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. Kisha 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. Kishan 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. Kishan 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. Kishan 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. Kishan 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] Kishan, 2011, pp. 96-99.
[iv] Kishan, 2011, p. 95.
[v] Kishan, 2011, p. 103.
[vi] Kishan, 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/


[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.

 
I wish you all a healthy 2021!
 
For many years, and with every technological revolution, Diplomacy has always been deemed doomed. Ever since communications and transportation have made the world smaller, diplomats have seen their careers threatened.
 
However, every time Diplomacy and diplomats come back after experiencing a makeover, to remain as relevant, if not more, as before. And it a not-so-Post-COVID-19 planet, it seems as much needed as ever.
 
Most of the problems that humanity faces today cannot be solved by a single country or a group of nations. The challenges are global and require a planetary-wide solution. And Diplomacy is the millennial-tradition that can bring about these solutions. Notwithstanding, it needs the willingness of the population and support from politicians.
 
Even if the number of actors has multiplied and even a single person can make the difference in today´s hyperconnected planet, States, embassies, and diplomats are still essential for moving ahead of the relationships between nations and the international system as a whole.
 
Embassies today provide a vital link for the sending state with borders closed across the world and limited travel options. Today, diplomats are one of the very few persons in the world that can travel with little restrictions. This was particularly important at the onset of the pandemic when millions of people were stranded abroad. Nowadays, with new border closures, they are assisting their nationals stuck overseas again.
 
Embassies and diplomats are also working on setting up zoom meetings and virtual visits while exchanging best-practices in pandemic responses and economic revitalization programs.
 
The essence of Diplomacy, sending envoys to foreign lands to communicate, represent, and negotiate, are still valid in the third decade of the 21st Century as they were at the dawn of human civilization.
 
Diplomats are typically problem-solvers and, in many instances, have managed to bring a solution to issues that affect the lives of millions of people. Just think of the Montreal Protocol that prohibited the use of CFCs that depleted the Earth´s ozone layer.
 
And even in today´s digital world, diplomats are needed to provide on-the-ground knowledge and nuances that cannot be matched by a stream of millions of terabytes of information. They can share an ice-breaker for their leaders that could avert a conflict or open the door for a strategic partnership.
 
Consuls around the Earth are engaging in a new form of Diplomacy, Consular Diplomacy, to engage with different subnational actors that have increased their international footprint.
 
In addition, all ambassadors are public diplomacy officials as they have to engage with foreign audiences, as well as domestic stakeholders. The division between foreign and domestic policies has diluted. However, they continue to be different as governments cannot control the international arena and other States´ actions and inactions.
 
These are a few reasons why Diplomacy and diplomats are essential today for the world, not only for one´s nation.
 
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.

While preparing for a new project, I came across a 2017 press bulletin of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark announcing the designation as the first-ever Tech ambassador as part of its new #TechPlomacy initiative.
 
Mr. Casper Klynge, a Danish career ambassador, arrived in the summer of 2017 in Silicon Valley. Things were not as smooth as they could be, as it took him nine months to meet with a senior official of a tech giant only to have a campus tour and a bag full of company goodies instead.[i]
 
In January 2020, the ambassador resigned for a post in Brussels working for Microsoft, a company that seems to better understand his role, according to Adam Satariano in his article The world´s first Ambassador to the tech industry as he frequently talked with the company´s president. [ii]
 
In August 2020, the Danish Foreign Ministry appointed Anne Marie Engtoft as the new Tech ambassador.[iii] She is the youngest ever ambassador of Denmark.
 
Why Tech companies?
 
At first, it seems odd that it was specifically a Tech Ambassador, as there has never been Oil Ambassadors or Finance Ambassador from different countries. But the article “Big tech companies are so powerful that a Nation sent an Ambassador to them” explains very clearly why these tech mammoths[iv] are incredibly different from the rest of multinational corporations:
 
“It isn’t just their sheer size and scale that place tech companies alongside nation-states. They are categorically different from the industrial corporations of previous eras. They are transnational entities that deal in data and information, more than physical products. This allows them to slip the bounds of national origins much easier than any other company. And both their structure and their form differ from those of their ancestors.”[v]
 
Digital platforms are “infrastructure for markets, communication, and information dissemination… [and as such they] mediate between communities, they are able to set rules and regulations that govern the behavior of markets, publishers, people, politics and so on.”[vi]  
 
They also “govern the spaces they control. And by developing new technologies that are deployed as platforms, they can govern entirely new spaces before national governments are even aware that a new governor has emerged.” (ibid)
 
So, these businesses are totally different from traditional ones, so Ambassador Klynge is correct in stating that “These companies have moved from being companies with commercial interests to actually becoming de facto foreign policy actors.”[vii]
 
New duties.
 
According to a report,[viii] the ambassador had some traditional duties of any high-ranking diplomat in charge of trade and investment in an embassy, a consulate or trade or Investment promotion office abroad. It means that among his responsibilities were the promotion of Danish export and foreign investment attraction.
 
But the main objectives of the tech ambassador position are to establish a dialogue and create relationships, not only with the tech giants but think tanks, universities, among others, and to relate information about the fast-changing technology that could have an impact on Denmark.
“…Part of the job involves intelligence gathering to help his government design policies before companies roll out new technologies such as advanced artificial intelligence, facial recognition tools, new health care platforms or autonomous vehicles in Denmark.”[ix]
 
These tasks are not constrained by a geographical district, like a regular embassy or consulate, as the office has a global mandate[x] that included overseeing offices in New Delhi, Seoul, and Shanghai.[xi]
 
Ambassador Klynge, in an interview, explained that “We had to build a new team, we had to establish our own policies, we had to find out how to penetrate the tech companies in a way [that] you can have a strategic political discussion.”[xii]
 
New challenges.
 
Understandably, some companies took a while to understand the tech ambassador´s role because there are not used to this type of international engagement. One definition of Diplomacy is a system of communications and norms, so a country known precisely what are the duties and responsibilities of any ambassador of a foreign nation.  And are traditions, such as granting immunity to the envoy, since the Greek city-states times.
 
In the context of arranging meetings, in the “real” diplomatic world, high ranking officials understand that they would have to meet with an ambassador, considering the basics of reciprocity. In the tech world, there is not such a thing as reciprocity.
 
Officials of most countries would have difficulties arranging a meeting with senior management of the tech giants, as most of them only meet at the highest level, e.g., heads of state and top ministers. This could be an impossibility for small nations, even for a highly regarded country such as Denmark.  So, naming an ambassador to Silicon Valley makes a lot of sense, with global responsibilities.
 
However, as mentioned, this innovative approach could cause some confusion. I imagine Mr. Klynge was recognized by the U.S. Department of State as the Danish Consul General in Palo Alto, California, where his office is located, or some sort of Special Envoy, as there cannot be another ambassador besides the one accredited to Washington DC.

​It would also be interesting to see how China, India, or other countries where he travels recognized him as ambassador, with all its privileges, including inviolability and immunity.
 
As the excellent introductory essay of The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy explains, there have been many changes in the diplomacy of the 21st Century, but the States are still the leading players.
 
Even with the massive increase of actors in the international arena, including companies, and the blending of borders, the States maintain their importance. Technology platforms are creating their own digital worlds, controlling most of the rules of engagement, establishing its governance, regardless of the users' nationality or location. No wonder there is a growing push for greater regulation of these new powerful international actors.
 
Interestingly, while announcing the designation of a new tech ambassador, the Danish Foreign Minister recognized the need to adjust this initiative, explaining that it “require[s] a new strategy and a relaunch of the tech initiative. We [Danish MFA] simply need to produce a tech version 2.0 and attain a more goal-orientated Danish effort to encourage the tech giants to become good, ‘global community’ citizens.”[xiii]
 
Innovation is essential, and a Tech ambassador could be a new form of diplomacy, particularly with the Tech giants that are not your ordinary multinational corporation such as Ford, Shell, or Bank of America.


[i] Satariano, Adam, “The world´s first Ambassador to the tech industry”, New York Times, September 3, 2019.
[ii] Kristensen, Carsten, “World´s First Tech Ambassador resigns”, Inside Scandinavian Business, January 20, 2020.
[iii] W., Christian, “Denmark to get new tech ambassador”, CPH Post, August 24, 2020.
[iv] The five U.S. tech giants are: Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. To learn about their economic power and competitive edge, see Crescioli, Tommaso, “Tech Giants and Competition: A Political Economy Perspective”, E-International Relations, October 27, 2020.
[v] Blumental, Paul, “Big tech companies are so powerful that a Nation sent an Ambassador to them”, Huffington Post, June 23, 2018.
[vi] Blumental, Paul, ibid.
[vii] Satariano, Adam, ibid.
[viii] Stokel-Walker, Christopher, “The First Silicon Valley ambassador is out to make nice with tech giants”, Wired, November 6, 2017.
[ix] Blumental, Paul, ibid.
[x] Denmark names first ever tech ambassador, Denmark MFA, 2017.
[xi] Sanchez, Alejandro W., “The rise of the Tech Ambassador”, Diplomatic Courier, March 23, 2018.
[xii] Johnson, Khari, “Tech giants, small countries, and the future of techplomacy”, Venture Beat, October 8, 2019.
[xiii] W. Christian, ibid.

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

Opening note:
I borrowed the idea of seen Mexico´s image from a broken mirror from Guillermo Máynez Gil´s article titled “El espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros.”[i]

I like the reference to a funhouse mirror because it reflects a person’s image but in a distorted way. So, the person can be identified but is presented in a very different way.

In this post, I will argue that Mexico’s image abroad is distorted, like a reflection in a funhouse mirror, as a result of three circumstances: certain cultural expressions; U.S. influence in broadcasting to the world their own version of Mexico, and lack of policies and programs to projects its image overseas.

Introduction.

Every number of years, there is always a discussion about the need to improve Mexico´s image abroad, because according to Mexicans, it is skewed and does not reflect the country’s reality.

As the reader saw in my post about these issues, a country´s image and reputation overseas is critical to its prosperity. Simon Anholt, creator of the terms Nation-brand, Competitive Identity, and the Good Country indicates that every country competes to get “a share of the world´s consumption and tourism, to attract investors, students, and business person, also to gain the respect of other governments, the international media and the people of other countries.”[ii]

In this post, I will talk about Mexico´s image so the reader can better understand the different elements that influence how the country is perceived overseas and why it might have a bad international image.

It is interesting to see that different authors such as Leonardo Curzio, Simon Anholt, Jaime Díaz, and Mónica Pérez, agree that there is a large gap between Mexico´s reality and the perceptions that most of the world has about the country, which in general is not favorable, with a few exceptions, mainly in the Americas.

Anholt mentions that Mexico´s negative perception is so strong that it weighs down some of its best attributes, such as its cultural heritage and natural beauty. According to the 2010 Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brand Index, most of the persons surveyed in 20 nations see the country as less beautiful than Finland. It does not have more cultural heritage than Scotland, and it is less attractive as a tourist destination than Belgium.[iii] This is how much weight the perception and reputation can affect the country´s greatest attributes. Hence, the reputation of a country abroad is very relevant for its development and wellbeing.

I divided this post into four sections:
1. Cultural expressions that are not-so-great-for-a-positive international reputation.
2. The consequences of somebody else projecting your country’s image.
3. Mexico´s lack of policies and tools to broadcast its own image abroad.
4. Final thoughts.

But before moving on, let´s be honest. Mexico´s image and reputation outside Latin America are not good, and even quite bad, particularly amongst the U.S. public.

Some of the most popular brand index positions Mexico in the bottom half, with few exceptions:

• Country Brand Ranking 2019–2020 Trade edition Mexico occupied the 16th position, amongst 194 nations, while in the Tourism edition, it was number 11 out of 197 countries.
• Nation Brands Ranking of 2020 Mexico was number 21 out of 100 nations.
• Elcano Global Presence Index position of México in 2019 was 25 amongst 130 countries.
• Global Soft Power Index in 2020 Mexico was number 37 out of 60.
• Country Brand Index in 2020, Mexico had position 72 out of 75.
• Good Country Index Mexico occupies 75th place out of 149 nations (v. 1.4)
• East-West Global Index 200 of 2011 was 192 out of 200 nations.[iv]

And in some, such as the Soft Power30, Mexico does not even make the list.

1. Cultural expressions that are not-so-great-for-a-positive international reputation.

As mentioned before, Mexico´s image abroad is weak; however, there is a need to recognize that the international media is not to blame why foreign audiences have a “distorted” perception of Mexico that not corresponds to its reality as a G20 nation.

Additionally, it is necessary to acknowledge that part of the problem is that Mexico has some cultural traits that probably are not conducive to be perceived in an upbeat fashion.

Dr. Leonardo Curzio, a scholar that I much admire, in the article “La imagen de México”[v] explains in detail some of these cultural expressions that could hinder the country´s image abroad.

Dr. Curzio ascertains that one of the best ways to reach out to foreign audiences is the country´s artistic and cultural output, especially through music. He pinpoints that Mexico´s traditional music is melancholic, nostalgic, or tragic.[vi] Thus, “Mexico has an image of a country that knows how to lament masterly, and that is what [Mexico] projects to the world.”[vii]

Besides, Dr. Curzio also details that Mexico´s most famous monuments are several pyramids, not brand new buildings or infrastructure projects.[viii] Not even the Jumex and Soumaya museums' extraordinary designs or the award-winning and innovative Torre Reforma can compete with one of the new seven wonders of the world: the Mayan site in Chichén Itza, or the monumental city of Teotihuacán.

Another cultural trait that might hold back the best of Mexico´s reputation, Curzio thinks, is that its national heroes are linked to tumultuous times. Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa are the country´s leaders with the most prominent international projection.[ix] Besides, Mexico´s great heroes are not institution-builders but liberators that can starts movement but struggle to finish them.[x]

Dr. Curzio indicates that in the construction of the image of Mexico, stability is overshadowed by turbulence. Also, Mexico broadcasts a picture of an unjust country with sporadic revolutionary violence.[xi]

Curzio adds that “the violence associated with [Mexico´s] history is complemented by [its] artistic expressions, which a lot of them have a systematic and persistent death cult.”[xii] He exemplifies this by citing José Guadalupe Posada or Frida Kahlo’s works, present in all tourist stores and museums of Mexico.

For a current example, the reader can participate in a virtual tour of the exhibition “La Muerte en la Historia de México” (The death in Mexico´s history) at the Museo Nacional de la Muerte, which I did not it existed in Aguascalientes until now.

Every day the celebration of the “Day of the dead,” a UNESCO´s Intangible Cultural Heritage, is gaining popularity abroad, including the opening scene of James Bond´s movie Spectre or the award-winning Disney movie “Coco.”

Besides, for a very long time, Mexican Cultural Diplomacy has focused on the exhibition of our significant pre-hispanic cultural heritage and our muralist movement. Until recently, alive Mexican artists like Gabriel Orozco or Damián Ortega have international recognition beyond the artistic circles.

In conclusion, while strong, Mexico has some cultural expressions that do not help portray an image of a modern and innovative nation. Some of these expressions are well-known overseas and tend to eclipse other attributes that could be more attractive or perceived more positively by foreign publics.

2. The consequences of somebody else projecting your country’s image.

In a very stimulating article titled “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de Mexico,”[xiii] Simon Anholt elucidates why Mexico has such a wide gap between its reality and how the world perceives it.

He identifies as one fundamental issue that Mexico´s image abroad has partially been shaped, not by its own work but through U.S. lenses. I think it is troublesome for two reasons:

a) The U.S. national identity had partially developed in contrast to Mexico, even before the two nations were created: WASP tradition vs. contra-reformation Catholic and indigenous heritage.
Therefore, for the U.S., Mexico and its population have always represented the “other.” This perception is compounded by millions of Mexicans living north of the border, mostly from rural areas and with little education. So there is an intrinsic confrontation between the two, and as Leonardo Curzio explains, Mexico has not been able to transform what unites the two countries into a regional identity.[xiv] Maybe this could be the main reason.

b) U.S. broadcast and entertainment industries have dominated the world airwaves and now the internet. So, the images of Mexico portrayed by these companies are not neutral and have an underlying intent related to showcasing its “otherness” to the U.S. public. Additionally, in specific periods, there were propaganda campaigns organized by U.S authorities, media, and broadcasting businesses to harm Mexico´s image, such as during its revolution and in the intra-wars years. A weak neighbor is better than a strong one. Dr. Curzio indicates that “in the construction of mutual images between Mexico and the United States, the former historically has received the worse part.”[xv]

So, Mexico has a quite complicated situation as a neighbor of the U.S, which has the strongest voice in the world. Now I understand why a citizen of Africa or Asia thinks that “Taco Bell” is authentic Mexican cuisine, the country is made up only of drylands and deserts, or that its population is lazy. These are the images that the U.S. entertainment industry has transmitted over and over to everybody.

An example of Mexico being portrayed by the U.S. entertainment industry is the Disney movie “Coco,” created by a U.S. citizen. Another one is Cirque du Soleil´s Luzia spectacle.[xvi] So, even as beautiful as they are, the images they project of Mexico are like a funhouse mirror.

To make matters worse, Mexico, with a few exceptions, has not been able to implement a long-term communications strategy to counterbalance U.S. images of the country, as the reader will see in the next section.

Simon Anholt expresses surprise by the U.S and Canada’s opinion of Mexico as one of the world’s pariahs. He describes this perception as contempt by the two populations with substantial economic, social, cultural, and political connections.[xvii]

He speculates that a reevaluation of Mexico´s image by the U.S. population is only possible if the country obtains tangible benefits of its position in the world, similar to what happened with Ireland in the case of Great Britain.[xviii]

3. Mexico´s lack of policies and tools to broadcast its own image overseas.

Even though the international media portraits Mexico as a violent, traditional country, there has been a lack of serious efforts to change this situation. As the reader will learn, there were some but very limited.

Simon Anholt and Leonardo Curzio coincide that Mexico needs to have a policy to really affect its reputation. However, by looking at the article published by coordinators of Mexico´s Nation-Brand project from 2010 to 2012,[xix] it seems that the effort was mainly focused on tourism, and its measurements were limited to marketing “impacts” rather than as a decisive step forward toward a better reputation.

Dr. Curzio, in his seminal book Orgullo y Prejuicios: Reputación e imagen de México identifies three major problems of Mexico´s image:

• ·Its brand image is not one of an innovative country but rather a traditionalist one.[xx]
• Its capacity to generate content about the country´s reality is limited.[xxi]
• Its reputation is not that solid, and the perception of a significant number of U.S. society portraits a nation with a weak culture of integrity, violent, and fighting a past that cannot solve.[xxii]

As a solution to these challenges, Curzio suggests the need for developing three elements: substance, narrative, and appropriate communications channels.[xxiii]

He indicates that except for the 1968 Olympic Games[xxiv] and NAFTA´s promotion in 1993, [xxv] the country has not developed a systematic activity to show contents that defy the stereotypes defined by the entertainment industry. Besides, it has not invested the necessary time, money, and talent to create TV and movie characters that portray a Mexican as loyal and trustworthy.[xxvi]

Similarly, Anholt indicates that Mexico´s relative silence after NAFTA’s approval has not helped compensate for its image´s weakness. Neither the insufficient investments in tourism, trade and investment promotion as well as in cultural diplomacy in proportion to its monumental cultural heritage.[xxvii]

The country does not have an international broadcasting program, where it can present its views to the world in addition to its cultural traditions and its modern side. Dr. Curzio calls these “appropriate channels of communication.” However, he indicates that the targeted audience has to be defined before identifying these communication conduits. [xxviii]

Anholt indicates that the lack of institutions that assist in promoting Mexico's image, such as international cultural institutes or public diplomacy networks, could be an advantage because it is more difficult to change organizations that already exist than establishing new from scratch.[xxix]

Curzio indicates that it is a paradox that the country has some giant entertainment companies with vast outreach, such as Televisa; however, the country does not have any channel to projects its image. And it also lacks in the production of content that could be interesting for foreign audiences.[xxx]

On the bright side, as Guillermo Máynez Gil discovers in his article “El espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros.”[xxxi] Mexico is like a broken mirror, and each fractured piece portraits a different image according to the viewer’s perspective. Therefore, for an epicurean, Mexico is a wildly delicious country to feast on; for biologists, anthropologists, and archeologists, the nation is paradise and refuge for U.S and Canadian snowbirds.[xxxii]

Máynez Gil explains that the number of foreigners living in Mexico is an example of its attractiveness, considering the cost of living and quality.[xxxiii] However, to be honest, comparatively with other nations, the number of foreigners living in Mexico is low.

4. Final thoughts.

So if we combined Mexico´s not-so-great-for-a-good-reputation cultural expressions, and a very solid but outdated image abroad, together with the U.S broadcast of its perception of Mexico and lack of a long-term strategy, it does not surprise the low esteem that the country has abroad, particularly beyond the Americas.

As seen in this post, Mexico´s image has some challenges that need to be overcome to be regarded by the world´s population as a positive and strong nation. It has to transform the broken funhouse mirror into a regular one, so it is appreciated as it really is.
​
Simon Anholt´s idea of the Good Country, or how countries' images are related to what the nation contributes for the wellbeing of the planet, not just its citizens, could be a way forward for Mexico to change its reputation overseas.


[i] Máynez Gil, Guillermo, “El espejo roto: percepción de México entre los extranjeros” in Este País, №261, January 2013, pp. 8–12
[ii] Anholt, Simon, “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, p. 111
[iii] Anholt, Simon, 2012, p. 118.
[iv] This might seem old or outdated, but was the last issue of its type and is relevant because the countries are ranked “based on how are described in major media.” East West Global Index 200, 2011. It was also a year that was not great for Mexico in global news.
[v] Curzio, Leonardo, “La imagen de México” in La Política Exterior de México: Metas y obstáculos, Guadalupe González G and Olga Pellicer (coords.), México, Siglo XXI Editores, 2013, pp. 27–50.
[vi] Curzio, 2013, p. 36
[vii] Ibid, 2013, p. 36.
[viii] Ibid, 2013, p. 37.
[ix] Ibid, 2013, p. 37.
[x] Ibid. 2013, p. 38.
[xi] Ibid, 2013, p. 38.
[xii] Ibid, 2013, p. 38.
[xiii] Anholt, Simon, “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, pp. 109–130.
[xiv] Curzio, Leonardo, Orgullo y Prejuicios: Reputación e imagen de México, México, UNAM-CISEN Miguel Ángel Porrúa, 2016, p. 23–25.
[xv] Curzio, 2016, p. 23. Dr. Curzio reaches this conclusion after reviewing the following study: Terrazas y Basante, Marcela, Gurza Lavalle, Gerardo, de los Ríos, Patricia, Riguzzi, Paolo. Las relaciones México — Estados Unidos 1756–2010, 2 vols. Mexico, Insitutio de Investigaciones Históricas, CISEN-UNAM, SRE, 2012.
[xvi] Cirque du Soleil is a Canadian company, with very strong ties to the U.S. For a brief description of Luzia as conduit of Mexico´s image, see Carrera, Felipe, “”Luzia,” a Creative and Innovative Cultural Intervention”, Center for Public Diplomacy Blog, October 8, 2018. Also see, Hernández, Daniel,·”´Luzia´is Cirque de Soleil´s valentine to Mexico”, The Frame, January 31, 2018, and “Beyond Tacos and Burritos: How Circus show and Movie Coco influence the country image of Mexico”, Place Brand Observer, February 15, 2018.
[xvii] Anholt, 2012, p. 119.
[xviii] Anholt, 2012, p. 126.
[xix] Díaz, Jaime and Pérez, Mónica “Marca México: una estrategia para reducir la brecha entre la percepción y la realidad” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, pp. 169–186.
[xx] Curzio, 2016, p. 15.
[xxi] Curzio, 2016, p. 16.
[xxii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22.
[xxiii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22.
[xxiv] In recent years, there has been new research about the cultural diplomacy effort during the Olympics Games, also known as Cultural Olympics. See, Castañeda, Luis M., Spectacular Mexico: Design, propaganda and the 1968 Olympics, 2014; Witherspoon, Kevin, Before the Eyes of the World: Mexico and the 1968 Olympic Games, 2014; and México: la Olimpiada Cultural.
[xxv] To learn more about Mexico´s public diplomacy initiatives regarding the approval of NAFTA see, Villanueva, César, Representing Cultural Diplomacy: Soft Power, Cosmopolitan Constructivism and Nation Branding in Mexico and Sweden, Sweden, 2007; Villanueva, César, “Cooperación y diplomacia cultural: experiencias y travesías. Entrevista al embajador Jorge Alberto Lozoya” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №85, February 2009, pp. 253–267; and Starr, Pamela K., “Mexican Public Diplomacy: Hobbled by History, Interdependence and Asymmetric Power” in Public Diplomacy Magazine, №2, Summer 2009, pp. 49–53.
[xxvi] Curzio, 2016, 25.
[xxvii] Anholt, 2012, p. 124–125.
[xxviii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22.
[xxix] Anholt, 2012, p. 128.
[xxx] Curzio, 2016, p. 16–17.
[xxxi] Máynez Gil, Guillermo, “El espejo roto: percepción de México entre los extranjeros” in Este País, №261, January 2013, pp. 8–12
[xxxii] Máynez Gil, 2013, p. 10.
[xxxiii] Máynez Gil, 2013, p. 11–12.

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

“Staying at the forefront: The challenge of the consulates of Mexico in the United States,” written by Rafael Laveaga Rendón, is the last chapter that I will review of the book La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en Tiempos de Trump.

It has been fascinating to learn about the many aspects of Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy presented by highly regarded Mexican Diplomats. I hope it was useful for you too.

Laveaga Rendón starts his essay by stating that it reflects how Mexican consulates work today and how they should continue to operate in the future. He affirms that the chapter´s main objective is to promote a debate about improving and maintaining a top-of-the-line consular network.[i]

Laveaga Rendón divides his essay into six parts:
1. The evolution of the Mexican consular network in the U.S.
2. Deliberations about updating or keeping the current consular configuration.
3. Establishment of political and economic departments in key consulates.
4. Consular offices´ budget administration.
5. Outreach to the Mexican Diaspora.
6. Final thoughts.[ii]

1. The evolution of the Mexican consular network in the U.S.

In this section, Laveaga Rendón briefly describes the expansion of the Mexican consular network in the U.S., starting with the Consulate in New Orleans in 1823 all the way to the end of the 20th century. From an initial focus on commercial issues, consular offices slowly prioritized assistance to its nationals in the country.[iii]

He explains that in the last century, Mexico had to expand its consular network due to the U.S. growing demand for Mexican workers, the Mexican community’s proliferation, and U.S. immigration policies' evolution.[iv]

The negotiation and approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement was a milestone for Mexico´s consular network. In addition to offering traditional services, the consulates have to reach out to politicians, businesspersons, and the general population to promote the trade agreement so that Congress could approve it.[v]

Other challenges were the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the hardening of immigration policies at the national, state, and local levels, in addition to growing xenophobic and discriminatory attitudes.[vi]

Mexico´s consular network response was to expand and improve the resources offered to the Mexican community north of the border. It developed and modernized the Consular ID card program[vii] and established the Programa de Asistencia Jurídica a Personas Mexicanas a través de Asesorías Legales Externas en los Estados Unidos de América (Legal Assistant program or PALE).[viii]

2. Deliberations about updating or keeping the current consular configuration.

In this section, Laveaga Rendón focuses on the need to evaluate with objective criteria the adjustments that the consular network requires. As examples, he offers the closing of the Consulate of Mexico in Anchorage, Alaska (in Nov 2015), and the decision not to open one in Hawaii, after a detailed evaluation.[ix]

He highlights the Mobile Consulate program, a consular best practice, and suggests that it could be expanded to optimize scarce resources as part of the consulate network review.[x]

Laveaga Rendón proposes four principles that could be used to decide opening, closing, or relocating a consulate:
a) Size of the Mexican community in the consular district.
b) Vulnerabilities of Mexican, including their location far from consular offices or in areas with anti-immigrant policies.
c) The region´s political, economic, and cultural relevance for Mexico.
d) The consulate´s territorial coverage, directly or via Mobile Consulates.[xi]

3. Establishment of political and economic departments in key consulates.

Laveaga Rendon complains that very few consulates have officers exclusively dedicated to political issues and economic promotion, which he thinks is a problem. He asserts to be successful, besides providing information, the consuls in charge of political affairs and economic promotion require to build a network of contacts. He offers as an example the border consulates that are now working on infrastructure issues and political engagement due to the reduction in consular protection cases.[xii]

The Mexican diplomat proposes identifying every consulate´s specific relevance to determine personnel’s assignment to cover the political and economic promotion departments. Mexico needs to take advantage of its consular network to generate strategic information[xiii], similar to Ambassador Reyna Torres Mendivil´s suggestion made in her chapter of the book. You can read the review here.

4. Consular offices´ budget administration.
​
Laveaga Rendón explains the extraordinary resources assigned to the consular network in 2017 as part of the FAMEU strategy and some of its results. However, he identified a few problems, such as:
-Not being flexible enough so that each consulate could administrate it according to the local circumstances.
-The use of funds for only one year, even though the anti-immigrant policies continued.[xiv]

As a solution, he proposes that Mexico´s Treasury Department issues a budget rules exception that applies to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, considering the particular situation of the consulates in the Unites. States. Additionally, he comes up with a significant number of questions regarding budget issues of the different programs and suggests to review to improve its efficiency and effectiveness.[xv]

5. Outreach to the Mexican Diaspora.

Laveaga Rendón writes that “a constant challenge for Mexico’s consulates is to maintain an open and frank communication with its Diaspora”[xvi]. The Mexican community in the U.S. is heterogeneous; therefore, the consulates have to have a differentiated approach according to the region, the age groups, and gender, for example.
He briefly mentions the Red Global MX, a program of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad for high-skill Mexicans overseas.[xvii]

Additionally, the Mexican diplomat explains that the expansion of the responsibilities of the Institute has led to a dispersion of its goals, thus weakening its performance. He proposes to promote the use of Spanish as a critical community outreach activity.[xviii]

He emphasizes that Mexico needs to develop a comprehensive Public Diplomacy strategy to gain the community’s trust and have a real connection with it.[xix]

6. Final thoughts.

Laveaga Rendón declares that Mexico has a vanguard consular network, unique in the whole world resulting from:
i) Its ample presence across the U.S. with 50 offices,
ii) The high number of services that provide,
iii) Its advanced processes,
iv) Variety of duties that performs.[xx]

He also states that Mexico´s assistance to its national overseas is also in the forefront, with an extensive network of legal services providers, partnerships with different organizations, and financial resources for vulnerable Mexicans. It also has a sophisticated administrative structure.[xxi]

Besides, the consulates perform a significant representation work because they maintain communication with U.S. political and economic authorities at all levels. Our best consuls become local public figures with continuous TV and Radio presence, and they are the specialists of issues related to Mexico.[xxii]

Laveaga Rendón closes the chapter by recognizing Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy successes and strengths. He supports the need to evaluate its programs to improve the country´s foreign policy decision-making process.

Besides, he concludes by reiterating the need to define clear criteria to open a consular office, evaluate its activities, establish political and economic promotion offices at key consulates, grant a budget-program exception, and develop differentiated programs to facilitate its contacts with the Mexican Diaspora.[xxiii]

Why is it relevant to read?

Similar to the chapter of Ambassador José Octavio Tripp, Rafael Laveaga Rendón focuses his essay on the challenges Mexico faces to maintain one of the world´s best Consular Diplomacies.

He highlights one of the more successful programs, the Mobile Consulate, that expanded into four different types, which allows the consular network to reach out to communities far away from the consulate’s office. Seeking to be close to its community is one of the main characteristics of Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy.

I agree with Laveaga Rendón´s proposal of assigning personnel that exclusively focuses on political issues and economic promotion, depending on the consulate´s vocation. Having an in-depth knowledge of the local political situation could benefit Mexico´s foreign policy. It is an untapped resource that needs to be fully exploited. The same should happen in regards to economic promotion activities.

Laveaga Rendón emphasizes that Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy is one of the best. However, to prove that it is, there is a need to do a comparative study. It could be fascinating to identify the similarities and differences of several countries regarding consular affairs.


[i] Laveaga Rendón, Rafael, “Mantenerse a la vanguardia: Desafío para los consulados de México en Estados Unidos” in La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en Tiempos de Trump, 2018, p. 231.
[ii] Ibid. p. 232.
[iii] Ibid. p. 232–234.
[iv] Ibid. p. 233.
[v] Ibid. p. 233.
[vi] Ibid. p. 233–234.
[vii] This program existed since the early 1870s and is contemplated in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Besides the registration, the consulates issued a card to the person that included the local address. In 2002, Mexico started issuing a new card with enhanced security measures that were useful for local authorities and banks. For more information, see Bruno, Andorra, and Storrs, K. Larry, “Consular Identification Cards: Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation”, Congressional Research Services, updated May 26, 2005.
[viii] Ibid. p. 234.
[ix] Ibid. p. 234–238.
[x] Ibid. p. 238.
[xi] Ibid. p. 238.
[xii] Ibid. p. 238–240.
[xiii] Ibid. p. 241.
[xiv] Ibid. p. 242.
[xv] Ibid. p. 243.
[xvi] Ibid. p. 245.
[xvii] Ibid. p. 245.
[xviii] Ibid. p. 246–247.
[xix] Ibid. p. 247–248.
[xx] Ibid. p. 248.
[xxi] Ibid. p. 249.
[xxii] Ibid. p. 249.
[xxiii] Ibid. p. 250.
​
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this chapter of the book, Vanessa Calva Ruiz explains one of Mexico´s Public Diplomacy strategies implemented in the United States: Developing partnerships with allies and its community based on shared ideas and interactive dialogue. However, she does not use the term “Public Diplomacy” explicitly in her text.
 
Calva Ruiz identifies the establishment of a new model of consular care as a catalysis for the expansion of networks with non-traditional groups and organizations, such as the Jewish community and LGBT associations.[i]
 
She also indicates that the consular care new model derives from the Human Rights Constitutional amendment of 2011 that adopted the “pro-persona” principle. The new model is grounded on dialogue and trust between the Mexican community and the consular network.[ii]
 
This new consular care model has resulted in identifying additional needs of the Mexican community, thus pushing forward the development of new partnerships, including novel allies.
 
Calva Ruiz explains that Mexico has a reliable consular administration in the U.S. However, each of the 51 Mexican consulates operates in a unique form, considering the specific circumstances of its location and the Mexican community's characteristics.[iii] I believe this characteristic is essential due to the size and complexity of the United States' political landscape.
 
Additionally, she describes the trípode consular or consular tripod, which comprises of the activities and programs of the three areas of consular assistance: protection to citizens, documentary services, and community affairs. The three interact to provide better services and also empower the Mexican community.[iv]
 
As an example of the trípode consular, she presents the Ventanilla de Atención Integral para la Mujer or the “Initiative for the Comprehensive Care of Women” (VAIM) that interconnects all areas of the consulates to offer specialized assistant to Mexican women. Besides, it promotes training and sensibilization about their challenges and created a resources and services directory.[v]
 
The expansion of the VAIM in 2016 pushed the consulates to be proactive in developing alliances with new stakeholders. Traditionally, consular offices have extended collaboration with Latino organizations, civil rights groups, and Hometown Association.[vi] But in recent years, the search for new partners.
 
She offers as an example the activities that were developed with LGBT national associations, such as Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and GLSEN in the United States together with Mexico´s Consejo Nacional para la Prevención de la Discriminación (CONAPRED) and Supreme Court of Justice.[vii] As a result, consulates created “safe zones”, participated in training sessions, information campaigns, Pride and Spirit days celebrations,[viii] not only in the U.S. but also in embassies and consulates worldwide.
 
Check out the excellent video produce by the Ministry for Spirit Day 2017 at the bottom of this post. 
 
As part of the new consular care model, Calva Ruiz also includes the use of new technologies, and describes the creation of the Centro de Información y Atención a Mexicanos (consular protection calling center) and the MiConsulmex smartphone app.[ix]
 
I think that another example of specialized consular assistance to specific vulnerable groups is the development of three consular care protocols:
-Unaccompanied migrant children and adolescents, created with the support of UNICEF Mexico.[x]
-Victims of gender-based violence, with UN Women.
-Victims of human trafficking, with the International Organization for Migration.
 
Vanessa Calva Ruiz concludes 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.”[xi]
 
In her chapter, Calva Ruiz cites an article that she wrote and was published in The Hill newspaper, highlighting Consular Diplomacy activities in favor of the Mexican LGBT communities. You can read the articles here. “Consular Diplomacy and LGBT rights, lessons from Mexico.”
 
This paper is worth reading because it highlights how Mexico´s Consular Diplomacy has expanded with the establishment of non-traditional allies, such as LGBT national organizations, that provide services to the Mexican community and help them integrate.
 
To see some of inclusive flyers visit https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/475074/Infograf_as_Incluyentes_-_INGL_S_-2019.pdf
 


[i] Calva Ruiz, Vanessa, “Diplomacia Consular y acercamiento con socios estratégicos” in La Diplomacia Consular Mexicana en los tiempos de Trump, 2018, p. 210.
[ii] Ibid. p. 206.
[iii] Ibid. p. 205.
[iv] Ibid. p. 208.
[v] Ibid. p. 208-209.
[vi] Hometown Associations or Clubes de Oriundos are community-based organizations that bring together persons from the same location. Normally, they support the organization of traditional festivities in their hometowns.
[vii] Ibid. p. 211.
[viii] See for example Arelis Quezada, Janet, “Consulados y embajada de México participan en #SpiritDay Mexican Consulates and Embassy participates in #SpiritDay”, GLAAD website, October 16, 2017.
[ix] Ibid. p. 213-214.
[x] For a brief description of the protocol´s origins and its benefits, see Gallo, Karla, “En el camino hacia la protección integral de la niñez migrante, UNICEF México Blog, August 21, 2019.
[xi] Ibid. p. 215.

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 few days ago, Mexico celebrated the tenth anniversary of its traditional cuisine as an Intangible Cultural Heritage by UNESCO.
 
I believe it is an important milestone  as it was the first cuisine included in the registry. The other two registries had a different perspective, the French meal emphasizes processes, while the Mediterranean diet focuses on ingredients, according to Gloria López Morales,[i] Founder and President of the Conservatorio de la Cultura Gastronómica Mexicana, a non-profit organization registered at the UNESCO.
 
To learn more about Mexico´s Gastrodiplomacy efforts to achieve this goal, check out the post More than Tacos: Mexico´s scrumptious, yet unknown Gastrodiplomacy. 

So, what has happened in the last ten years?
 
There are three significant developments since then:

1. Internally, the inclusion of our traditional cuisine in the UNESCO registry has given us an enhanced sense of pride. We always thought our food was great, but this was its international validation.

​Besides, it also created a revolution in our food scene; suddenly, some of our top chefs, such as Enrique Olvera and Jorge Vallejo, became international figures and were listed in the 50 Best Restaurant lists, climbing almost to the top.[ii]
 
The recognition also makes them part of several documentaries such as Netflix´s Chef´s Table, or even their own shows such as Gabriela Camara`s Netflix show Una historia de dos cocinas, about Contramar restaurant in Mexico City and its sister in San Francisco.
 
More importantly, our traditional cuisine had the attention of not only sociologists, food experts, and chefs but authorities and the general public.
 
The rise of the Cocineras Tradicionales[iii] or Traditional female cooks and all the events that were built around their expertise is just remarkable.
 
Part of the registration on the UNESCO´s list is to protect the heritage, so, in this case, the traditional cuisine was not just protected but was reappraised and revitalized. For example, there have been yearly national conferences for cocineras tradicionales, and also at the state level. They are also participating in international meetings and tours, such as one in Southern France in late 2019.
 
It also helped in the regional cuisine phenomenon, which helps maintain the unique cuisines of regions and small towns across Mexico.
 
Mexico's report about its efforts regarding this registry is due before the end of 2020, so it will be interesting to read it when it is published.

2. Externally, it helped in the promotion of Mexico as a tourist destination. In many promotional materials and ad campaigns, there were the reference of Mexican food as Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Cocineras Tradicionales.  

3. Regarding UNESCO´s Intangible Cultural Heritage registry, it was the Campeche meeting in 2008 that generated enough momentum for the world to look at cuisine as a cultural heritage.[iv] Now, 26 countries have 18 “food preparation” elements in the registry.[v]  

Even after achieving the ultimate goal of the registry, Mexico has continued to embrace some Gastrodiplomacy strategies.
 
The Institute of Mexicans Abroad continued to promote Mexican gastronomy after some of the programs came to an end in 2012, like supporting the Foro Mundial de la Gastronomia Mexicana.

The forum has taken place six times since 2013. The one in 2018 took place in the United States under the titled “Viva la Comida Mexicana en Norteamérica,” and its objectives was to:

“Strengthen the development of Mexican cuisine abroad through education, commercial expansion, and promotion of the entire value chain that constitutes the national and regional gastronomic heritage.
To give continuity to the projects of support to the traditional cooks as carriers of the Gastronomic Patrimony of the country.”[vi]
 
Additionally, in 2016 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs embarked on Gastrodiplomacy across the world with the designation of “Chefs Diplomatic corps” or Cuerpo Diplomático de Cocineros and the Young Talent internships in 12 embassies and consulates, as part of the “Ven a Comer” initiative launched the same year.
 
So, let´s eat some traditional Mexican food as part of the celebration.


Provecho!!
 


[i] García Ocejo Mercedes, “Cómo la UNESCO designó a la gastronomía mexicana Patrimonio de la Humanidad” in El Heraldo de México, March 22, 2020.
[ii] In the 2019 list, Olvera´s restaurant Pujol was number 12 and Cosme 23, while Jorge Vallejos´ Quintonil occupied the 24th position.
[iii] The Cocineras tradicionales or traditional female cooks represent the traditional Mexican cuisine because most of them inherited the knowledge from their ancestors and carry on this heritage. For an interesting review of their role, see Matta, Raúl, “Mexico´s culinary heritage and cocineras traditionales (traditional female cooks)” in Food and Foodways, Vol. 27, Num. 3, 2019, p 211-231.
[iv] Romagnoli, Marco “Gastronomic heritage elements at UNESCO: problems, reflections and intepretations of a new heritage category” in International Journal of Intangible Heritage, Vol 14, 2019, p. 165.
[v] See UNESCO ´s ¨food preparation” category of the registry in the following link https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists?term[]=vocabulary_thesaurus-10
[vi] VI Foro Mundial de Gastronomía Mexicana website, “About Us, Objectives”, 2018.

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