1. Introduction As mentioned in my previous post, “Why we need more diplomatic studies?” a significant development in today´s diplomatic practice is the explosion of novel instruments or tools used to attain a country´s foreign policy goals. However, some scholars have questioned if these “new” ways to do Diplomacy are even real while highlighting the risk that entails calling everything Diplomacy. This blog post will discuss whether these innovative diplomatic tools are really new or imposters, using as examples an analysis of Public Diplomacy and Gatrodiplomacy. The conclusion is that some are original, while others are rebranded instruments, but a thorough examination is required to unmask phonies. Besides, these activities need to be part of a Foreign Policy strategy to be called Diplomacy. When I think about new diplomatic instruments, I always remember the article written by Shaun Riordan titled “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies.”[i] In it, he complains about the tendency to incorporate into the diplomatic realm all sorts of activities, which carries the risk of losing the meaning of Diplomacy. I agree with Riordan that “the conceptual confusion arises from the failure to distinguish between tools that can be used as part of a broader diplomatic strategy and the subject matter of diplomacy.”[ii] Besides, in the article “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up!”, Katharina E. Höne of the DiploFoundation agrees with Riordan stating that “If everything is diplomacy, then nothing is. An ever-expanding concept eventually becomes meaningless.”[iii] However, Höne declares that “rather than a categorical rejection [of the new diplomacies], the proper response is to sharpen our intellectual tools and get to work [and] in order to tell the imposter from the innovator, we need to look closely at diplomacy as a practice, its relation to the state, and the purposes of these new diplomacies.”[iv] After thinking about this issue for the last couple of months, chiefly because it is the main objective of this blog, I believe there is a need to use these new terminologies, even if the practice has occurred since ancient times and are just rebranded. So, I concurred with Höne that it is required to analyze these diplomatic instruments to separate the new authentic tools from the fake ones. So, let’s get to work! 2. Origins of the expansion of diplomatic tools Jessica Lilian De Alva Ulloa and Rafael Velázquez Flores explain the expansion of diplomatic tools during the Cold War, where every activity was part of the ideological competition between the Soviet Union and the United States. Diplomatic initiatives in different fields such as sports, education, space, and culture were developed as part of their foreign policy.[v] After the fall of the Soviet Union, “the disappearance of one of the superpowers brought changes to global diplomacy. As a result, new forms of diplomacy appeared, like environmental, migration and refugees, and human rights.”[vi] Besides, in the article “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, John Brown explains that “a special place in the increased “adjectivization” of diplomacy (pardon the jaw-breaking term, but it does describe what’s going on) can be traced in part to the British scholar Mark Leonard, who in his 2002 book, Public Diplomacy, introduced … terms [such as]: Co-operative Diplomacy; Competitive Diplomacy; Diaspora Diplomacy; Business Diplomacy; and Niche Diplomacy.”[vii] In turn, G.R. Berridge has written that the “rejuvenation of some of the key features of traditional diplomacy has gone unnoticed – partly because it has been masked by the attachment of new labels to old procedures and partly because the novel has a greater fascination than the tried and tested.”[viii] The tendency to adjectivized diplomacies already existed previously. Terms such as gunboat and shuttle diplomacies were part of the diplomatic toolbox of the U.S.[ix] However, it is not just the tools that expanded, particularly in the 21st Century, but Diplomacy itself grew into what some have called “new diplomacy.” 3. Expansion of the concept of Diplomacy One reason why the explosion of the so-called “new” diplomacies is that Diplomacy itself has expanded outwards.[x] Before creating the first genuinely international organization (IO), the International Telegraph Union, in 1865, there were no diplomatic negotiations outside the States. Now there is an enormous practice of IO diplomacy, not only between member states inside an OI but also amid IOs and states, thus greatly expanding the scope of Diplomacy with these new interactions. Additionally, state and local authorities, NGOs, corporations, individuals, including terrorist, and criminal organizations, have extended their engagement in international affairs. For example, there were only 176 international NGOs in 1909 compared to 48,000 in 2000.[xi] Some of these actors' participation has not been hindered by not forming part of the diplomatic services of their countries, thus do not enjoy the same privileges and immunities as diplomats.[xii] Furthermore, some of these practices have evolved immensely, so whole new departments have been created at many ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs), producing lots of documents, best practices, some with excellent results and other significant failures. Besides, as MFAs have expanded their transparency and accountability, the information usually is publicly available for evaluation and comparison. According to G.R. Berridge, “what we have now is neither and or nor a new diplomacy but, instead, a blend of the two, which has produced a mature diplomacy. It is also one fortified by a respected legal regime.”[xiii] The digital revolution and the enlargement of trade and communications have also allowed the radical growth of international exchanges, commerce, and participation, unsealing new opportunities and threats to the diplomatic craft in general and the country´s foreign policy in particular. As the reader will see in the next section, social media platforms allowed the development of digital public diplomacy in ways that were not possible just a few years ago. Also, the availability of specialized food products from faraway lands allowed governments to implement Gastrodiplomacy efforts that were impossible before. In the next section, I will evaluate Public Diplomacy and Gastrodiplomacy using the proposed framework by Katharina E. Höne, focusing on their purpose, relationship with the State, and who does it. 4. Analysis of two diplomatic instruments. 4.1 Public Diplomacy The best example of a relatively new tool, I believe, is Public Diplomacy (PD). The term has taken off worldwide, and many if not most MFAs have included it in their foreign policy toolbox. For many years, connecting with certain groups was a recurrent task for any ambassador or envoy to gather information about the receiving State's conditions. More importantly, it was an opportunity to persuade or influence them to change a policy or a position towards the sending State. The practice by Embassies of engaging foreign audiences outside government officials is not new.[xiv] However, connecting to ordinary people has dramatically changed, becoming a lot more specialized and adopting innovative communication technics to accomplish the intended goals. If radio, TV, and fax magnified the opportunities for diplomats to engage with citizens in the receiving, the digital transformation has unlocked multiple prospects to talk, and more importantly, listening, directly to individuals and targeted groups of the receiving State and the sending one too. The field of study of PD has multiplied,[xv] and I think it is one reason for greater interest in Diplomacy as a whole. For many of us, PD was the entry point for formally study Diplomacy, even if we have practiced it for a long time. Nowadays, several universities and other learning institutions worldwide offer multiple PD courses, from one-day workshops to Master´s degrees. Several specialized journals and magazines[xvi] have appeared in recent years, such as South Korea´s brand new Journal of Public Diplomacy, which has expanded the options for publishing academic articles about the topic. 4.1.2 Does PD is a real diplomatic tool or just hype? Using the analytical tool proposed by Katharina E. Höne, let´s dissect PD. Concerning the relationship with the State, it is clear that governments are key sponsors of Public Diplomacy initiatives, which are part of an overall foreign policy strategy. Even if these activities are supported by NGOs, individuals, and other institutions, the core functions are performed by embassies and diplomats.[xvii] So, here it is clear that, for the most part, PD is a new tool of the diplomatic craft. I don´t believe it is a rebranded one because there are huge differences from previous practices, mostly because of the digital revolution. Of course, an in-depth analysis of each of the initiatives that governments label as PD would be needed to really know if it is an imposter or the real deal. Luckily, there is a growing body of research about it, not just in scholarly journals but magazines, blogs, and even government studies. 4.2 Gastrodiplomacy Another in-vogue tool of diplomacy is winning foreign audiences' hearts and minds thru their stomach, also known as Gastrodiplomacy. It is considered a technique that forms part of Cultural Diplomacy, and it is relatively recent. Only in 2002, The Economist coined the term after Thailand´s efforts to increase the number of Thai restaurants worldwide.[xviii] Since then, many countries, including Peru, South Korea, and Japan, have invested considerable resources in these efforts. To learn more about Mexico´s Gastrodiplomacy efforts, check out my blog “More than Tacos: Mexico´s scrumptious, yet unknown Gastrodiplomacy” and “Ten years later: Mexico´s Traditional Cuisine and Gastrodiplomacy efforts.” Until recently, local ingredients seldomly used outside the country of origin were available internationally, so they were hard or impossible to find in sufficient quantities to start a restaurant. The ever-growing migration of people, combined with an openness to try different dishes and cuisines, and the growth of agricultural exports (and locally-harvested), unlock the door for governmental efforts to promote its image abroad to gain influence and expand commercial opportunities via Gastrodiplomacy. Shaun Riordan has a significant point that “it only makes sense to talk about sporting (or educational, or scientific, or gastronomic) activities if they form part of a broader diplomatic strategy in pursuit of policy objectives. Otherwise it is just sport, education, science or lunch.”[xix] Therefore, we can only describe it as gastronomic diplomacy if it is spearheaded by the government and has a foreign policy objective. Of course, other actors, such as corporations, NGOs, or even individuals like famous chefs, can be part of its implementation through informal collaborations or formal partnerships. 4.2.1 Is Gastrodiplomacy a diplomatic imposter? In the case of Gastrodiplomacy, we can undoubtedly say that it is a new tool of the diplomatic craft, made possible by changes in transportation, migration, and people´s openness to try foreign cuisines. However, as already mentioned, if it is not part of a foreign policy effort with specific goals, it cannot be considered a type of diplomatic instrument. The issue's development lags behind Public Diplomacy and other cultural diplomatic instruments like Sports and Science diplomacies. The number of articles, scholarly or not, about the subject is still small. The most significant accomplishment was the publication of a special issue about Gastrodiplomacy in the Public Diplomacy magazine in 2014. Besides, there are no classes, seminars, or workshops that I know off just dedicated to the study and practice of Gastrodiplomacy. Therefore, it is a bit hard to argue that Gastrodiplomacy is not a diplomatic imposter. Still, the facts are that countries across the planet have invested scarce financial and human resources to instrument diplomatic efforts using cuisine, sometimes with excellent results. We might not like it, literally the food or the measures, but they are real and exist as the examples of the Gastronomic Diplomacy efforts by Mexico, Peru, and South Korea demonstrate. And given time and flourishing practitioners and scholars, we might have the first Diplomatic /Cordon Blue Chef school somewhere soon. 5. Conclusions. As the new critical theories of International Relations bring new and innovative perspectives to the fields’ scholarship, novel diplomatic instruments are unlocking opportunities for original ways of international engagement. However, some scholars think that it is not an all-out revolution of Diplomacy. For example, Berridge indicates, “What we have witnessed in recent years is not the complete transformation of diplomacy, but rather, the more -occasionally less- intelligent application of new technology and new devices to support tried and tested methods, with the added advantage that this has helped to integrate many poor and weak states into the world diplomatic system.”[xx] In contrast, Höne writes, “If diplomacy is not to become a dinosaur, new diplomacies and their careful debate should be welcomed as part of a much-needed dynamism in the field.”[xxi] Time, analysis, and country´s practices will reveal which diplomatic modes are imposters, which are rebranded efforts, and which are the real deal. For me, the key is for them to have a FP goal. Otherwise, they are not Diplomacy, and we need to invent a different form to call them, but not Diplomacy. I want to conclude this post quoting John Brown: “Below are recent media entries with adjectival modifications (vulgarisations?) of diplomacy — which, perhaps, have contributed to a refinement (dilution?) of the meaning of this unexciting but venerable word. Should one be optimistic/pessimistic about such a development? Let the reader decide. crisis diplomacy radical diplomacy food diplomacy audio diplomacy 1.5 track military diplomacy skateboard diplomacy koala diplomacy wife diplomacy Mrs. diplomacy [original link appears to be inactive] female sports diplomacy emoji diplomacy creative diplomacy poem and prose diplomacy soap opera diplomacy side-eye diplomacy Bulgakov diplomacy.”[xxii] Note: I have not forgotten about Consular Diplomacy, but the post is already quite long; therefore, I analyzed this ”new” diplomatic instrument in the next blog post titled "Consular Diplomacy: Cinderella no more, but not yet a princess". [i] Also see, Brown, John, “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, Huffington Post, March 23, 2016, and the last chapter of the book Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, by G.R. Berridge. [ii] Riordan, Shaun, “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies”, Center on Public Diplomacy Blog, June 21, 2017. [iii] Höne, Katharina E., “Would the Real Diplomacy Please Stand Up!”, DiploFoundation Blog, June 30, 2017. [iv] Höne, Katharina E., 2017. [v] De Alva Ulloa, Jessica Lilian, and Velázquez Flores Rafael, “La diplomacia: concepto, origen, desarrollo histórico y tipos” in Teoría y Práctica de la Diplomacia en México: Aspectos básicos, 2018, pp. 37-39. [vi] De Alva Ulloa, Jessica Lillian, and Velázquez Flores Rafael, 2018, pp. 39-40. [vii] Brown, John, “Diplomacies, from public to pubic”, Huffington Post, March 23, 2016. [viii] Berridge, G.R., “Conclusion: The Counter-Revolution in Diplomatic Practice” in Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, p. 266. [ix] Brown, John, 2016. [x] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 20. [xi] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, 2013, pp. 7 and 9. [xii] See Höne, Katharina E., 2017 and Riordan 2017. [xiii] Berridge, G.R., 2015, p. 268. [xiv] See the chapter “Public Diplomacy” by Berridge, G.R., in Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, pp. 198-209. [xv] See for example this great research about PD articles in peer-reviewed journals, Sevin, Efe, Metzgar, Emily T., and Hayden, Craig, “The Scholarship of Public Diplomacy: Analysis of a Growing Field”, International Journal of Communication Vol. 13, 2019, pp. 4814–4837. [xvi] Such as the Public Diplomacy Magazine and other publications of the Center on Public Diplomacy, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, among other [xvii] Here the focus on the instrumentation of PD campaigns, including the organization of educational and cultural exchanges which are initiatives where individuals participate directly. [xviii] The Economist, “Food as ambassador, Thailand´s gastrodiplomacy”, February 21, 2002. [xix] Riordan, Shaun, 2017. [xx] Berridge, G.R., 2015, p. 268. [xxi] Höne, Katharina E., 2017. [xxii] Brown, John, 2016. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer, or company.
0 Comments
Diplomacy is a crucial ingredient in any foreign policy recipe. However, it is not always taught in universities as part of International Relations, International Business, and other related fields. It is like cooking without salt, you can eat the food, but it won´t taste as good as if the dish had some salt. In my recent post, Why Diplomacy matter? I wrote about the significance of Diplomacy in the third decade of the 21st Century and its potential to help solve humanity's current challenges. Following up on this idea, today I will focus on the reasons why we need more teaching and studying about Diplomacy. Here I argue that Diplomacy needs to be more broadly teach and research because these will:
Diplomacy is a crucial ingredient in any foreign policy recipe. However, it is not always taught in universities as part of International Relations, International Business, and other related fields. It is like cooking without salt, you can eat the food, but it won´t taste as good as if the dish had some salt. In my own International Relations BA program, there was not a single class dedicated to Diplomacy exclusively. Ironically, most of my classmates wanted to join the Mexican foreign service and become diplomats. After joining the foreign service, I learned Diplomacy as a practitioner. I studied it formally until 2012 when I took the course “Diplomacy in the 21st Century” offered by the DiploFoundation. But, what is Diplomacy? Maybe, that could have been the first question that I made in my first publication of my blog, rather than diving directly into the question of whether Public and Consular Diplomacies were real. There are plenty of different descriptions of Diplomacy. Still, I like the one written by Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur in the introductory essay of The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy that expressed that “Diplomacy at is essence is the conduct of relationships, using peaceful means, by and among international actors, at least one of whom is usually a government.”[1] I also like Geoff R. Berridge´s[2] definition, which indicates that “Diplomacy is an essentially political activity and, well resourced and skillful, a major ingredient of power. Its chief purpose is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies without resort to force, propaganda, or law. It achieves this mainly by communication between professional diplomatic agents.”[3] Nowadays, with so many actors involved in international affairs, including individuals, it is logical that the concept of Diplomacy has to expand its conceptual boundaries outwards.[4] Besides, the growing studies of different diplomatic practices outside Europe, as part of the International Relations Global South movement, has also widened the scope of our knowledge in the field. Confusion between Foreign Policy and Diplomacy If Diplomacy is not taught and research, people will have the perennial confusion between Foreign Policy and Diplomacy. I understand a bit the misunderstanding between the two in today´s world, where most of the conflicts worldwide are being solved via diplomatic negotiations rather than other means, including war. So, the less use of force and other foreign policy instruments, the closer both fields are getting, blurring their distinction, and heightening the possibility of confusing both concepts. But let´s be clear, not all of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs´ activities nor all international actions of a government can be classified as Foreign Policy (FP). To be considered a part of a country´s FP, the activity must be directed to achieve a goal. Otherwise, it could only be an international public policy or something else, but not FP. Here, Shaun Riordan has a significant point that “it only makes sense to talk about sporting (or educational, or scientific, or gastronomic) activities if they form part of a broader diplomatic strategy in pursuit of policy objectives. Otherwise it is just sport, education, science or lunch.”[5] But, what is Foreign Policy anyways? According to Jean-Frédéric Morin and Jonathan Paquin in the excellent book Foreign Policy Analysis: a Toolbox, FP is “a set of actions or rules governing the actions of an independent political authority deployed in the international environment… [or] the underlying vision -in other words, the specific conception that a state has regarding its place in the world, its national interest and the key principles that allow to defend them.”[6] Reducing the confusion between Diplomacy and FP is a perfect reason why diplomacy should be taught and study more widely, not just among internationalists. Old, new, and contemporary Diplomacy unchanged principles. Diplomacy, old, new, and contemporary, has always been based on certain fundamental principles that have not changed and are still relevant today. This is remarkable, as, in most sciences, paradigm shifts are a constant, and schools of thoughts and theories disappear with each new discovery. The unchanged principles of Diplomacy are:
Diplomacy´s steadfastness does not mean that it is static. Throughout history has evolved and adapted to new circumstances, including technological revolutions. As the excellent interactive historical timeline of the relationship between Diplomacy and technology shows, every technological breakthrough, from the first written language to the development of TikTok diplomacy, has generated challenges and opportunities for Diplomacy. Diplomats, very reluctantly, have adapted to the arrival of the latest gadgets and processes. However, not all MFAs have adjusted at the same pace. There a few trendsetters and quite a significant number of laggers. Even if Diplomacy has been remarkably stable, two trends are creating diplomatic paradigm shifts. One is the expansion of international actors that perform “diplomacy-like” functions, and the other is the digital revolution. To better understand the impact of these transformations on the diplomatic craft, it is necessary to invest more in diplomatic studies' teaching and investigation. Only then will governments be better prepare to adapt their diplomatic institutions and practices to the new reality. Otherwise, there are going to be left behind. Another critical evolution of Diplomacy is the appearance of new tools like Gastrodiplomacy and Consular Diplomacy, among others. These novel instruments have been questioned and will be discussed in the next blog post. [1] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 2. [2] A prolific author about diplomacy and Senior Fellow of the DiploFoundation. Check out his website here. [3] Berrigde, G.R., Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., 2015, p. 1. [4] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, 2013, p. 24. [5] Riordan, Shaun, “Stop Inventing New Diplomacies”, Center of Public Diplomacy Blog, June 21, 2017. [6] Morin, Jean-Frédéric and Paquin, Jonathan, Foreign Policy Analysis: a Toolbox, 2018, p. 3. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. This post was originally published February 4, 2021, by the CPD Blog at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy here uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/public-consular-diplomacy-its-best-case-mexican-consular-id-card-program. We look forward to sharing widely and hope you´ll do the same. The Mexican Consular ID card (MCID or Matrícula Consular) program is considered a successful public-consular diplomacy initiative. It resulted in significant benefits for the Mexican community living in the United States, creating long-lasting partnerships between Mexican consulates and local authorities, and financial institutions. With the focus on security in the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Mexico's government decided to increase the security features of the MCID, which has been produced by the consulates since 1871. Consular offices started issuing the new high-security consular IDs cards in March 2002 while there were changes in banking regulations due to the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Besides the new security features, the Matrícula included additional information useful for local authorities and banks, such as the bearer's U.S. address. These added characteristics allowed banks, police departments and sheriffs' offices across the United States to appreciate it as a valuable tool and begin to recognize it as a form of ID. Despite pressure from anti-immigrant groups, the Treasury Department reaffirmed banks' possibility of accepting foreign government-issued identification documents, including the MCID, in September 2003. Wells Fargo was the first bank to accepted it and opened 400,000 bank accounts using the Matrícula from November 2001 to May 2004. Other financial institutions quickly followed. Therefore, by 2010, 400 financial institutions did the same, and 17 consulates signed 45 agreements with banks and credit unions. The Mexican Consular ID card was also seen as a step toward the financial inclusion of Latinos and immigrants; hence, the Federal Deposits Insurance Corporation (FDIC) promoted the collaboration with Mexico's consular network across the United States through the New Alliance Task Force. The benefit for the Mexican community was dramatic and very concrete. Having a bank account opened the door of financial inclusion. The Matrícula acceptance jumped dramatically in a short time. Consequently, as of July 2004, the Mexican Consular ID card “was accepted as valid identification in 377 cities, 163 counties, and 33 states…as well as…1,180 police departments…and 12 states recognize the card as one of the acceptable proofs of identity to obtain a driver's license.” After a hard pushback against issuing driver's licenses to undocumented migrants, some states reconsidered their position. “As of July 2015, 12 states…issued cards that give driving privileges...[to them]. Seven of these came on board in 2013.” Some states recognize the Matrícula as a form of identification for obtaining a driver's license, even as the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 is finally moving forward. The search for the acceptance of the consular ID cards pushed consulates, for the first time as a large-scale operation, to reach out to potential partners, including banks, credit unions, city mayors, country supervisors, chiefs of police and sheriffs' officers across the U.S. They also met with local institutions such as libraries and utility companies to promote the benefits of the Matrícula Consular. It was a massive public-consular diplomacy initiative undertaken by the Mexican consular network across the United States. The focus was on advocacy, explaining the advantages of recognizing the MCIC as a form of identification for their institutions. It resulted in establishing a direct dialogue with thousands of authorities and financial institution officers, which in many cases developed into strategic alliances or at least meaningful collaborations. The benefit for the Mexican community was dramatic and very concrete. Having a bank account opened the door of financial inclusion, which includes being eligible for certain credits and loans, facilitating and reducing the cost of wiring money home, increasing the possibility to save and invest, and bypassing the usage of money lenders and wiring services to cash paychecks and sending money. Besides, having a form of identification also allowed them to come forward as witnesses of crimes, identify themselves to the police, access medical care, have greater participation in PTA meetings, and in some states, access to driver's licenses. For Mexico´s consulates, the Matrícula Consular opened the door for the collaboration with the Federal Reserve in the Directo a Mexico program, reduced the costs of remittances, and promoted its investment in their home communities, mainly through the 3x1 matching fund's program. As an outcome of the MCIC program's tremendous success, other countries followed with their own consular ID card programs. The Matrícula program experienced significant updates in 2006 and 2014. Today it continues to be a valuable resource for the Mexican community living in the United States. In 2019, 811,951 consular ID cards were issued by consular offices north of the border, with a monthly average of 67,663. The Mexican Consular ID card program is an excellent example of public-consular diplomacy, where Mexican consulates work toward establishing partnerships with local, county and state authorities to benefit the Mexican community. The program also showcases Mexico's successful consular diplomacy and the value of engaging with local and state stakeholders in its overall foreign policy. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. “Theories are like maps. Each map is made for a certain purpose and what is included in the map is based on what is necessary to direct the map’s users. All other details are left out to avoid confusion and present a clear picture.” While preparing for a project, I have to review my understanding of International Relations (IR) theories. I was shocked to see how far the field has evolved since I studied them during my BA (1988-1993) and one of my MAs (1998-1999). Back in the day when I was a college student, it was a time of upheaval not only for the world but for the study of IR. The unraveling of the Soviet Union started with Gorbachev´s Glasnost and Perestroika, and by the end of 1991, it dissolved, changing the face of world politics and IR. My professors struggled, not just to keep up with the fast changes occurring, but trying to explain them to us, almost as they were happening. It was especially complicated for the professor teaching the course about the USSR’s politics and economy right after its collapse. Fortunately for me, in my GMAP studies (see a post about my experience here), I had the opportunity to take courses where I examined the significant changes that occurred at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, with a 18-year perspective. For me, it was a revelation. Since the Soviet Union’s disintegration, many things have changed, including the evolution explosion of IR theories. But, why do we need theories? I like the idea that “Theories are like maps. Each map is made for a certain purpose and what is included in the map is based on what is necessary to direct the map’s users. All other details are left out to avoid confusion and present a clear picture.”[i] Maps are appropriate for specific purposes, highlighting critical features while leaving out elements that are not necessary. Their focus and simplification give a sense of direction and location, regardless if you are moving or not. To go beyond the headlines and have a deeper understanding of the transnational world, you need a map to underscore what is essential, and with this knowledge finding solutions to humanity's problems might be more manageable. Without knowing where we are and what direction to look, we are lost. In the book International Relations edited by Stephen McGlinchey, there is an excellent overview of traditional, middle-ground, and critical IR theories. Back in my student days, there were but a few of them besides Realism and Liberalism and their “neo” versions. However, the theories explored in the book are but a few of the new ways IR scholars worldwide are probing the international system, how it works, and how its actors interact. Long are the days when the Nation-State was the only player of the international system. Nowadays, there are around 41,000 active intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations, out of 213 in 1909.[ii] The digital revolution and fast changes in transportation have made the world smaller, with increasing blurring of borders which “has dramatically altered the general dynamics in politics and global affairs.”[iii] Besides, Tech companies are very different from their more traditional peers, as I explained in my post about Denmark’s Tech Ambassador to Silicon Valley. The influence they garner is unlikely any other actor in the international arena. All these changes have impacted the theories of International Relations. To learn more about the new ways scholars are interpreting the state of global affairs, I recommend reading the book International Relations Theory, edited by Stephen McGlinchey, Rosie Walters, and Christian Scheinpflug. The book’s second part is exciting as it includes new and different standpoints of IR theory from Green and Queer Theory to Indigenous and Global South Perspectives. In tune with the greater use of audiovisuals and online resources, the book publishers (E-IR) have a dedicated section with some useful videos useful to better understand some of the theories described in the book. I think that the inclusion of non-State, non-Western/European, non-male -centric perspectives in the field of International Relations is very much needed and welcomed. As the constructivism theory indicates, people construct the anarchic international system. Through changes in these beliefs, norms, and behaviors, there is a possibility of changing it to the human race's benefit. So, the inclusion of new visions and perspectives will only enrich the understanding of the system and hopefully find better ways to interact. Adding the Global South´s perspective into International Relations, including its theories, is significant because as societies recognized their own diversity, starting with a push towards greater inclusion of women and other minorities. In the chapter “Towards a Global IR?”, Amitav Acharya[iv] explains some of the reasons for “Western dominance in IR, [including the]…
Mexico has been working on expanding the IR vision from the Global South. An example is the publication of the book Teorías de Relaciones Internacionales en el siglo XXI: interpretaciones críticas desde México, edited by Jorge Schiavon et al., and published by the Asociación Mexicana de Estudios Internacionales (International Studies Mexican Association. A second edition had to be published after its successful launching, something uncommon for a book about theories! Another effort towards greater inclusion is the creation of the Global South Caucus of International Studies of the International Studies Association (ISU), ten years ago, together with the association´s efforts to include higher participation of Global South members as contributors, reviewers, and editors of its seven iconic journals. Besides, ISU is promoting more and deeper cooperation with its sister´s academic organizations and establishing in 2018 the Committee on the Status of Engagement with the Global South. Going back to the map as theory idea, I concurred that “Embarking on the study of International Relations without an understanding of theory is like setting off on a journey without a map. You might arrive at your destination, or somewhere else very interesting, but you will have no idea where you are or how you got there.”[vi] So, let´s open our map of choice and examine the situation we want to explain using IR theory. [i] McGlinchey, Stephen, Walters, Rosie and Gold, Dana, “Getting Started with International Relations Theory” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 2. [ii] Cooper, Andrew F., Heine, Jorge and Thakur, Ramesh, “Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 2013, p. 9. [iii] Gebhard, Carmen, “One World, Many Actors” in International Relations, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 44. [iv] Which happens to be a highly regarded IR scholar, and the first non-Western President of the International Studies Association (2014-2015). [v] Acharya, Amitav, “Towards a Global IR?” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, pp. 76-77. [vi] McGlinchey, Stephen, Walters, Rosie and Gold, Dana, “Getting Started with International Relations Theory” in International Relations Theory, E-International Relations, 2017, p. 2. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. Diaspora Diplomacy is a term, like Consular Diplomacy, that has surfaced in recent times. But, what is it? 1. Diaspora: Diplomacy or international public policy? The first obstacle that I see of using the term is whether diplomatic activities can target the States´ own citizens? While some Diaspora members, particularly after the second generation, are nationals of the host State, in many cases, they are allowed to have dual nationality; therefore, technically, these persons are foreign nationals while at the same time that are citizens of the sending State. In other cases, the only nationality is from its home country, and many lack immigration status in the receiving State, making them particularly vulnerable to abuse and face difficulties to successfully integrate to the host society. So, technically speaking (strictly application of the term), the only Diaspora Diplomacy applies towards citizens of the receiving country with some heritage from the sending State. It could not be used for dual citizens and home-country nationals. They could be part of the engagement policies of the State but could not be called Diplomacy. However, for a country separating these three categories is very difficult, mainly because, in most cases, the persons themselves do not see this strict categorization, and there are many overlaps. Notwithstanding, some governments do have different initiatives targeting distinct groups of members of the diasporic community living abroad. In the book 21st Century Diplomacy: A practitioner's Guide, written by Amb. Kishan S. Rana, a former ambassador of India and current Professor Emeritus at the DiploFoundation, the author includes a chapter on Diaspora Diplomacy. While brief, yet substantive chapter, Amb. Rana highlights some critical aspects of Diaspora Diplomacy while identifying a few prominent countries, such as Israel, India, Kenya, and Mexico. 2. Diasporas and migration. Because diaspora issues result from migration, it is significant to understand how the original diaspora community (or first-generation) left the sending State. It is very different from having a community abroad due to war from the creation of a new State, as is the case of Israel. Slaves and indentured workers did not have a say in any part of the process, and in many cases, with some exceptions, there is no way to know where they originated. So there is no Diaspora if there is no country of origin. Besides, “Diasporas are not simply immigrants but rather immigrants who retain an emotional bond with their country of origin.”[i] As Amb. Rana describes the sources of origin of the diaspora by just following the migration flows in the last centuries.[ii] He identifies nine profiles that go from European migration during colonial times to current international students not returning to their home countries after graduation.[iii] I like the fact that the Ambassador not just discussed North-South migration but also mentioned South-South flows and intra-North movements, such as the intra-European Union mobility. In the not-so-distanced-past, most migration movements tended to be permanent, particularly when there were war and violence, specific groups suffered discrimination. With the advent of faster, cheaper transportation and communications, migrants move in large numbers due to economic difficulties. In some instances, such as India after 2000 and Mexico since the depression of 2008-2009, there have been some returns, voluntary or forced. In Mexico's case, because of the geographic closeness, during most of the 20 century, migration to the United States has been seen as temporary, in contrast to other communities. With the end of circularity in the late 1990s, most Mexican migrants brought their families north. However, as a surge in enforcement operations, many deported persons were accompanied back to Mexico by the U.S. citizen kids and other family members, expanding the already substantial U.S. diaspora in Mexico. 3. Diasporas and foreign policy. Amb. Rana identifies that the issues of diasporas “is a hazy area, lacking in either norms or established practices.”[iv] This is true at the international level as well as domestically in many countries. As mentioned before, the diaspora community's duality is seen as an advantage for both the host and home countries. But there is a considerable disparity in the levels of collaboration and/or conflict between the home and host state and the diaspora. It is relevant to acknowledge that “the role that a diaspora plays in the country of its adoption is a function of the opportunities that are available to migrant communities…”[v] Therefore, the more significant is the diaspora to the home country is when they manage to attain some power in the host country. In terms of foreign policy, the power gained could be in the policy, economic, and even cultural fields. Once this is achieved, the home country most likely will be interested in engaging in more strategic and profound ways to gain some traction in its foreign policy goals, hopefully. One can always think of Israel as a great example. However, there are times that the situation works the other way around. When the diaspora gains powerful positions in the host country, it could use this power to change the receiving State´s foreign policy, affecting the bilateral relations. One example could be the Cuban community in southern Florida and the relationship with the Castro regime. While not so many countries try to influence the diaspora´s host country foreign policy towards it, most governments try to leverage their overseas communities to promote economic development. Remittances can be a substantial source of foreign currency and income for left-behind family members. Nostalgic tourism, greater trade opportunities, and the possibility of investment by successful immigrants are other avenues to support progress of the sending country by diasporic communities. 4. Diaspora Diplomacy. Back in 2011, when Amb. Rana published the book; he refers that “one does not encounter much specialist writing on the theme of diaspora diplomacy…though the subject receives increasing attention in the media.”[vi] Nowadays, there are more scholars and practitioners in different countries that are writing about this issue. I think that Diaspora Diplomacy is another instrument of the Public Diplomacy toolbox because its essence is engaging with audiences (foreign and/or domestic) who live overseas that have a special bond. Of course, it can also be part of regular Diplomacy when diaspora members work as authorities in the host country´s government. After looking for a definition of Diaspora Diplomacy, something that I thought would be easy but turned out to be quite complicated, I found one, but I am not convinced about it. According to Joaquin Gonzales III, Diaspora Diplomacy is “A collective action that is driven, directed, and sustained by the energy and charisma of a broad range of migrants who influence another country´s culture, politics, and economics in a manner that is mutually beneficial for the homeland and the new home base.”[vii] I find this definition troublesome because it does not include the government's role and its foreign policy goals. Therefore, it is hard to call it Diplomacy, in its traditional concept. For me, Diaspora Diplomacy is a government´s engagement with diasporic communities to achieve a foreign policy goal that could be as broad as a tool for economic development, generation of soft power to influence some decisions of the host country´s government. In this regard, according to Yunus Emre Ok, the “primary objective [of the Diaspora Diplomacy] is to generate loyalty towards the home country and ultimately converted into political influence…”[viii] One reason why defining Diaspora Diplomacy is so tricky is because there is an enormous array of ways that it could be instrumented. One method to visualize this variety is via the analysis of the rise of diaspora institutions, like the study of Alan Gamlen, Michel E. Cummings, and Paul M. Vaaler titled “Explaining the rise of diaspora institutions” or evaluating the policies focused on diasporas, as the issue in brief titled “Engaging the Asian Diaspora”. Last but not least, there is even a handbook for “Developing a Road Map for Engaging Diasporas in Development.” So, the field, quoting Amb. Rana still is a “hazy area.” 5. Digitalization of Diaspora Diplomacy: balancing opposing tendencies. Diaspora Diplomacy has also experienced changes as a result of the digital revolution. Ilan Manor, author of a blog about Digital Diplomacy, in The Contradictory trends of Digital Diaspora Diplomacy,” expertly explains these opposing tendencies, that bring opportunities at the same challenges for governments and diasporic communities alike. He indicates that “while nations can use digital platforms to engage with diasporic communities, such communities may also self-organize thus marginalizing diplomats.” [ix] Manor identifies five main contradictory trends that affect diasporas and the government´s diplomatic efforts toward them:
I strongly suggest reading this working paper, as it clearly explains each of these opposing tendencies and the implications for engaging efforts of the ministries of foreign affairs. 6. Conclusions. The participation of diasporas in international affairs is not new. However, the digital revolution, together with cheaper and faster modes of transportation, has increased the interest of the government in engaging with them as part of their overall foreign policy. The COVID-19 pandemic has “created a worldwide crisis of immobility as intentional borders closed [and] as a result, the governance of international migration is likely to change substantially, in ways comparable to or even greater than the changes that came about after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”[xi] This, in turn, will heavily affect the lives of diasporic communities in host states and their families that depend on them in their homelands. Diaspora Diplomacy is a field that needs more analysis, particularly in the framework of Public Diplomacy and the banishing border between domestic affairs and foreign policy. It could also be examined under the perspective of Foreign Policy Analysis. [i] Manor, Ilan, “The Contradictory trends of Digital Diaspora Diplomacy”, Working Paper #2 Exploring Digital Diplomacy, October 2017, p. 3. [ii] Rana, Kishan S., 21st Century Diplomacy: A practitioners Guide, 2011, p. 96. [iii] Rana, 2011, pp. 96-99. [iv] Rana, 2011, p. 95. [v] Rana, 2011, p. 103. [vi] Rana, 2011, p. 94. [vii] Cited in Jovenir, Christelle M., “Diaspora Diplomacy: Functions, Duties, and Challenges of an Ambassador”, June 2013, p. 7. Joaquin Gonzales III, Diaspora Diplomacy: Philippine Migration and its Soft Power Influence, Minneapolis, Mill City Press, 2012. [viii] Emre Ok, Yunus, “”Diaspora-Diplomacy” as a Foreign Policy Strategy” in Diplomatisches Magazin, November 20, 2018. [ix] Manor, 2017, p. 2. [x] Manor, 2017, pp. 5-9. [xi] Newland, Kathleen, “Will International Migration Governance Survive the COVID-19 Pandemic?”, Policy Brief, Migration Policy Institute and German Cooperation, October 2020, p. 1. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. A. Introduction. For most people, there is always confusion about what a Consulate/Consul does and what are the differences with an Embassy/Ambassador. I believe there are several reasons why this mix-up:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Out of the five topics, only one was new, “Improving support for further forum meetings, " reflecting the maturation of the mechanism and the need to find additional resources to make it sustainable. Mental illnesses of people abroad continued to be a concern because it was included in the document,[xviii] as was in the two previous reports. Besides, the proposition to engage with stakeholders, including other government agencies, was also included. [xix] Regarding crises management, the consensus statement includes a reference to terrorist attacks,[xx] most likely as a result of the different attacks that occurred since the last GCF meeting, such as those in Paris (Nov 2015), Brussels (March 2016); Nice and Munich (July 2016). It is noticeable that in the “Consensus Statement”, the forum member thanked the government of Canada for undertaking the responsibility of the mechanism´s Secretariat.[xxi] The report's different format, the inclusion of a statement about the efforts´ sustainability, and the language used demonstrate the GCF's evolution from an idea that grew out of the Wilton Park meeting in 2013 to a more formal (and some would say stiffer) arrangement. Notwithstanding, the lack of the organization of the fourth meeting in four years could mean a stalemate in its progress. E) Why the GCF is important? The Forum is the perfect example of one of the forms of Consular Diplomacy presented by Maaike Okano-Heijmans in the paper “Change in Consular Assistance and the Emergence of Consular Diplomacy”. The GCF participation indicates that “governments attach increasing importance to and are becoming more involved in consular affairs at the practical as well as policy levels.”[xxii] The GCF provides both practical information and demonstrates the increasing relevance of consular services in the overall foreign policy. The idea of a diverse group of countries gathering to discuss consular services' transformation is a milestone. Identifying common challenges and searching for better tools and enhanced collaboration demonstrates the growing relevance of Consular Diplomacy at foreign affairs´ ministries. While some regional collaboration schemes include exchanging information and consular services practices, such as the Regional Conference on Migration, the GCF is the only multilateral mechanism and should be reactivated. Particularly now, when enhanced consular cooperation is required to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. I highly recommend reading the reports that are available on the GCF webpage http://globalconsularforum.com/ (Update: It seems that GCF webpage is not longer available). You can also read additional posts about consular diplomacy, such as:
[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, and universities, among others, and to relate information about the fast-changing technology that could have an impact on Denmark. “…Part of the job involves intelligence gathering to help his government design policies before companies roll out new technologies such as advanced artificial intelligence, facial recognition tools, new health care platforms or autonomous vehicles in Denmark.”[ix] These tasks are not constrained by a geographical district, like a regular embassy or consulate, as the office has a global mandate[x] that includes overseeing offices in New Delhi, Seoul, and Shanghai.[xi] Ambassador Klynge, in an interview, explained that “We had to build a new team, we had to establish our own policies, we had to find out how to penetrate the tech companies in a way [that] you can have a strategic political discussion.”[xii] New challenges. Understandably, some companies took a while to understand the tech ambassador´s role because there are not used to this type of international engagement. One definition of Diplomacy is a system of communications and norms, so a country knows precisely what are the duties and responsibilities of any ambassador of a foreign nation. And are traditions, such as granting immunity to the envoy, since the Greek city-states times. In the context of arranging meetings, in the “real” diplomatic world, high-ranking officials understand that they would have to meet with an ambassador, considering the basics of reciprocity. In the tech world, there is no such thing as reciprocity. Officials of most countries would have difficulties arranging a meeting with senior management of the tech giants, as most of them only meet at the highest level, e.g., heads of state and top ministers. This could be an impossibility for small nations, even for a highly regarded country such as Denmark. So, naming an ambassador to Silicon Valley makes a lot of sense, with global responsibilities. However, as mentioned, this innovative approach could cause some confusion. I imagine Mr. Klynge was recognized by the U.S. Department of State as the Danish Consul General in Palo Alto, California, where his office is located, or some sort of Special Envoy, as there cannot be another ambassador besides the one accredited to Washington DC. It would also be interesting to see how China, India, or other countries where he travels recognized him as ambassador, with all its privileges, including inviolability and immunity. As the excellent introductory essay of The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy explains, there have been many changes in the diplomacy of the 21st Century, but the States are still the leading players. Even with the massive increase of actors in the international arena, including companies, and the blending of borders, the States maintain their importance. Technology platforms are creating their own digital worlds, controlling most of the rules of engagement, establishing its governance, regardless of the users' nationality or location. No wonder there is a growing push for greater regulation of these new powerful international actors. Interestingly, while announcing the designation of a new tech ambassador, the Danish Foreign Minister recognized the need to adjust this initiative, explaining that it “require[s] a new strategy and a relaunch of the tech initiative. We [Danish MFA] simply need to produce a tech version 2.0 and attain a more goal-orientated Danish effort to encourage the tech giants to become good, ‘global community’ citizens.”[xiii] Innovation is essential, and a Tech ambassador could be a new form of diplomacy, particularly with the Tech giants that are not your ordinary multinational corporation such as Ford, Shell, or Bank of America. [i] Satariano, Adam, “The world´s first Ambassador to the tech industry”, New York Times, September 3, 2019. [ii] Kristensen, Carsten, “World´s First Tech Ambassador resigns”, Inside Scandinavian Business, January 20, 2020. [iii] W., Christian, “Denmark to get new tech ambassador”, CPH Post, August 24, 2020. [iv] The five U.S. tech giants are Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. To learn about their economic power and competitive edge, see Crescioli, Tommaso, “Tech Giants and Competition: A Political Economy Perspective”, E-International Relations, October 27, 2020. [v] Blumenthal, Paul, “Big tech companies are so powerful that a Nation sent an Ambassador to them”, Huffington Post, June 23, 2018. [vi] Blumenthal, Paul, ibid. [vii] Satariano, Adam, ibid. [viii] Stokel-Walker, Christopher, “The First Silicon Valley ambassador is out to make nice with tech giants”, Wired, November 6, 2017. [ix] Blumenthal, Paul, ibid. [x] Denmark names first ever tech ambassador, Denmark MFA, 2017. [xi] Sanchez, Alejandro W., “The rise of the Tech Ambassador”, Diplomatic Courier, March 23, 2018. [xii] Johnson, Khari, “Tech giants, small countries, and the future of techplomacy”, Venture Beat, October 8, 2019. [xiii] W. Christian, ibid. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. Opening note: I borrowed the idea of seen Mexico´s image from a broken mirror from Guillermo Máynez Gil´s article titled “El espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros.”[i] I like the reference to a funhouse mirror because it reflects a person’s image but in a distorted way. So, the person can be identified but is presented in a very different way. In this post, I will argue that Mexico’s image abroad is distorted, like a reflection in a funhouse mirror, as a result of three circumstances: certain cultural expressions; U.S. influence in broadcasting to the world their own version of Mexico, and lack of policies and programs to projects its image overseas. Introduction. Every number of years, there is always a discussion about the need to improve Mexico´s image abroad, because according to Mexicans, it is skewed and does not reflect the country’s reality. As the reader saw in my post about these issues, a country´s image and reputation overseas is critical to its prosperity. Simon Anholt, creator of the terms Nation-brand, Competitive Identity, and the Good Country indicates that every country competes to get “a share of the world´s consumption and tourism, to attract investors, students, and business person, also to gain the respect of other governments, the international media and the people of other countries.”[ii] In this post, I will talk about Mexico´s image so the reader can better understand the different elements that influence how the country is perceived overseas and why it might have a bad international image. It is interesting to see that different authors such as Leonardo Curzio, Simon Anholt, Jaime Díaz, and Mónica Pérez, agree that there is a large gap between Mexico´s reality and the perceptions that most of the world has about the country, which in general is not favorable, with a few exceptions, mainly in the Americas. Anholt mentions that Mexico´s negative perception is so strong that it weighs down some of its best attributes, such as its cultural heritage and natural beauty. According to the 2010 Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brand Index, most of the persons surveyed in 20 nations see the country as less beautiful than Finland. It does not have more cultural heritage than Scotland, and it is less attractive as a tourist destination than Belgium.[iii] This is how much weight the perception and reputation can affect the country´s greatest attributes. Hence, the reputation of a country abroad is very relevant for its development and wellbeing. I divided this post into four sections: 1. Cultural expressions that are not-so-great-for-a-positive international reputation. 2. The consequences of somebody else projecting your country’s image. 3. Mexico´s lack of policies and tools to broadcast its own image abroad. 4. Final thoughts. But before moving on, let´s be honest. Mexico´s image and reputation outside Latin America are not good, and even quite bad, particularly amongst the U.S. public. Some of the most popular brand index positions Mexico in the bottom half, with few exceptions:
And in some, such as the Soft Power30, Mexico does not even make the list. 1. Cultural expressions that are not-so-great-for-a-positive international reputation. As mentioned before, Mexico´s image abroad is weak; however, there is a need to recognize that the international media is not to blame why foreign audiences have a “distorted” perception of Mexico that not corresponds to its reality as a G20 nation. Additionally, it is necessary to acknowledge that part of the problem is that Mexico has some cultural traits that probably are not conducive to be perceived in an upbeat fashion. Dr. Leonardo Curzio, a scholar that I much admire, in the article “La imagen de México”[v] explains in detail some of these cultural expressions that could hinder the country´s image abroad. Dr. Curzio ascertains that one of the best ways to reach out to foreign audiences is the country´s artistic and cultural output, especially through music. He pinpoints that Mexico´s traditional music is melancholic, nostalgic, or tragic.[vi] Thus, “Mexico has an image of a country that knows how to lament masterly, and that is what [Mexico] projects to the world.”[vii] Besides, Dr. Curzio also details that Mexico´s most famous monuments are several pyramids, not brand new buildings or infrastructure projects.[viii] Not even the Jumex and Soumaya museums' extraordinary designs or the award-winning and innovative Torre Reforma can compete with one of the new seven wonders of the world: the Mayan site in Chichén Itza, or the monumental city of Teotihuacán. Another cultural trait that might hold back the best of Mexico´s reputation, Curzio thinks, is that its national heroes are linked to tumultuous times. Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa are the country´s leaders with the most prominent international projection.[ix] Besides, Mexico´s great heroes are not institution-builders but liberators that can starts movement but struggle to finish them.[x] Dr. Curzio indicates that in the construction of the image of Mexico, stability is overshadowed by turbulence. Also, Mexico broadcasts a picture of an unjust country with sporadic revolutionary violence.[xi] Curzio adds that “the violence associated with [Mexico´s] history is complemented by [its] artistic expressions, which a lot of them have a systematic and persistent death cult.”[xii] He exemplifies this by citing José Guadalupe Posada or Frida Kahlo’s works, present in all tourist stores and museums of Mexico. For a current example, the reader can participate in a virtual tour of the exhibition “La Muerte en la Historia de México” (The death in Mexico´s history) at the Museo Nacional de la Muerte, which I did not it existed in Aguascalientes until now. Every day the celebration of the “Day of the dead,” a UNESCO´s Intangible Cultural Heritage, is gaining popularity abroad, including the opening scene of James Bond´s movie Spectre or the award-winning Disney movie “Coco.” Besides, for a very long time, Mexican Cultural Diplomacy has focused on the exhibition of our significant pre-hispanic cultural heritage and our muralist movement. Until recently, alive Mexican artists like Gabriel Orozco or Damián Ortega have international recognition beyond the artistic circles. In conclusion, while strong, Mexico has some cultural expressions that do not help portray an image of a modern and innovative nation. Some of these expressions are well-known overseas and tend to eclipse other attributes that could be more attractive or perceived more positively by foreign publics. 2. The consequences of somebody else projecting your country’s image. In a very stimulating article titled “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de Mexico,”[xiii] Simon Anholt elucidates why Mexico has such a wide gap between its reality and how the world perceives it. He identifies as one fundamental issue that Mexico´s image abroad has partially been shaped, not by its own work but through U.S. lenses. I think it is troublesome for two reasons: a) The U.S. national identity had partially developed in contrast to Mexico, even before the two nations were created: WASP tradition vs. contra-reformation Catholic and indigenous heritage. Therefore, for the U.S., Mexico and its population have always represented the “other.” This perception is compounded by millions of Mexicans living north of the border, mostly from rural areas and with little education. So there is an intrinsic confrontation between the two, and as Leonardo Curzio explains, Mexico has not been able to transform what unites the two countries into a regional identity.[xiv] Maybe this could be the main reason. b) U.S. broadcast and entertainment industries have dominated the world airwaves and now the internet. So, the images of Mexico portrayed by these companies are not neutral and have an underlying intent related to showcasing its “otherness” to the U.S. public. Additionally, in specific periods, there were propaganda campaigns organized by U.S authorities, media, and broadcasting businesses to harm Mexico´s image, such as during its revolution and in the intra-wars years. A weak neighbor is better than a strong one. Dr. Curzio indicates that “in the construction of mutual images between Mexico and the United States, the former historically has received the worse part.”[xv] So, Mexico has a quite complicated situation as a neighbor of the U.S, which has the strongest voice in the world. Now I understand why a citizen of Africa or Asia thinks that “Taco Bell” is authentic Mexican cuisine, the country is made up only of drylands and deserts, or that its population is lazy. These are the images that the U.S. entertainment industry has transmitted over and over to everybody. An example of Mexico being portrayed by the U.S. entertainment industry is the Disney movie “Coco,” created by a U.S. citizen. Another one is Cirque du Soleil´s Luzia spectacle.[xvi] So, even as beautiful as they are, the images they project of Mexico are like a funhouse mirror. To make matters worse, Mexico, with a few exceptions, has not been able to implement a long-term communications strategy to counterbalance U.S. images of the country, as the reader will see in the next section. Simon Anholt expresses surprise by the U.S and Canada’s opinion of Mexico as one of the world’s pariahs. He describes this perception as contempt by the two populations with substantial economic, social, cultural, and political connections.[xvii] He speculates that a reevaluation of Mexico´s image by the U.S. population is only possible if the country obtains tangible benefits of its position in the world, similar to what happened with Ireland in the case of Great Britain.[xviii] 3. Mexico´s lack of policies and tools to broadcast its own image overseas. Even though the international media portraits Mexico as a violent, traditional country, there has been a lack of serious efforts to change this situation. As the reader will learn, there were some but very limited. Simon Anholt and Leonardo Curzio coincide that Mexico needs to have a policy to really affect its reputation. However, by looking at the article published by coordinators of Mexico´s Nation-Brand project from 2010 to 2012,[xix] it seems that the effort was mainly focused on tourism, and its measurements were limited to marketing “impacts” rather than as a decisive step forward toward a better reputation. Dr. Curzio, in his seminal book Orgullo y Prejuicios: Reputación e imagen de México identifies three major problems of Mexico´s image:
As a solution to these challenges, Curzio suggests the need for developing three elements: substance, narrative, and appropriate communications channels.[xxiii] He indicates that except for the 1968 Olympic Games[xxiv] and NAFTA´s promotion in 1993, [xxv] the country has not developed a systematic activity to show contents that defy the stereotypes defined by the entertainment industry. Besides, it has not invested the necessary time, money, and talent to create TV and movie characters that portray a Mexican as loyal and trustworthy.[xxvi] Similarly, Anholt indicates that Mexico´s relative silence after NAFTA’s approval has not helped compensate for its image´s weakness. Neither the insufficient investments in tourism, trade and investment promotion as well as in cultural diplomacy in proportion to its monumental cultural heritage.[xxvii] The country does not have an international broadcasting program, where it can present its views to the world in addition to its cultural traditions and its modern side. Dr. Curzio calls these “appropriate channels of communication.” However, he indicates that the targeted audience has to be defined before identifying these communication conduits. [xxviii] Anholt indicates that the lack of institutions that assist in promoting Mexico's image, such as international cultural institutes or public diplomacy networks, could be an advantage because it is more difficult to change organizations that already exist than establishing new from scratch.[xxix] Curzio indicates that it is a paradox that the country has some giant entertainment companies with vast outreach, such as Televisa; however, the country does not have any channel to projects its image. And it also lacks in the production of content that could be interesting for foreign audiences.[xxx] On the bright side, as Guillermo Máynez Gil discovers in his article “El espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros.”[xxxi] Mexico is like a broken mirror, and each fractured piece portraits a different image according to the viewer’s perspective. Therefore, for an epicurean, Mexico is a wildly delicious country to feast on; for biologists, anthropologists, and archeologists, the nation is paradise and refuge for U.S and Canadian snowbirds.[xxxii] Máynez Gil explains that the number of foreigners living in Mexico is an example of its attractiveness, considering the cost of living and quality.[xxxiii] However, to be honest, comparatively with other nations, the number of foreigners living in Mexico is low. 4. Final thoughts. So if we combined Mexico´s not-so-great-for-a-good-reputation cultural expressions, and a very solid but outdated image abroad, together with the U.S broadcast of its perception of Mexico and lack of a long-term strategy, it does not surprise the low esteem that the country has abroad, particularly beyond the Americas. As seen in this post, Mexico´s image has some challenges that need to be overcome to be regarded by the world´s population as a positive and strong nation. It has to transform the broken funhouse mirror into a regular one, so it is appreciated as it really is. Simon Anholt´s idea of the Good Country, or how countries' images are related to what the nation contributes for the wellbeing of the planet, not just its citizens, could be a way forward for Mexico to change its reputation overseas. [i] Máynez Gil, Guillermo, “El espejo roto: percepción de México entre los extranjeros” in Este País, №261, January 2013, pp. 8–12 [ii] Anholt, Simon, “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, p. 111 [iii] Anholt, Simon, 2012, p. 118. [iv] This might seem old or outdated, but was the last issue of its type and is relevant because the countries are ranked “based on how are described in major media.” East West Global Index 200, 2011. It was also a year that was not great for Mexico in global news. [v] Curzio, Leonardo, “La imagen de México” in La Política Exterior de México: Metas y obstáculos, Guadalupe González G and Olga Pellicer (coords.), México, Siglo XXI Editores, 2013, pp. 27–50. [vi] Curzio, 2013, p. 36 [vii] Ibid, 2013, p. 36. [viii] Ibid, 2013, p. 37. [ix] Ibid, 2013, p. 37. [x] Ibid. 2013, p. 38. [xi] Ibid, 2013, p. 38. [xii] Ibid, 2013, p. 38. [xiii] Anholt, Simon, “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, pp. 109–130. [xiv] Curzio, Leonardo, Orgullo y Prejuicios: Reputación e imagen de México, México, UNAM-CISEN Miguel Ángel Porrúa, 2016, p. 23–25. [xv] Curzio, 2016, p. 23. Dr. Curzio reaches this conclusion after reviewing the following study: Terrazas y Basante, Marcela, Gurza Lavalle, Gerardo, de los Ríos, Patricia, Riguzzi, Paolo. Las relaciones México — Estados Unidos 1756–2010, 2 vols. Mexico, Insitutio de Investigaciones Históricas, CISEN-UNAM, SRE, 2012. [xvi] Cirque du Soleil is a Canadian company, with very strong ties to the U.S. For a brief description of Luzia as conduit of Mexico´s image, see Carrera, Felipe, “”Luzia,” a Creative and Innovative Cultural Intervention”, Center for Public Diplomacy Blog, October 8, 2018. Also see, Hernández, Daniel,·”´Luzia´is Cirque de Soleil´s valentine to Mexico”, The Frame, January 31, 2018, and “Beyond Tacos and Burritos: How Circus show and Movie Coco influence the country image of Mexico”, Place Brand Observer, February 15, 2018. [xvii] Anholt, 2012, p. 119. [xviii] Anholt, 2012, p. 126. [xix] Díaz, Jaime and Pérez, Mónica “Marca México: una estrategia para reducir la brecha entre la percepción y la realidad” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №96, October 2012, pp. 169–186. [xx] Curzio, 2016, p. 15. [xxi] Curzio, 2016, p. 16. [xxii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxiii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxiv] In recent years, there has been new research about the cultural diplomacy effort during the Olympics Games, also known as Cultural Olympics. See, Castañeda, Luis M., Spectacular Mexico: Design, propaganda and the 1968 Olympics, 2014; Witherspoon, Kevin, Before the Eyes of the World: Mexico and the 1968 Olympic Games, 2014; and México: la Olimpiada Cultural. [xxv] To learn more about Mexico´s public diplomacy initiatives regarding the approval of NAFTA see, Villanueva, César, Representing Cultural Diplomacy: Soft Power, Cosmopolitan Constructivism and Nation Branding in Mexico and Sweden, Sweden, 2007; Villanueva, César, “Cooperación y diplomacia cultural: experiencias y travesías. Entrevista al embajador Jorge Alberto Lozoya” in Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, №85, February 2009, pp. 253–267; and Starr, Pamela K., “Mexican Public Diplomacy: Hobbled by History, Interdependence and Asymmetric Power” in Public Diplomacy Magazine, №2, Summer 2009, pp. 49–53. [xxvi] Curzio, 2016, 25. [xxvii] Anholt, 2012, p. 124–125. [xxviii] Curzio, 2016, p. 22. [xxix] Anholt, 2012, p. 128. [xxx] Curzio, 2016, p. 16–17. [xxxi] Máynez Gil, Guillermo, “El espejo roto: percepción de México entre los extranjeros” in Este País, №261, January 2013, pp. 8–12 [xxxii] Máynez Gil, 2013, p. 10. [xxxiii] Máynez Gil, 2013, p. 11–12. DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company. |
Rodrigo Márquez LartigueDiplomat interested in the development of Consular and Public Diplomacies. Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|