far the field has evolved since I studied them during my BA (1988-1993) and one of my MAs (1998-1999).
 
Back in the day when I was a college student, it was a time of upheaval not only for the world but for the study of IR. The unraveling of the Soviet Union started with Gorbachev´s Glasnost and Perestroika, and by the end of 1991, it dissolved, changing the face of world politics and IR.
 
My professors struggled, not just to keep up with the fast changes occurring, but trying to explain them to us, almost as they were happening. It was especially complicated for the professor teaching the course about the USSR’s politics and economy right after its collapse.
 
Fortunately for me, in my GMAP studies (see a post about my experience here), I had the opportunity to take courses where I examined the significant changes that occurred at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, with a 18-year perspective. For me, it was a revelation.
 
Since the Soviet Union’s disintegration, many things have changed, including the evolution explosion of IR theories. But, why do we need theories?
 
I like the idea that “Theories are like maps. Each map is made for a certain purpose and what is included in the map is based on what is necessary to direct the map’s users. All other details are left out to avoid confusion and present a clear picture.”[i]
 
Maps are appropriate for specific purposes, highlighting critical features while leaving out elements that are not necessary. Their focus and simplification give a sense of direction and location, regardless if you are moving or not.
 
To go beyond the headlines and have a deeper understanding of the transnational world, you need a map to underscore what is essential, and with this knowledge finding solutions to humanity's problems might be more manageable. Without knowing where we are and what direction to look, we are lost.
 
In the book International Relations edited by Stephen McGlinchey, there is an excellent overview of traditional, middle-ground, and critical IR theories. Back in my student days, there were but a few of them besides Realism and Liberalism and their “neo” versions.
 
However, the theories explored in the book are but a few of the new ways IR scholars worldwide are probing the international system, how it works, and how its actors interact.
 
Long are the days when the Nation-State was the only player of the international system. Nowadays, there are around 41,000 active intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations, out of 213 in 1909.[ii]
 
The digital revolution and fast changes in transportation have made the world smaller, with increasing blurring of borders which “has dramatically altered the general dynamics in politics and global affairs.”[iii]
 
Besides, Tech companies are very different from their more traditional peers, as I explained in my post about Denmark’s Tech Ambassador to Silicon Valley. The influence they garner is unlikely any other actor in the international arena.
 
All these changes have impacted the theories of International Relations. To learn more about the new ways scholars are interpreting the state of global affairs, I recommend reading the book International Relations Theory, edited by Stephen McGlinchey, Rosie Walters, and Christian Scheinpflug.
 
The book’s second part is exciting as it includes new and different standpoints of IR theory from Green and Queer Theory to Indigenous and Global South Perspectives.
 
In tune with the greater use of audiovisuals and online resources, the book publishers (E-IR) have a dedicated section with some useful videos useful to better understand some of the theories described in the book.
 
I think that the inclusion of non-State, non-Western/European, non-male -centric perspectives in the field of International Relations is very much needed and welcomed. As the constructivism theory indicates, people construct the anarchic international system. Through changes in these beliefs, norms, and behaviors, there is a possibility of changing it to the human race's benefit. So, the inclusion of new visions and perspectives will only enrich the understanding of the system and hopefully find better ways to interact.
 
Adding the Global South´s perspective into International Relations, including its theories, is significant because as societies recognized their own diversity, starting with a push towards greater inclusion of women and other minorities.
 
In the chapter “Towards a Global IR?”, Amitav Acharya[iv] explains some of the reasons for “Western dominance in IR, [including the]…

• widespread belief that the Western IR theory has discovered the right path to understanding IR …
• serious lack of institutional resources in the non-Western world…
• challenges facing scholars from non-English speaking countries in getting published in major IR journals or pursue the major debates and developments in the field that are mainly carried out in the English language…
• tendency among many IR scholars in the Global South towards an uncritical acceptance of Western theory.”[v]

 
Mexico has been working on expanding the IR vision from the Global South. An example is the publication of the book Teorías de Relaciones Internacionales en el siglo XXI: interpretaciones críticas desde México, edited by Jorge Schiavon et al., and published by the Asociación Mexicana de Estudios Internacionales (International Studies Mexican Association. A second edition had to be published after its successful launching, something uncommon for a book about theories!
 
Another effort towards greater inclusion is the creation of the Global South Caucus of International Studies of the International Studies Association (ISU), ten years ago, together with the association´s efforts to include higher participation of Global South members as contributors, reviewers, and editors of its seven iconic journals.
 
Besides, ISU is promoting more and deeper cooperation with its sister´s academic organizations and establishing in 2018 the Committee on the Status of Engagement with the Global South.
 
Going back to the map as theory idea, I concurred that “Embarking on the study of International Relations without an understanding of theory is like setting off on a journey without a map. You might arrive at your destination, or somewhere else very interesting, but you will have no idea where you are or how you got there.”[vi] So, let´s open our map of choice and examine the situation we want to explain using IR theory.
 

[i] McGlinchey, Stephen, Walters, Rosie and Gold, Dana, “Getting Started with International Relations Theory” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 2.
[ii] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 9.
[iii] Gebhard, Carmen, “One World, Many Actors” in International Relations, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 44.
[iv] Which happens to be a highly regarded IR scholar, and the first non-Western President of the International Studies Association (2014-2015).
[v] Acharya, Amitav, “Towards a Global IR?” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, pp. 76-77.
[vi] McGlinchey, Stephen, Walters, Rosie and Gold, Dana, “Getting Started with International Relations Theory” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 2.



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

 
Diaspora Diplomacy is a term, like Consular Diplomacy, that has surfaced in recent times. But, what is it? 
 
1. Diaspora: Diplomacy or international public policy?
 
The first obstacle that I see of using the term is whether diplomatic activities can target the States´ own citizens? While some Diaspora members, particularly after the second generation, are nationals of the host State, in many cases, they are allowed to have dual nationality; therefore, technically, these persons are foreign nationals while at the same time that are citizens of the sending State.
 
In other cases, the only nationality is from its home country, and many lack immigration status in the receiving State, making them particularly vulnerable to abuse and face difficulties to successfully integrate to the host society.
 
So, technically speaking (strictly application of the term), the only Diaspora Diplomacy applies towards citizens of the receiving country with some heritage from the sending State. It could not be used for dual citizens and home-country nationals. They could be part of the engagement policies of the State but could not be called Diplomacy.
 
However, for a country separating these three categories is very difficult, mainly because, in most cases, the persons themselves do not see this strict categorization, and there are many overlaps. Notwithstanding, some governments do have different initiatives targeting distinct groups of members of the diasporic community living abroad.
 
In the book 21st Century Diplomacy: A practitioner's Guide, written by Amb. Kishan S. Rana, a former ambassador of India and current Professor Emeritus at the DiploFoundation, the author includes a chapter on Diaspora Diplomacy.
 
While brief, yet substantive chapter, Amb. Rana highlights some critical aspects of Diaspora Diplomacy while identifying a few prominent countries, such as Israel, India, Kenya, and Mexico.
 
2. Diasporas and migration.
 
Because diaspora issues result from migration, it is significant to understand how the original diaspora community (or first-generation) left the sending State.  
 
It is very different from having a community abroad due to war from the creation of a new State, as is the case of Israel. Slaves and indentured workers did not have a say in any part of the process, and in many cases, with some exceptions, there is no way to know where they originated. So there is no Diaspora if there is no country of origin. Besides, “Diasporas are not simply immigrants but rather immigrants who retain an emotional bond with their country of origin.”[i]
 
As Amb. Rana describes the sources of origin of the diaspora by just following the migration flows in the last centuries.[ii] He identifies nine profiles that go from European migration during colonial times to current international students not returning to their home countries after graduation.[iii] I like the fact that the Ambassador not just discussed North-South migration but also mentioned South-South flows and intra-North movements, such as the intra-European Union mobility.
 
In the not-so-distanced-past, most migration movements tended to be permanent, particularly when there were war and violence, specific groups suffered discrimination. With the advent of faster, cheaper transportation and communications, migrants move in large numbers due to economic difficulties. In some instances, such as India after 2000 and Mexico since the depression of 2008-2009, there have been some returns, voluntary or forced.
 
In Mexico's case, because of the geographic closeness, during most of the 20 century, migration to the United States has been seen as temporary, in contrast to other communities. With the end of circularity in the late 1990s, most Mexican migrants brought their families north. However, as a surge in enforcement operations, many deported persons were accompanied back to Mexico by the U.S. citizen kids and other family members, expanding the already substantial U.S. diaspora in Mexico.
 
3. Diasporas and foreign policy.
 
Amb. Rana identifies that the issues of diasporas “is a hazy area, lacking in either norms or established practices.”[iv] This is true at the international level as well as domestically in many countries.
 
As mentioned before, the diaspora community's duality is seen as an advantage for both the host and home countries. But there is a considerable disparity in the levels of collaboration and/or conflict between the home and host state and the diaspora.
 
It is relevant to acknowledge that “the role that a diaspora plays in the country of its adoption is a function of the opportunities that are available to migrant communities…”[v] Therefore, the more significant is the diaspora to the home country is when they manage to attain some power in the host country.
 
In terms of foreign policy, the power gained could be in the policy, economic, and even cultural fields. Once this is achieved, the home country most likely will be interested in engaging in more strategic and profound ways to gain some traction in its foreign policy goals, hopefully. One can always think of Israel as a great example.
 
However, there are times that the situation works the other way around. When the diaspora gains powerful positions in the host country, it could use this power to change the receiving  State´s  foreign policy, affecting the bilateral relations. One example could be the Cuban community in southern Florida and the relationship with the Castro regime.
 
While not so many countries try to influence the diaspora´s host country foreign policy towards it, most governments try to leverage their overseas communities to promote economic development.
 
Remittances can be a substantial source of foreign currency and income for left-behind family members. Nostalgic tourism, greater trade opportunities, and the possibility of investment by successful immigrants are other avenues to support progress of the sending country by diasporic communities.
 
4. Diaspora Diplomacy.
 
Back in 2011, when Amb. Rana published the book; he refers that “one does not encounter much specialist writing on the theme of diaspora diplomacy…though the subject receives increasing attention in the media.”[vi] Nowadays, there are more scholars and practitioners in different countries that are writing about this issue.
 
I think that Diaspora Diplomacy is another instrument of the Public Diplomacy toolbox because its essence is engaging with audiences (foreign and/or domestic) who live overseas that have a special bond. Of course, it can also be part of regular Diplomacy when diaspora members work as authorities in the host country´s government.
 
After looking for a definition of Diaspora Diplomacy, something that I thought would be easy but turned out to be quite complicated, I found one, but I am not convinced about it.
 
According to Joaquin Gonzales III, Diaspora Diplomacy is “A collective action that is driven, directed, and sustained by the energy and charisma of a broad range of migrants who influence another country´s culture, politics, and economics in a manner that is mutually beneficial for the homeland and the new home base.”[vii]
 
I find this definition troublesome because it does not include the government's role and its foreign policy goals. Therefore, it is hard to call it Diplomacy, in its traditional concept. For me, Diaspora Diplomacy is a government´s engagement with diasporic communities to achieve a foreign policy goal that could be as broad as a tool for economic development, generation of soft power to influence some decisions of the host country´s government. In this regard, according to Yunus Emre Ok, the “primary objective [of the Diaspora Diplomacy] is to generate loyalty towards the home country and ultimately converted into political influence…”[viii]
 
One reason why defining Diaspora Diplomacy is so tricky is because there is an enormous array of ways that it could be instrumented. One method to visualize this variety is via the analysis of the rise of diaspora institutions, like the study of Alan Gamlen, Michel E. Cummings, and Paul M. Vaaler titled “Explaining the rise of diaspora institutions” or evaluating the policies focused on diasporas, as the issue in brief titled “Engaging the Asian Diaspora”.
 
Last but not least, there is even a handbook for “Developing a Road Map for Engaging Diasporas in Development.” So, the field, quoting Amb. Rana still is a “hazy area.”
 
5. Digitalization of Diaspora Diplomacy: balancing opposing tendencies.
 
Diaspora Diplomacy has also experienced changes as a result of the digital revolution. Ilan Manor, author of a blog about Digital Diplomacy, in The Contradictory trends of Digital Diaspora Diplomacy,” expertly explains these opposing tendencies, that bring opportunities at the same challenges for governments and diasporic communities alike.
 
He indicates that “while nations can use digital platforms to engage with diasporic communities, such communities may also self-organize thus marginalizing diplomats.” [ix]
 
Manor identifies five main contradictory trends that affect diasporas and the government´s diplomatic efforts toward them:

1. Weaker diasporas vs. Larger diasporas.
2. Migration of Power to the Embassy vs. Added Strains to the Embassy.
3. Diaspora Support Networks versus Diaspora Self-organization.
4. Virtual Communities versus Fragmented Communities.

E.Remittances versus Political Opposition.[x]
 
I strongly suggest reading this working paper, as it clearly explains each of these opposing tendencies and the implications for engaging efforts of the ministries of foreign affairs.
 
6. Conclusions.
 
The participation of diasporas in international affairs is not new. However, the digital revolution, together with cheaper and faster modes of transportation, has increased the interest of the government in engaging with them as part of their overall foreign policy.
 
The COVID-19 pandemic has “created a worldwide crisis of immobility as intentional borders closed [and] as a result, the governance of international migration is likely to change substantially, in ways comparable to or even greater than the changes that came about after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”[xi] This, in turn, will heavily affect the lives of diasporic communities in host states and their families that depend on them in their homelands.
 
Diaspora Diplomacy is a field that needs more analysis, particularly in the framework of Public Diplomacy and the banishing border between domestic affairs and foreign policy. It could also be examined under the perspective of Foreign Policy Analysis.
 

[i] Manor, Ilan, “The Contradictory trends of Digital Diaspora Diplomacy”, Working Paper #2 Exploring Digital Diplomacy, October 2017, p. 3.
[ii] Rana, Kishan S., 21st Century Diplomacy: A practitioners Guide, 2011, p. 96.
[iii] Rana, 2011, pp. 96-99.
[iv] Rana, 2011, p. 95.
[v] Rana, 2011, p. 103.
[vi] Rana, 2011, p. 94.
[vii] Cited in Jovenir, Christelle M., “Diaspora Diplomacy: Functions, Duties, and Challenges of an Ambassador”, June 2013, p. 7.  Joaquin Gonzales III, Diaspora Diplomacy: Philippine Migration and its Soft Power Influence, Minneapolis, Mill City Press, 2012.
[viii] Emre Ok, Yunus, “”Diaspora-Diplomacy” as a Foreign Policy Strategy” in Diplomatisches Magazin, November 20, 2018.
[ix] Manor, 2017, p. 2.
[x] Manor, 2017, pp. 5-9.
[xi] Newland, Kathleen, “Will International Migration Governance Survive the COVID-19 Pandemic?”, Policy Brief, Migration Policy Institute and German Cooperation, October 2020, p. 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last weekend the Global Master of Arts Program (GMAP) of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy celebrated its 14th alumni weekend, the first-ever zoom gathering.
 
I was able to participate, and it brought back fantastic memories of my partaking in the program.
 
For those not familiar with GMAP, you can check its webpage here. It is an excellent program with the highest standards while demanding and flexible at the same time. It is a hybrid model that combines online classes and three in-person residencies (two in Boston and one in an overseas location). This feature was the most attractive to me, as I studied when distance learning was in its infancy; therefore, personal contact was vital.
 
I still remember the first dinner sitting with my new classmates back in the summer of 2007. It was by far the most exciting conversation about international affairs that I had in a very long time. After this Alumni Weekend, I can attest that GMAP still has the uniqueness of bringing together people from all walks of life who have extraordinary knowledge and experience in their fields and are ready to share them with anybody interested.
 
Luckily for me, I was then stationed in Boston working at the Consulate General of Mexico, so the distance I traveled to Fletcher was less than five miles from my home. This was a lot less than most of my classmates that flew from the Caucasus, Central Asia, Africa, Southeast Asia, and other faraway lands. I stayed in the residence hall as the rest of the class.
 
Living near Fletcher allowed me to live GMAP in a more profound way. I was privileged to participate in a Fletcher alumni weekend, use the library, and attend some of the always magnificent conferences and seminars that the school organized year-round.
 
I was also lucky enough that the mid-year residence was in Singapore, a country that has always fascinated me ( I did my BA's thesis about it) and where I traveled often when I lived in Malaysia in 1996-1997. By January 2008, the city-state has reinvented itself once again. We were extremely fortunate to meet Lew Kuan Yew, the country's founding father, an encounter that I still cherish today.
 
What I most vividly remember about GMAP nowadays, almost 13 years ago, was the professor's talent and competence and my peers' incredible experiences. The knowledge that I acquired still serves me in my work and life today. 
 
For example, in the International Politics class, we learned about the fragility of democracy while studying the Middle East before the Arab Spring. One of the worries of our professor was that democracy is not given and has to be supported and nourished, otherwise, it could die or become a zombie.
 
Last week's events in Washington and the struggle of democratic rule worldwide are clear examples that it cannot be taken for granted. We have to work to support democracy. The professor knew then what could happen if we did not take care of it.
 
Another strength of the GMAP's academic program is the perfect combination of courses, from International Law from a practical perspective to International Trade and Finances (that we suffered but learned so much), Security studies, personal and foreign policy leadership, and negotiations.
 
The requirement to work in teams was a complicated hard-work adventure, but it was one of the most rewarding and had long-lasting benefits for me.  The requirement to produce a Master's thesis was challenging but attainable.
 
After all these years, I still have the program's laptop (still works), the DVDs, and the reading materials that arrived in packages with some goodies to lessen the shock of seeing all those binders! I have used them in different circumstances since graduation.
 
Some of the greatest moments were the dinner at Dean Nutter's home before graduation or the lobster-fest in a beautiful Massachusetts coastal town during the first residency. After spending two weeks together in Boston, from being total strangers, we became a closed-knitted group with enormous brainpower, extensive global proficiency from all corners of the world, and diverse backgrounds.
 
Back then, technology was not as evolved as today, so studying far away from the school was a challenge. The iPhone was launched a few weeks before the residency began, and broadband internet was in its infancy! However, we managed to have five-time-zones group meetings and intense and lively discussions on the boards.
 
Besides learning from our expert professors and knowledgeable classmates, GMAP allowed me to improve my abilities and skills and better know myself. The group work where challenging but extremely rewarding for self-awareness and own development.
 
That year, even if I lost a lot of social meetings, movies, and other gatherings, it was a lifetime experience that will always be with me. In retrospect, GMAP prepared me well for the COVID-19 pandemic, where everything is done remotely, including international negations and team meetings. Thanks, GMAP!
 
This Alumni Weekend was extraordinary. Seeing old professors and classmates was awesome while seeing live the amazing new GMAP team. During the breakout sessions had the chance to talk to other year's GMAPers (graduates) from the program, and they are great as my classmates were. The lectures had a trove of analysis that is hard to find in today's information overloaded world. Definitely, GMAP still has this uniqueness that makes it an excellent investment.
 
I cannot finish this post without remembering two Mexican GMAPers Diplomats that I will always be in debt: Miguel Monterrubio and Aldo Aldama Bretón. Thank you for showing me the GMAP way!  

​
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.