President Calderón said quite clearly…

Last January 30th, the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, participated in the Latin America’s Economic Imperative session of the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland. Felipe Calderón shared the stage with the President of Colombia, Álvaro Uribe, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, José Miguel Insulza, and as the moderator of the session, former President of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo. The session was held entirely in English.

The participation of the President of Mexico was controversial once Mexican media reported in the whole country that in his dialogue with Ernesto Zedillo, Felipe Calderón said that when you are in government, you are in hell.

This phrase is meaningful under the current context of Felipe Calderón as President of Mexico: He was named President by the Electoral Tribunal under claims of fraud that derived in one of the biggest social crises in the country in recent years, has been strongly critiqued for his performance as a leader, and faces an enormous challenge pointed out by a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command that argues that Mexico might become a failed state.

The video of the session at the World Economic Forum is accessible to the public in internet. From time 29:36 to 30:28 of the video, Ernesto Zedillo and Felipe Calderón had the polemic dialogue:

Zedillo (29:36 to 30:05): I need to open the floor for questions from the public, but before, I want to make a personal question, President Calderón. Let me take advantage of this moment. And a little bit of a background. When I was President of Mexico, President Calderón was really leader of the opposition, because he was leader of the biggest opposition party, and he was a very good leader for his party.

Calderón (30:04): [Unclear, seems to say Thank you]

Zedillo (30:04): But he was very tough.

Calderón (30:05): OK.

Zedillo (30:05 to 30:13): OK, very tough. Now I want to ask you, how does it feel to deal with the opposition?

Calderón (30:14 to 30:28): Well, well, I feel very comfortable, I need to say. Ah, it's really hard, well, somebody says that when you are in the opposition you are in heaven, when you are, when you are in government, you are in the _____, in the soil.

The part marked with a line in the last phrase is controversial, because the interpreter translated it as “hell”, while the office of the Presidency affirms that Felipe Calderón quite clearly said the word "earth".

Presidency damages its own credibility

I would like to focus on the adverb "clearly", used by the Presidency in a press release intended to clarify the president's wording.

The World Economic Forum interpreter made a series of mistakes in her interpretation of the Mexican President’s remarks.
In particular, she inaccurately translated the segment in which President Calderón said quite clearly:
"Bueno, me siento muy cómodo, debo decir. Realmente es... bueno, alguien dice que cuando tú estás en la oposición, tú estás en el cielo, cuando tú estás en el gobierno, tú estás en la tierra, en el suelo”.
(“Well, I must say I feel very comfortable. The thing is that when you are in the opposition, you are in heaven, and when you are in government, you are on earth, on the ground.")
At no point did he mention the word "hell" in this sentence, as translated by the interpreter in her simultaneous interpretation.

[Note: Presidency transcribed "The thing is that..." while in the original video President Calderón said "Somebody says that...".]

I have listened to this part of the dialogue for around thirty times, both using headphones and loudspeakers, and still I have not been able to determine whether President Calderón said "hell" or "earth", or even another word. What I can say is that the word starts with a sound similar to "he" which could lead to the word "hell", and ends with a "th" corresponding to the last sound of "earth". Briefly, to this point I am only sure that whatever the word was, Felipe Calderón did not say it clearly.

Now, if the video available to the public lets people corroborate that it is not easy to determine if Calderón said "hell" or "earth", why does Presidency affirm that the President said it quite clearly, when in fact it was unclear? Personally, the attempt of Presidency to try to clarify an alleged inaccuracy of the interpreter by suggesting clarity where there is not, makes me distrust of the veracity and ethics of this governmental office. Furthermore, the claim seems to me ill-intentioned as it tries to make the interpreter responsible for the controversy.

Was it the interpreter's fault?

In Mexico, the Spanish word "cielo" is commonly used as an equivalent for the English words "heaven" and "sky". Then, when Felipe Calderón said "when you are in the opposition you are in heaven" and after that he implied that those in the government are in the opposite place, it seems to me that the interpreter did the right thing by translating the opposite of "heaven" as "hell" and not as "earth" (which in turn would be the opposite of "sky"), and especially considering that she had to interpret from an unclearly pronunced word. To make it more complex, Felipe Calderón closed the phrase with the term "soil", which is not the opposite of "heaven" or "sky".

However, the Presidency blames the interpreter of the World Economic Forum for making "a series of mistakes in her interpretation of the Mexican President’s remarks".

I have not accessed the whole translation to Spanish, but at least in the specific case I present here, it seems to me imprudent and unethical to blame the interpreter for the inaccuracies caused by the lack of command of English of Felipe Calderón.

How is this situation related to public diplomacy?

As I explained in a previous post, public diplomacy is the bidirectional communication that a duly accredited representative of a national government establishes with foreign publics (national government-public communication). This is the scheme of the participation of President Calderón in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, specifically in its communication with the public attending the session and watching it online.

One of the main characteristics of diplomacy is that communication usually happens between individuals with different cultural backgrounds. This characteristic demands accuracy in messages in order to make them appropriate for the counterpart's context and cause the desired interpretation, and also to reduce the risk of misunderstanding among people who are not the intended receivers of the message, but whose interpretation might affect the political environment. The case I present in this post is a good example of the importance of accuracy and context, because the one concept Felipe Calderón had in mind (cielo) had at least two different interpretations in English (heaven and sky), and the logic following his statement leads to an initial set of two antonyms (hell and earth) that turn into three (soil) at the end of the phrase.

Felipe Calderón is the Head of State and Head of Government of Mexico. Mexican researcher Lucía Irene Ruiz explains that the hierarchy of the President "[...] allows him to always act in the name of the state because, due to his high investiture, he holds the representativeness of the political entity and its members in every moment". As she points out in her book Derecho diplomático (Diplomatic law), quoting also Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (former Secretary General of the United Nations):

Presidents who travel are accompanied by their political and legal powers and [...] their acts abroad are widely recognized as valid by other members of the international community. In that sense, [the President] can be defined as "[...] the supreme representative of the state in foreign affairs and also as the government body leading the international behavior of the state".

For this reason, it is a delicate issue that President Calderón communicated publicly in a language that apart from not being official in Mexico he does not master enough as to accurately express his ideas. In addition, it was not striclty necessary for Felipe Calderón to communicate in English because his three counterparts in the panel are Spanish speakers, the resources of the World Economic Forum allow for Spanish to English interpretation for the public, and the message was to be transmitted to a numerous public through international media. 

Briefly, the President of Mexico, as the highest representative of Mexico, has a responsibility to communicate in the clearest and most accurate way with his foreign counterparts. First, because there is always a risk for the message to be misinterpreted under the context of the person receiving it, and second, because what the President says is considered abroad as being true due to his representativeness of the Mexican state and his authority in the conduction of foreign policy. These are some of the reasons why the participation of a Head of State or Head of Government in diplomatic issues, whether with national governments or public as counterparts, must be carried out only when it is absolutely necessary and preferably in well-controlled scenarios.

 

César Corona

References:

RUIZ SÁNCHEZ, LUCÍA IRENE. Derecho diplomático. Editorial Porrúa. Mexico City. 2005. [JZ1405 R85; Law, UNAM]. (pp. 223-224)

Technorati Tags: felipe calderón,hell,public diplomacy,diplomacy,public,world economic forum,federal government,government,communication,mexico,switzerland

An initial approach to public diplomacy from a Mexican perspective

Welcome to this blog about public diplomacy. It is published by an International Relations student, who recently graduated from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. What I present here is the result of many hours of reflection both in an academic and professional environment. Many of the conclusions I share in this blog originated from my experience as an exchange student in McGill University (Montreal, Canada) and as a distance student from Växjö Universitet (Växjö, Sweden), and also from my work in international exhibitions (also known as world’s fairs) since 1998 and international conferences in Mexico since 2000. These experiences let me see Mexico from abroad and from the point of view of foreign publics.

In Mexico, public diplomacy is a new subject that is frequenlty mistaken for open diplomacy or citizen participation in international relations, among other issues. I will try to present my point of view in this blog as concisely and precisely as possible, with the main purpose of promoting an exchange of ideas and knowledge around public diplomacy.

A framework for public diplomacy

In this blog, the term public diplomacy refers only to actions that representatives that are duly accredited by a national government carry out in the name of the totality of the State to communicate bidirectionally with foreign publics.

Why I do not include non-governmental actors in this concept of public diplomacy? Because in principle these actors do not carry out acts of diplomacy. Although several non-government related individuals and organizations make a relevant impact on Mexican international relations, and several researchers and institutions studying public diplomacy consider these actors within their field of study, for the actions of non-governmental entities to be considered diplomacy they need to be supported by credentials that confirm representativeness in the name of the whole State, duly granted by the corresponding agency of the national government. From my point of view, it is necessary that three criteria are met in order to consider the actions of individuals and non-governmental organizations, first as diplomacy, and then as public diplomacy. I briefly explain in the following lines.

Along its history, diplomacy has been the communication between groups under the jurisdiction of different sovereign entities, through persons who proved their representativeness with documents issued by the ruler following certain norms and procedures. These documents or credentials were often kept folded or even sewn, because frequently they were private communications between rulers; this is the reason why these documents were called diplomas (“object folded in two parts”, in Greek). Notwithstanding variations in its practice, diplomacy still keeps the same essence, which I condense in three elements that from my point of view define diplomacy: 1) communication, 2) of an international legal entity, and 3) through duly accredited representatives.

I consider important to clarify that I do not consider negotiation and lack of violence as definitory elements of diplomacy, first, because negotiation is not present in every act of diplomacy, and second, because actions can be considered peaceful or violent depending on the context where they occur and also on the cultural background of the person interpreting the meaning of those actions.

The purpose of this first post is to briefly explain the framework I use to study public diplomacy. I created the following scheme (still unfinished) to locate public diplomacy within a diplomacy framework.

Traditional diplomacy refers to communication where parties duly represent States (national government-to-national government communication). In new diplomacy at least one of the parties duly represents a State, and at least one of the parties does not possess such representativeness (national government-to-public communication). Finally, paradiplomacy or parallel diplomacy is communication where none of the parties is duly accredited to represent a State (public-to-public communication). I would like to clarify that the terms new diplomacy and paradiplomacy also have meanings that significantly differ from those I use here: for some scholars, new diplomacy refers to diplomatic practice carried out by persons who are not professional diplomats; paradiplomacy is understood by many as the international relations of subnational entities.

In terms of the parties in communication, the scheme follows this logic:

Public diplomacy being a national government-to-public communication is framed under new diplomacy, and may be carried out by diplomats or by any person duly accredited through established procedures by the corresponding agency to communicate with foreign publics, both in a permanent or temporary mission. Such persons may be scholars, technicians, artists, businessmen, and so forth. An example of this is the designation of a Commissary General of Section in international exhibitions. According to article 13 of the Convention relating to International Exhibitions (1928), the government of each participating country must designate a Commissary General of Section to represent it before the host country on issues related to the international exhibition. In the case of Mexico, Ambassadors, businessmen, presidents of sports associations, prominent arquitects, among others, have been designated Commisaries by the national government. Probably this is not a well known case in Mexico, but it is the clearest example I know to describe a perfect case of public diplomacy.

The practice of public diplomacy in Mexico

From my point of view, actions of the Mexican Government abroad do not fulfil the concept of public diplomacy, specifically because its communication with foreign publics is not bidirectional. Mexico seeks to position itself and project an image abroad based on its own perception of what the world needs to know, without doing any noteworthy effort to previously understand its counterpart. When communication with foreign publics is bidirectional, and a national government seeks to understand the perception, interests and special features of its counterpart, the image and knowledge of the country can be built from what already exists in the mind of those persons with whom communication is to be established. This way communication strategies can be designed to nourish the areas where perception is positive, redirect ideas where perception is negative, and create a basis to generate sympathy for the country and its population.

This means basically two things: first, although there is one single Mexico to present to the world, presentation is made depending on the background each public has on the country; second, listening to foreign publics offers a valuable opportunity to acquire knowledge and perspectives that might be useful for the population of Mexico.

I hope that this first approach is clear enough to give an idea of the issues I will be covering in this blog. I also hope that my blog generates questions and comments to start a dialogue. In forthcoming posts I will present cases that exemplify the way the Government of Mexico carries out public diplomacy, and some of my thoughts around this issue.

I would like to hear your comments, critiques, new perspectives and questions from those persons that have honoured me by reading this blog.

César Corona

 

Some ideas and concepts for this post were taken from the following works:

CORONA CORRAL, RICARDO CÉSAR. Diplomacia pública en Exposiciones Internacionales: México y Canadá en la Expo 2005 Aichi. Bachelor’s thesis. International Relations. Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). Mexico City. 2008. [001-00421-C5-2008; Central library, UNAM]

MANHEIM, JAROL B. Strategic public diplomacy & American foreign policy: The evolution of influence. Oxford University Press. New York. 1994. [JX1417 M35; Central Library, UNAM].

ORTIZ MINA, PEDRO HABIB. El nuevo rol de la diplomacia parlamentaria en México: 1994-2002. Bachelor’s thesis. International Relations. [Electronic version]. Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). Mexico City. 2004. [001-00421-O2-2004; Central library, UNAM].

RUIZ SÁNCHEZ, LUCÍA IRENE. Derecho diplomático. Editorial Porrúa. Mexico City. 2005. [JZ1405 R85; Faculty of Law, UNAM].

TIEDEMAN, ANNA. Branding America: An examination of U.S. public diplomacy efforts after September 11, 2001. Master’s thesis. Law and Diplomacy. [Electronic version]. The Fletcher School, Tufts University. Medford. 2005.

Technorati Tags: public diplomacy,diplomacy,new diplomacy,international exhibitions,world's fairs,convention relating to international exhibitions,international relations,mexico