BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

INSTITUTE OF HIGH DIPLOMATIC STUDIES PEDRO GUAL MASTER OF FOREIGN

AFFAIRS ACADEMIC DIRECTION

APPROACH TO NEODIPLOMACY IN VENEZUELA. CASE OF THE MINISTRY OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA. PERIOD
1999-2005

WORK TO OPT FOR THE TITLE OF MAGÍSTER SCIENTIARUM IN FOREIGN

RELATIONS

CARACAS, MAY 2006

1 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pedro Gual Institute of

Higher Diplomatic Studies Master of Foreign Affairs Academic Direction

Approach to Neodiplomacy in Venezuela. Case of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Period 1999-2005

Work to Opt for the Title of Master Scientiarum in Foreign Relations

Tutor: Emb. Demetrius Boersner

Presented By: Alfredo Alfonso Torrealba CI- 13.252.316

Caracas, May 2006

DEDICATION

Equinovarus, to them…

THANKS

To my mother, Nellys Yolanda Torrealba, for her indulgent patience. Thank you!
Without a doubt, to Nelson Manuel Alfonso Torrealba, my brother, for everything,
simply, for everything... thank you... To my brothers: Marcos, Carlos and Edgar for their
support and financial effort to help me finance my studies. To Ambassador Demetrio
Boersner (my tutor and professor) for having offered me his clear understanding of the
New International Order and his invaluable judgment in each of the pages of this
research. To Ambassador Manuel Morales Lama, for having offered me timely and
invaluable comments and sources of information despite his tight work schedule. To
Ambassador Leandro Area, for making me see that my research was not at all
reckless, but on the contrary, something necessary. Without a doubt, to María Teresa
Miozzy (my sentimental tutor) for having offered me her experiences as a diplomat and
for having transmitted to me her own interest in issues concerning diplomacy. Without
a doubt, to Ricardo Rausseu and Miguel Abrams (distinguished colleagues) for having
offered me their incisive and precise comments throughout the research process.
Without a doubt, to Gabriel Sánchez (distinguished colleague) for his technical support,
which was always exceptionally timely. Without a doubt, to Benjí, my Coromoto Gómez
Cárdenas, for giving me a chance. And to them, Mariela González, Fabiola Hernández,
Nora Montiel, Irimar Parada, Marlene Da Vargen, Tariana Salazar and Daniela
Méndez, who had the sumptuous patience to hear me speak about these topics. And to
Mr. Hugo R. Chávez F., for his new way of seeing things...

SUMMARY

Between 1999 and 2005, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela was the subject of a series of restructurings that specifically addressed two
guiding ideas. Firstly, adapt the organic structure of this institution to the new
constitutional principles and, secondly, optimize its response capacity in view of the
changes in the new international order and the emergence of new formulas for
diplomatic interaction. The result of the conjunction of these two elements has resulted
in Venezuela currently presenting to the world an exercise of international
representation that constrains, at most, to some guiding ideas that give knowledge of
the general theory of diplomacy. In that sense, the country creates a new diplomatic
experience that is not unique, but different compared to other states in the world; and in
fact, on a theoretical level, Venezuelan diplomacy could adapt in at least eight aspects
to what we have called neodiplomacy, an approach that, although it gives continuity to
the general theory of diplomacy, brings together a series of characteristics that denote
diplomatic changes. typical of international modernity. This research analyzes these
and other topics based on an exploratory methodological strategy; field with support
from live sources (semi-structured interviews) and documentaries; and content
analysis.

KEYWORDS.Diplomacy. Neodiplomacy. New International Order. Update.

Capertovetonic.

INDEX DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SUMMARY INDEX LIST OF FIGURES

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I.- THE PROBLEM 1.1.- Statement of the Problem 1.2.-
Research Objectives (General and Specific) 1.3.- Research Justification 02 03 04 05
08 09 12 12 24 24

CHAPTER II.- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 25 2.1.- The New International Order

(1989-2004) 25 2.1.1.- New International Actors 31 2.1.2.- The Rise of Multilateralism
35 2.1.3.- The Consolidation of International Law 39 2.1.4.- The New Conflicts 46
2.1.5.- Multipolar Economic and Political Order 52 2.1.6.- Crisis of the Neoliberal State
Model 64 2.1.7.- Diplomatic Trends 74 2.2.- Diplomacy and Its Forms 81 2.2.1.-
Diplomacy 81 2.2.2.- Diplomatic and Consular Law 89 2.2.3.- Modalities of Diplomatic
Interaction 95 2.2.3.1.- Bilateral Diplomacy 97 2.2.3.2.- Multilateral Diplomacy 98
2.2.3.3.- Diplomacy Permanent and Temporary Diplomacy 100 2.2.3.4.- Direct
Diplomacy (Summit or Presidential) 101 2.2.3.5.- Secret Diplomacy 102 2.2.3.6.- Open
Diplomacy 102 2.2.3.7.- Doctrinal Diplomacy 104 2.2.3.8.- Technical Diplomacy 107
2.2.3.9.- Realistic and Idealist Diplomacy; Active or Passive Diplomacy and
Constitutional Diplomacy 109 2.2. 3.10.- Classic or Traditional Diplomacy and Modern
Diplomacy 112 2.2. 3.11.- Track Two Diplomacy (Informal or Citizen) and Multiroad
Diplomacy 116

6 2.2.3.12.- Non-Violent Civil Diplomacy 2.2.3.13.- Neo-Diplomacy, Anti-Diplomacy

and Proto-Diplomacy 2.2.3.14.- Parallel Diplomacy 2.3.- Crisis of the General Theory of
Diplomacy and Neodiplomacy CHAPTER III.- METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1.- Type of Study 3.2.- Type of Design 3.3.- Unit of Analysis 3.4.- Sources of
Information 3.5.- Data Collection Instruments 3.6.- Strategy for Data Processing
CHAPTER IV.- DEVELOPMENT OF OBJECTIVES 4.1.- Aggiornamento Trends
Versus Carpetovetonic Trends in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela 4.1.1.- The Organic Restructuring of the Ministry of 2005 4.1.2.-
The Consolidation of the Public Opposition Competition in 2001 4.2.- Neodiplomacy in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 4.2.1.- Unofficial
Behaviors 4.2.1.1.- Paradiplomacy in Venezuela 4.2.1.2.- Outside Public Knowledge
4.2.1.3.- Non-Communications Officials 4.2.1.4.- Non-Official Foreign Ambassadors
4.2.2.- Informal Behaviors 4.2.2.1.- The Initiatives of the Deputies of the National
Assembly 4.2.2.2.- The Informal Diplomacy of NGOs 4.2.3.- Nationalization of the
International Agendas 4.2.4.- Reconquering the Lost Sovereignty 4.2.5.- Cyberpolitik
and Soft Power in the Foreign Ministry 4.2.6.- The Foreign Ministry and the New
International Actors. Openness and Preferences 4.2.7.- The New Fears of the Foreign
Ministry 4.2.7.1.- The Fear of Losing an Opportunity 4.2.7.2.- The Fear of Not
Recognizing an Opportunity 4.2.7.3.- Taking Advantage of Opportunities Correctly
4.2.8. - A Turn in the Field of “Reciprocal Understanding” and Putting an End to
Unrepentant Conciliators 121 123 127 132 146 146 147 148 149 149 150 152

152 162 166 169 169 169 174 178 180 183 183 186 190 198 207 213 217 218 222
224 226

CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS In Search of a Neodiplomat Towards Non-

Economic Incentives Towards a Modern Management Policy Towards Greater
Spirituality For Reflection Returning to the Essays BIBLIOGRAPHY

232 238 238 238 242 245 247 251

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Comparative Table Between Diplomatic and Consular Relations 2. Outline of the

Administration of Foreign Policy 3. Social Forces Surrounding Diplomacy 4. Diplomacy
Modalities By Interest Categories 5. Sources of Influence of the MRE 6. Organic
Restructuring of the Ministry of 2005 7. Organic Structure of the Ministry of 2001

92 96 106 131 156 163 164

9
INTRODUCTION

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (MRE) is the
official institutional body through which the government of Venezuela directs its
international relations. The officials of this institution, for their part, especially those of
the Foreign Service, constitute the clothing of Venezuela (CFR.CORDERO
CEBALLOS: 1981, 23), since this office is responsible for the image that it has outside
the national borders. of the Republic. Now, to meet this objective, the MRE requires an
administrative structure consistent with its tasks, as well as suitable personnel. Both
elements interact with each other and their functions are executed without disregarding
national and international requirements. For this reason, the management dynamic of
this firm is exceptional due to the constant metamorphosis of the areas that inspire its
nature and its practice. Incessantly, the administrative structure of the MRE adjusts to
needs, redefines schemes and revives or creates forms of action based on the social
scene that surrounds it. However, since 1999 the MRE has had to rethink its role at a
rapid pace. More than all, due to the arrival of the 1999 Constitution that established a
new pattern of relationship between the State and Civil Society (with greater proximity);
and established a system of participatory democracy based on the approach of a
Democratic and Social State of Law and Justice that, consequently, would create a
new type of society, the democratic society. Furthermore, the MRE also faced the
unavoidable presence of new modalities of diplomatic interaction that had their origin in
the new international order and the new technological, financial and cultural
imperatives of the world.

10

In fact, between 1999 and 2005 several important restructurings occurred within the
MRE to assimilate these new paradigms as in all the institutions that make up the
Venezuelan political system, with the difference that in the MRE the State had a special
interest, because a precise message had to be sent to the world about the new will of
the Venezuelan government and an institution had to be recreated that would place the
nation in a more active and dynamic position on a global level. But curiously, during
this transition process, the meeting of these elements resulted in the MRE's body of
diplomatic agents having to, in part, also reinvent itself to take on the nation's
international affairs, since elements of the system still existed. political of the IV
Republic within the MRE that had not yet been able to be uprooted despite the
restructuring carried out. Diplomatic agents had to interpret their actions between
tradition and modernity and, apparently, perhaps it was the conditions experienced
between this time interval that caused a set of new and innovative diplomatic actions
that even eroded some assumptions of the general theory of diplomacy to the point that
the friction between the new and the old exploded, as we will see later, in April 2002.

That is, when the diplomatic agents of the MRE reinvented their role as officials, they
became participants in a set of practices that combined in some aspects with the global
line of thought that suggested that the traditional forms of diplomatic interaction were
changing and that the parameters that that supported the general theory of diplomacy
seemed to be left behind by the overwhelming modernity and its components. If this
was so, then it was necessary to analyze the new diplomatic behaviors of the MRE
from another theoretical perspective to explain, in depth, what were the true incidences
of the new will of government that was born with the arrival of President Hugo R.
Chavez F. in Venezuelan foreign policy.

eleven

In this research we will try to delve into this topic, but to achieve that objective we will
use the proposal of the neodiplomacy approach, which is a theoretical formula that
gives continuity to diplomatic theory and fills it with a set of elements that make it more
flexible to the study of the changes in diplomatic behaviors promoted by the MRE and,
at the same time, gives us reference parameters to establish with specificity how neo-
diplomatic these behaviors are. Likewise, to achieve this goal, the research was
divided into a series of steps that we will present in the form of chapters and always
taking care not to divert the underlying basis of the research from the reflections of
political science, in the sense that this branch of knowledge teaches us. shows a closer
approximation to the authoritative transmission of values within and in relation to the
institutions and the political and world system of a country. Thus, first of all, we will
refer to the coherent approach to the problem. Secondly, we will specify the theoretical
framework, emphasizing the elements that will help understand the dimensions in
which the MRE must act. There, we will analyze the characteristics of the new
international order and review the theoretical conceptions of diplomacy and the types of
diplomatic interaction modalities that are typical of our time. Not to mention that we will
present the discussion on the crisis of the general theory of diplomacy and the arrival of
the neodiplomatic approach. Thirdly, we will mention the methodological indications
that we used to undertake the management of the research. Fourthly, we will mention
the activities in which the MRE moves away from the general theory of diplomacy and
enters into the neodiplomatic principles, but not before putting together a scientific
discussion of how the political and institutional level was modified in these five years in
the MRE. Finally, we will give our conclusions and recommendations.

Furthermore, we hope that this research is to your complete satisfaction...

12

CHAPTER I.- THE PROBLEM 1.1.- Statement of the Problem:

“The current dynamics of international relations and the significant challenges posed
by the new millennium have evidently influenced the procedures for executing the
State's foreign policy, as well as the role of the actors who participate in it.” –Manuel
Morales Lama

On few occasions it has become necessary for the postulates of a theory to be

redefined or enhanced to prevent it from eroding and, consequently, becoming
inoperative to provide reliable explanations about its object of study. This activity, which
is clearly an academic process of reflection, perhaps finds its origin in a subjective
interest that is difficult to specify on the part of scholars or when it is suspected that a
theory has its days numbered. However, such efforts, being directed along the paths of
epistemology, they leave a deep mark and although sometimes they only fulfill the
objective of further extending the agony of the theory, they leave valuable evidence of
how thought was shaped in a certain era and, even more, they give us They present
axioms that undoubtedly indicate to us that this theoretical path has already been
taken. It is interesting to mention that although theories come and go, surpassing each
other, as history has shown, they do not influence the crux of the object of analysis.
The objects analyzed, in the social sciences, change in form, but fundamentally they
have a series of immanent characteristics that make them distinctive upon
compression. Therefore, understanding a social fact is not an easy task, since its
mutability requires a greater effort of introspection, reflection and definition. For
example, we remember the efforts of the neo-Marxist theoretical school, in the mid-
20th century, to try to give greater support to the precarious foundations of Marxism.
His efforts gave greater prominence to Marxism, however, its applicability today
already seems poor, at least to explain certain facts, which, to their greatest suffering,
were once conquered bastions. However, its philosophical postulates are valuable, just
as they were when they were once presented.

13

The

schools

neofunctionalists,

neorealists,

neostructuralists

and

he

Postmodernism, among others, are more or less theoretical positions analogous to

neo-Marxism since they aim (with some success and not) to rethink old theories so that
they can escape the test of time, questioning, criticism and the emergence of new
theories with admirable new approaches. In the eyes of Karl Popper, these trends are
genuinely scientific in that their emergence and subsequent development involves the
falsification of ancient canons. Seen in this way, science should not be understood as
the accumulation of achievements to understand a fact, on the contrary, it is the area,
the tip of the iceberg, that has not yet been questioned and eroded by criticism.
Likewise, neostructuralism falsifies primitive perceptions of structuralism, however, this
theory does not change its identity too much, it remains the same, in essence, although
it would no longer be the same, if we talk about the form. But it is that theoretical
background that is the vital element of science, that background is knowledge itself,
that background is the true advance of human thought and this will disappear at the
precise moment in which its most intimate hypothetical and supposed bases are
eroded.

In this order of ideas, there is a theoretical space that is, apparently, involved in an
identity crisis. We are referring to the general theory of diplomacy. The reasons that
lead us to this assumption arise from the fracture between reality (objective) and what
the general theory of diplomacy conjectures about that reality (subjective). Just as
Marxism was once insufficient to provide explanations about the international sphere,
which behaved in a way that was not prescribed by any of the primary assumptions of
this theory; The general theory of diplomacy, as we will see, is also insufficient to
explain certain facts that are not gross, but rather, very concrete and important facts
that are worth highlighting.

14

These elements that cannot be encompassed by the general theory of diplomacy

undermine its proper cognitive procedure and, for that reason, open the future
possibility that this theory must be redefined and enhanced so that it acquires the
capacity to offer us a minimum and complete theoretical reference on the changes that
happen; but to achieve this objective, it will be necessary to raise the theory to a higher
level (These ideas and approaches can be confronted with what was stated by
HURTADO LEON: 1997). Following the case of the previous theoretical experiences,
this higher level would be known as a stage that would only propose correcting the
theoretical deficiencies of the general theory of diplomacy by narrowing the acquired
knowledge, at the same pace as how human knowledge evolves. It is worth
mentioning, according to Aymara Hernández Arias, that these processes of revisionism
are not exclusive to some theoretical frameworks, but rather, it seems to be a modern
trend that spreads to other disciplines: “When talking about paradigms and research
methods in the area of Information Systems, it is inevitable to address the issue related
to the impacts of global changes (...) This issue arises at the level of all disciplines,
motivating researchers and professionals in each area to debate about the best
adaptation alternatives and necessary evolution. Research problems arise when
traditional theoretical and methodological alternatives are not able to provide answers
to the dynamics of phenomena in these emerging environments. This insufficiency
does not allow, therefore, to give coherent explanations or to describe in a structured
and logical manner the different interactions between components in a given social
situation. Reality becomes complicated and theories seem to lack the corresponding
foundation to understand such situations. The so-called crisis of theoretical foundation
occurs in dimensions that encompass social and human reality and the epistemological
perspective where the existing theoretical alternatives cannot explain social changes
and conflicts and, therefore, their statements and discursive logic do not correspond to
the new realities” (HERNÁNDEZ ARIAS: 2004).

15 The various sources of conventional 1 and customary 2 law that in human history
have delimited diplomatic matters, shape the general theory of diplomacy, and if we
contrast some of its theoretical principles with the diplomatic practices of our days, we
can recognize some fractures between the theory they provide and reality. For
example, it is evident that the general theory of diplomacy 3 was not prepared to
handle the arrival of new international actors, technological advance, globalization, the
rise of multilateralism, the accentuation of Public International Law (PIL), the
permeability of the sovereignty of States, the resurgence of non-formal activities by
States and the rise of parallel organizations, among others. Each of these elements
began to show a marked development and expansion starting in 1989 and, surely, the
cause of this concatenation of events dates back to the end of the bipolar period.

According to bipolar logic, the world was aligned in two geopolitical blocks that at the
same time gave coexistence and logic to the so-called world order. The collapse of that
order disorganized international relations; some thinkers even went so far as to affirm
that we were on the eve of the “empire of chaos” (CFR.- SAMIR AMIN. In: MIRES:
1998).

“Perhaps it is this generalized image of chaos, one of the reasons that explains the
exorbitant supply of new "models of order" that fill bookstores. The best known are
Bush's "new order", Fukuyama's "posthistorical period", Huntington's "war of
civilizations", Garten and Thurow's "geoeconomic triad", Kissinger's "six powers",
unique power" by Brzezinski and, by the way,

They are all international treaties or conventions where the signatory states have
established rules among themselves to organize and formalize their diplomatic
activities. For example, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) and the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties (1969), are the most recent conventional sources, however, there are
other conventions that are equally considered as sources, such as the Vienna
Convention of 1815. 2 They are all diplomatic and consular practices or customs
carried out throughout history by States. 3 It is worth mentioning that its main
representatives are Henry Kissinger, Harold Nicholson, Paul Sharp, Edmund Burke,
Phillippe Cahier, among many others and they configure it as a subdivision of foreign
relations between States, which in turn is a subdivision of the theories of international
relations.

16 the most orderly model of all: globalization” (CFR.- SAMIR AMIN. In: MIRES:
1998). But in one way or another, the collapse of the bipolar order favored the scenario
for new social trends to mature in a short time, something they had not done in almost
thirty years of growth. Furthermore, after the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR), the international scenario of nations was the subject of countless
studies and investigations that tried, at first, to give a plausible explanation of the
processes that led to the decline of that hegemonic force of communist world power,
subsequently, various investigations emerged that focused on how the New
International Order (NOI) was defined now with the weighted and apparently
inexhaustible presence of the United States of America (USA), England and other
allied countries, greatest exponents of capitalist and democratic doctrines. The
approaches, theories and allusions coming from these academic studies slowly formed
a set of serious reflections that would make the area of International Relations, as a
field of study, not be seen as before. That bustle of research not only opened the way
for academic and political speculation towards unknown schemes, but also presented
the States with countless recommendations and the need to assume new procedures,
or better, diplomatic guidelines between nations to respond to the new dogmas.
prevailing in discredit of those more “antiquated” present in the Cold War. Faced with
these insinuations, the States responded cautiously. At the time, the world glimpsed an
encouraging panorama, free from the control of the powers, therefore, each country
wanted to participate in the international transformation, but in its own way. That is, far
from what was desired, each nation generated a very different perception of what the
world scenario meant and was at the time, which is why they redesigned their
structures, objectives, functions and diplomatic obligations based on their
circumstances (CFR. - RAIMUNDI: 2000).

17 Thus each country presented to the world its “New Diplomacy” to face the
challenges and changes and, roughly speaking, the large number of proposals made it
very clear to scholars that it would be difficult to specify, then, what the general
characteristics of the diplomacy were. New World Diplomacy. Furthermore, the
profound historical and cultural differences of the States of the world and their diverse
perceptions and interests on the international stage made in this case the term New
World Diplomacy incompatible and unrealistic at the beginning of the 1990s, however,
with the passage Over time, some academic currents emerged that tried to shed light
on the matter. In this sense, Andrew Gebert even mentioned that the New World
Diplomacy is characterized by the fact that representatives of civil society form
associations with governments on the basis of a shared commitment (CFR.GEBERT:
2003). Likewise, Daisaku Ikeda conceived of World Diplomacy as joint work between
civil society and governments, aimed at generating fundamental reforms (CFR.-
DAISAKU: 2000). And finally, in the same line of thought, Carlos Raimundi, sees the
New Diplomacy when the efforts of the public sector and the private sector are
coordinated to optimize economic-commercial relations with foreign countries and
facilitate the insertion of companies in business. international (CFR.- RAIMUNDI:
2000).

In summary, these convictions denote that, at least, it is possible to speak of the New
World Diplomacy if we take into account that the analysis of the new national
diplomacies, after the fall of the USSR, denounces a surge of initiatives on the part of
civil society aimed at strengthening ties with their governments and encouraging the
inclusion of new issues in the international agendas of their various States. This
innovative political will of civil society favored the appearance of new political actors on
the world stage that, in some cases, are not related to the classic and traditional actors
that always had an impact in these instances.

18 However, the interest of researchers to concentrate on the trends of “The New

Diplomacy” and “The New World Diplomacy” has left aside other topics, which are
equally important, are linked to the changes that have occurred in the very bases of the
institutions and diplomatic agents, which, in some cases, redefined their structures
almost completely. Igor Ivanov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
even mentions that initiatives to restructure chancelleries have their cause in the
multifaceted characteristics of contemporary international relations, because for a
diplomatic corps to succeed in its objectives:

“…increasingly prepared cadres are required who perfectly understand not only the
fabric of international relations but who know well the needs of their own country, the
needs and peculiarities of all its regions” (IVANOV: 2003). On the other hand, Oscar
Hernández mentions that the causes do not go beyond the patent complexity that
relations between states have acquired:

“Today, the tasks of diplomatic agents have varied due to the complexities of relations
between States. We have on the modern diplomatic agenda issues as diverse as
environmental problems that are undoubtedly closely related to sovereignty, as well as
drug trafficking, women's rights, specific problems of international trade and many
others. There is no event on the planet, no matter how far away it may be, that does
not have an impact on our areas of action and influences” (HERNÁNDEZ: 1997). Or
according to José Fierro, who considers that the changes are a consequence of global
dynamics:
 “…Diplomacy has changed its old form and content, from that of the bipolar, capitalist
and socialist world, to one of a world without the Berlin Wall, without 'real' socialism, to
one of absolute predominance of imperialism, particularly of American (…) imperialism,
since the others—French, British, Italian,

19 etc.—they do not oppose it but rather they 'coalide' against 'the axis of evil', that is,
everything that opposes the Yankee bourgeoisie” (FIERRO: 2004). And it is worth
mentioning the words of Dominique de Villepin, who considers that the restructuring
has its origin in the preponderant position of democratic values today: “…The truth is
that diplomacy has changed. Now she is more creative and imaginative because the
conditions are more difficult. If we compare the current situation with that of a decade
ago, we see that there are crises everywhere. The world is different. However, after the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, most states embraced
democracy, embarked on the path towards democracy. And that has allowed the
international community to be more united. It's a new opportunity. We all pursue the
same objective and we are all aware of the great challenges, of terrorism, of weapons
and of crises” (VILLEPIN: 2003). These ideas bring us closer to the conviction that the
foreign ministries of the various States of the world must necessarily make precise
changes to adapt to the new demands of the NOI and Venezuela, in this sense, is no
exception in this regard.

Since 1999, the MRE has been subject to restructuring that has influenced the various
diplomatic administrative levels that comprise it. sayings

restructuring, may have their reason for being among the ideas offered above, but the
arrival of the Bolivarian Constitution was the true turning point that would cause the
rethinking of the entire Venezuelan political system.

20 In 1999 one of the most interesting epistemological ruptures in the history of the
country occurred 4. On the occasion of the new constitution and the creation and
establishment of a political system of participatory democracy, the Venezuelan people
entered the doors of the 21st century very optimistically. However, the challenge of
building a new country was initially focused on dismantling the foundations of the
political system that had been born in 1961 and whose structure was based on the
system of representative democracy. That government exercise was characterized by
leaving Venezuelan civil society in the background, excessively concentrating political
decisions on a select political group. But now, the rethinking of the nation started from
the principle of placing the people at the forefront and adapting Venezuelan institutions
to that end. By the year 2000, the task had begun and among the first actions that the
National Assembly would take to direct the new political system was the need to
redefine the role of the MRE, since the official representation of the country towards the
outside and it could not continue to be denied that the MRE responded moderately to
the new will of government expressed in the constitution, either because its organic
structure responded to the already outdated representative democracy inherent to the
MRE law that was in force at the time and dated from 1961, that is, because the
Venezuelan government assumed the need to adequately project the international
image of the country in the face of the changing world panorama.

Thus, by 2001, the new law that would reconstitute the role of this important institution
was being approved, but as would be seen later, said law would not be enough to
effect true change in the MRE. We had to wait until January 2005 for the reform of the
internal regulations. With said regulation, an attempt was made to resolve the problem
of the nature of the previous internal regulations, because they did not
Another interesting epistemological break in Venezuelan history is the process of
creating the 1947 Constitution. This constitution introduces a series of new subjects in
its text: social law, national economy, family, health, education and work. Likewise, it
virtually innovated the social and electoral base of Power, its organization, individual
rights and guarantees. The social matter will thus be incorporated into Venezuelan
political law. It established direct, universal and secret voting to elect the President of
the Republic. It had a very short lifespan and its postulates were practically ineffective
as a result of the coup d'état that overthrew the government the following year after its
promulgation.
4

21 favored the vision of the 2001 Law and interrupted the action of the body of
diplomatic agents who had to face daily the incessant arrival of circumstances that
were not assumed by the preceding regulations, not to mention that, in addition, they
had to learn to combine the old patterns of the previous regulation with the 2001 law
and, at the same time, combine the rise of multilateralism, the expansion of the
Internet, the proliferation of new international actors, the implementation of the DIP, the
porosity of the sovereignties of national states, the development of integration projects,
the presence of informal acts in diplomacy and new trends, among others; with the
prevailing constitutional designs.

The result of the conjunction of these elements resulted in the activities of the
Venezuelan diplomatic agents being recreated and

reinventing themselves in new behaviors and experiences that, even though they were
diplomatic in nature, were very innovative, efficient, versatile and, especially, due to
their most immanent characteristics, some seemed not to have support in the guiding
principles of the general theory of diplomacy. That is, they seemed to have evolved to a
single and distinctive point of thought, work and conviction of diplomatic activity.
Likewise, this apparent reality combined with some international experiences that
suggested the need to open a process of revisionism on the general theory of
diplomacy and that had gained momentum since the beginning of the nineties in the
sense that it was suspected that this theory was insufficient for explain the nature of
certain types of activities 5.

Even, to accommodate this approach, authors such as James Der Deriam (CFR.- DER
DERIAN: 1992) (who worked on an approach called Neo-diplomacy) and Ivo Duchacek
and Panayotis Soldatos (who in turn developed an approach called Paradiplomacy )
(CFR.- KRÄMER), opened the revisionist debate on diplomacy by analyzing how, at a
global level, organized civil initiatives and technology have been, little by little, fruitfully
and convincingly bringing governments closer together and, how these, now with an
innovative agreement that indicated an underlying atypical political will; in certain
cases, they agreed to respond to civil demands with profound restructuring of their
institutions, especially those with international repercussions.

5
 22 Venezuelan diplomatic experiences have been the product, in essence, of the
confrontation between tradition and modernity and for more than five years, through the
almost definitive redefinition of all the administrative guidelines that supported its
diplomatic obligations and functions, it has sought to find the role more adequate
before the NOI and the Bolivarian Constitution even at the cost of knowledge that for
4000 years was almost intact. Furthermore, today the administrative functions of
diplomats are no longer similar to those that occurred fifty or forty years ago, so it is not
inappropriate to outline a review process in the diplomatic theory that is handled in
many States of the world and it is not inappropriate either. consider that an alternative
approach could further explain the nature of those administrative functions.

For this reason, carrying out an investigation on these matters in the MRE would merit,
in our opinion, the use of the Neodiplomacy proposal because it enhances the
deficiencies of the general theory of diplomacy, giving continuity to its postulates, with
various arguments. novel theorists, among which, 1) the possibility of unofficial
behavior for the benefit of usual diplomatic activities is accepted; Likewise, 2) it handles
the possibility that the interests of the states may not be their own but those of a
community or integrated bloc to which they belong; 3) conceives the actions of
cyberpolitik and soft power in state actions at the international level; 4) reflects on the
preparation of diplomatic agents and the multifaceted plans they must use; 5)
recognizes the polycentric and multifaceted relationships on the world stage between
Traditional Actors (States), International Organizations (public and private) and New
International Actors (Non-Governmental Organizations); 6) reflects on the permeability
of national sovereignty as an irrefutable fact; 7) does not deny that multilateralism has
been imposed as a global option towards peace over bilateral schemes; 8) recognizes
that in recent years there has been a surge of new obligations for diplomatic officials
which, on the one hand, has required that they now

23 be more prepared, specialized and proactive, as well as take into account the
values of attachment to the institution and the country, along with the need to be aware
of working together; 9) inserts the theories of Human, Commercial, Political, Cultural,
Public, Food and Financial Security to understand the attractiveness of the new
interests of the subjects of international law; 10) considers the development of media,
technology and knowledge as simplifying elements of conventional diplomatic activities;
11) accepts that the correlation of forces between international actors are key elements
to resolve international issues; 12) accepts that there are elements of continuity with
the general theory of diplomacy, especially in the consular area; and finally, 13)
accepts that there are elements beyond the control of human will.

The use of this approach would allow us to explain this set of experiences that are so
typical that they are the unexpected result of the new concept of the Bolivarian
Venezuelan State that was born in 1999 and that, furthermore, were necessary
because if the MRE had not done so, surely, would have run the risk of being
dysfunctional to the interests of the nation and disappearing, giving way to another
more specialized institution to fulfill the entrusted functions. But, then, it is worth asking:
How was that possible? Could the general theory of diplomacy be insufficient to explain
those diplomatic behaviors in Venezuela that were the result of the conjunction of the
arrival of the 1999 Constitution and the prevailing forces coming from the NOI? Had a
unique type of diplomacy been created at a global level, so unique in some aspects as
to also distinguish itself on a new theoretical level, its own or participating in another?
Or was Venezuela, without realizing it, on the crest of the wave of a global or national
force that would inevitably lead to a rethinking of the diplomatic service? These
questions are difficult to answer, however, in this research we will try to address them
in depth.

24 1.2.- Research Objectives (General and Specific) General Objective: Determine

which actions of the diplomatic corps of the MRE denote the presence of new global
neo-diplomatic trends during the period 1999-2005 Specific Objectives: 1. Describe on
a theoretical level the characteristic actions of traditional diplomatic tendencies. 2.
Describe on a theoretical level the characteristic actions of current diplomatic trends. 3.
Compare the two trends. 4. Identify the areas of actions in which there are differences
between the two trends, to build the neodiplomatic theoretical approach. 5.
Conceptually and operationally define these areas of actions in order to differentiate
the typical forms that identify neodiplomacy. 6. Describe on an empirical level the
actions of the diplomatic corps of the MRE in the differentiating areas of neodiplomacy
during the study period. 7. Compare the empirical actions of the diplomatic corps of the
MRE during the study period with the theoretically differentiating actions of
neodiplomacy and based on what is established in the internal regulations of the
ministry. 8. Determine which diplomatic agents are protagonists of the regular activities
of the MRE. 1.3.- Justification of the Research: The usefulness of this research lies in
the fact that: 1) it is a framework of reference to understand how the administrative
functions of the diplomatic and non-consular corps of the MRE have been influenced
by the NOI and by the new system Venezuelan politician who since 1999 has defined a
new way of doing and exercising government based on constitutional principles; 2) it is
a source that indicates an idea of how the MRE can be analyzed through the
neodiplomatic approach; and 3) it is a work that opens the discussion about what deep
forces mobilize the recent changes in the MRE and how they do it given that it is no
longer convenient to explain the activities through the General Theory of Diplomacy
merely.

25 CHAPTER II.- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1.- The New International Order

(1989-2004):
“Never before have the components of the world order changed so quickly, profoundly
and widely as now – Frederic Emam-Zadé Gerardino

The signing of the Malta agreements (1989), signed by George Bush (USA) and Mijail
Gorbachev (USSR), established the end of the Cold War 6 and, with it, the end of the
rivalries between East and West and the inauguration of a new stage in international
dynamics (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001). This new dynamic manifested, from the
beginning, an optimism that was shared by the majority of the States of the world who,
confidently, watched as the international arena, little by little, became free of threats of
nuclear wars between two superpowers and opened paths for begin a stage based on
international cooperation and political understanding (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ:
2001). This concatenation of events attracted the attention of the world's international
relations chairs, among others, and almost immediately, they were inclined to compose
the changes that were occurring into precise and systematic concepts. Even Andrés
Rozental, in this regard, mentioned the following:

“The most privileged minds took on the task of trying out the definition of an NOI, of
interpreting the global changes, of giving a name to the stage of history that was
beginning to be experienced” (ROZENTAL: 1993, 20). This new historical stage, at
first, was arduously analyzed from two theoretical fronts of explanation, which were
based on the study of the two most outstanding elements of the new changes. On the
one hand, political analyzes noted how in this NOI the Nation State tended towards the
ultimate disappearance of a

For many the Malta meeting marked the end of the cold war, but for others the end of
the conflict took place on November 21, 1990 when the USA and the USSR and 30
other countries participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
signed the Charter of Paris, a document whose main purpose was to regulate
international relations after the end of the Cold War. The Charter included a non-
aggression pact between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

26 nascent globalism, not globality 7, as Silvestre Mendes once referred to, while on
the other hand, economist analyzes saw how the NOI favored economic
multilateralism: “where the military and ideological rivalries of the past would be
replaced by commercial competition and technological” (MENDES: 1997, 45).

Later, these elements were added to other more distinctive elements of the NOI, which
consolidated the idea that the traditional supports of international balance after the
Second World War had undoubtedly changed (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001). For
example, Cohen suggests that the technological advances and globalization of the last
ten years caused not only changes in the majority of the world's people, but also
caused institutional changes in States, especially in diplomatic institutions:

“Globalization has further expanded the purely economic spaces, including social,
political and cultural spaces; it has not only required a more dynamic diplomacy but as
a whole has allowed international relations to have more importance than they had
traditionally had” (COHEN : 1998, 50). Meanwhile, Beatriz Ramírez Vásquez adds the
following in a more holistic sense on the subject:

“Just a decade ago we could not imagine the pace of economic and political changes
that were about to occur within the international community. Not only does information
move rapidly from one side of the planet to the other, but also capital and goods move
at a speed that places us in a totally different context. Without a doubt, being immersed
in a global world has changed

For Ulrich Beck, globality is the process that creates transnational social links and
spaces by bringing third cultures to the foreground. While Globalism is the “conception
according to which the world market displaces or replaces political activity, that is, the
ideology of the dominance of the world market or the ideology of liberalism. This
proceeds in a monocausal and economistic manner and reduces the
pluridimensionality of globalization to a single dimension, the economic one, a
dimension that it also considers in a linear manner and puts on the table (when and if it
does so) all the other dimensions – globalizations. ecological, cultural, political and
social – just to highlight the alleged dominance of the world market system.” This vision
also assumes that Globality is related, in some way or another, to the positive facts that
come from globalization, unlike what globalism would be.

27 drastically the traditional scheme in which the States had been immersed,
especially since the Cold War” (RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001). But before continuing, it
is worth asking ourselves: what specifically do we mean by the International Order? In
the last fifty years there has been a great discussion about what the International Order
means and what its main characteristics are. From these reflections, there has been at
least moderate success in distinguishing some of the manifestations of this concept.
But its components still need to be analyzed more exhaustively; how they are born and
develop; how the States and the rest of the actors that intervene at the global level
influence (CFR.- LE DANTEC GALLARDO: 2001, 132); as well as defining what order
is and what requirements the world must meet to have order (CFR.- LE DANTEC
GALLARDO: 2001, 132).

And yet, despite the precarious progress of the discussions, Luis Dallanegra describes
the International Order as the set of rules of the game that regulates relations between
international actors and that occurs within an International System, which, in turn, It is
the sum of the patterns of interaction between international actors who establish power
relations that are conflictive or not, creating structures when these reveal polarizations
and tendencies of approach or distance towards other international actors (CFR.-
DALLANEGRA: 1998). The nature of these behaviors has its origin in the degree of
compatibility that the actors have with respect to other actors and depending on the
common and non-common interests at stake and the objectives that are pursued.

Throughout history, various types of configurations occurred in the international system

and each of them depended on the way in which the relationships between the main
actors were posed. In this sense, Raymond Aron classified international systems using
two criteria (CFR.- ARON: 1985):

28 • Through ideology: for Raymond Aron, the ideological prism could manifest itself in
two ways based on the ideological tendency of political regimes: Homogeneous
International System, where the States belong to the same concept of politics. These
systems are more stable and moderate, they favor the imposition of limits on violence,
they are predictable, they share values and principles and the intention to solve
common problems. An example is the international scene after the Congress of Vienna
(1815) (CFR.- LE DANTEC GALLARDO: 2001, 130). Heterogeneous International
System, where States are organized according to different principles and proclaim
contradictory values. Political regimes are based on contrary ideologies, eliminating the
possibility of predictability; The main actors present themselves as “enemies” and the
supreme objective is their own safety and the elimination of the rival. The classic
example is the period of the Cold War where the USA and the Soviet Union ascribed to
two diametrically opposed ideological and political concepts: capitalism-communism)
(CFR.- LE DANTEC GALLARDO: 2001, 131). • Through the relationship of forces or
configuration of power: for Raymond Aron, the relationship of forces or configuration of
power could manifest itself in two ways: Pluripolar or multipolar, where the main actors,
whose forces are not too unequal, are relatively numerous. . In this model, predictability
increases and the possibility of conflict decreases, and negotiation must take
precedence over combat in order to maintain balance. An example is the current
international scenario, where the poles of power in the economic sphere are located in
the USA, the European Economic Community and Japan (CFR.- LE DANTEC
GALLARDO: 2001, 131). Bipolar, where two actors dominate their rivals to the point
that each of them becomes the center of a coalition, with the secondary actors being
forced to position themselves with each other.

29 relationship to the blocks. The objective of the main actors is not to find themselves
at the mercy of their rival and prevent them from acquiring means superior to their own.
Alliances are permanent and there is a system of rewards and punishments within
each block. In this case, the example is once again the Cold War period from the end
of the Second World War until 1989 (CFR.- LE DANTEC GALLARDO: 2001, 131).
Finally, it is worth mentioning that there is a third model that Aron did not consider, but
other authors do: the unipolar system. The distinctive feature of this system is that a
powerful actor absorbs the others, eliminating them as international agents. The classic
example is the Roman Empire, where political units were conquered and became part
of the imperial system, with a greater or lesser degree of dependence, but all
responded to the same hegemonic center (CFR.- LE DANTEC GALLARDO: 2001,
131) .

Now, be it one way or another, the International System manifests the following
characteristics:

“a) It is not legally organized; b) It is decentralized and lacks a ruler or authorities; c)

The order will be given by the actors who have the greatest power; d) The relationships
that are established are of power, in a framework where the norms arise from the
coordination of the different rulers; e) There is no power that can demand compliance
with the rule or sanction for non-compliance; f) It is dynamic and is in constant
rearrangement movement; and g) The parts that compose it are: the structure and the
international actors” (LE DANTEC GALLARDO: 2001, 130). These characteristics,
especially the last one, tell us that if a change occurs in the disposition of the units that
make up the International System, we would witness a change in the structure that
would therefore take us, in theory, to the doors of an NOI, although This does not
emerge immediately and automatically (CFR.- LE DANTEC GALLARDO: 2001, 133)
and years of intersystemic transition pass (CFR.DALLANEGRA: 1998) until the NOI is
consolidated. Therefore, the analysis of

30 this field of study with a view to recognizing its characteristic elements today will
help us to achieve a notion of what, in reality, are the circumstances that have
influenced diplomatic institutions and theories worldwide. However, the only obstacle to
this analysis, in our opinion, is the risk that its conclusions may be useful for a very
short time due to the tendency that when an NOI comes to the fore, it lasts less time
than the previous model. (CFR.- SEGUEL HOLTHEUER: 1999).

In fact, Henry Kissinger mentions in this regard that international systems live in a very
precarious way. Each "world order" expresses the aspiration for permanence. Even the
elements that make up a new world order are in constant movement and the duration
of international systems is not very balanced (CFR.- KISSINGER: 1994, 806) 8.

“The order that arose because of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 lasted 150 years.
The international system created by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 was maintained
for 100 years and the international order characterized by the Cold War ended after 45
years. Never before have the components of the world order, its ability to interact and
its objectives changed so quickly, profoundly and globally” (SEGUEL HOLTHEUER:
1999). Therefore, to avoid this obstacle, it will be advisable that we focus our attention
on the most transcendental elements of the NOI that was consolidated after the fall of
the Bipolar International System (1989) and leave aside the elements most questioned
by scholars.

“International systems live precariously. Every expresses an aspiration to permanence;

the very term has a ring of eternity about it. Yet the elements which comprise it are in
constant flux” (CFR.KISSINGER: 1994, 806).

31 2.1.1- New International Actors:

Since 1989, several specific aspects have been named regarding the elements that
characterize the NOI. Up to this point in our research we have already named several
of these elements, but in order to establish a logical and rational line of analysis of
which elements have influenced diplomatic institutions worldwide, first of all, let us
begin by studying the incidence of a element in particular, the new international actors
9, which, for the purposes of our study, will be seen as a cause of other elements that
characterize the NOI.

The arrival and improvement of new international actors has been one of the aspects
that has stood out on the world stage with greater social force. Its origin is linked to the
rise of the Modern State, the consolidation of DIP 10; globalization and economic
integration; world trade; the incorporation of the individual petition system 11 with the
consequent democratization of international instruments 12; and the expansion of the
principles of Human Rights
Merle defines international actor as: “Any authority, organization, group and, even in
the extreme case, any person capable of performing a function... on the international
scene” (MERLE: 1991, 334). For its study, international actors are divided into: Public;
Private; State; Provinces; Municipalities; Nation state; Non-central government actors;
Intergovernmental organizations; Groups and individuals that do not represent the
states in which they are located and that carry out significant activity in the international
field; Non-governmental organizations; Multinational companies; International political
and ecclesiastical organizations; People of great prestige; Criminal organizations;
Business and consumer networks; Religious leaders; and Public opinion. (CFR.-
SUBDERE: 2005). “Transnational actors not only operate as pressure groups within
the state framework, but have achieved, in a large number of cases, the capacity to
operate as power factors. Its principle of operation is diverse, from its action under the
rule of law or outside it and its evaluative criteria of political, legal and ethical rationality
is also varied. (SUBDERE: 2005). 10 The strengthening of legal security at a global
level, without a doubt, made it possible for national and transnational civil organizations
to gain confidence and lose fear to enter the international sea and achieve various
objectives. 11 In this regard, Protocol No. 11 of the European Regional System, which
allowed direct access of the individual to the European Court of Human Rights.
Likewise, it is worth adding the recent approval of the Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, of 1999, which
incorporates the system of individual petitions. In this same sense, it is worth
mentioning the draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, which, in the same way, introduces the right of individual
petition. (See.- PIOVESAN: 2004). 12 “If States were for a long time the central
protagonists of the international order, today we witness the emergence of new
international actors, such as international organizations, regional economic blocs,
individuals and international civil society. The strengthening of international civil
society, through a network that links and promotes a network of dialogue between local
entities,
9

32 Humans. But it is worth mentioning that the presence of the new international
actors would not have been important, if not for the exceptional quality of their actions,
because this has expanded their level of participation and influence in the management
of world affairs, to the point that today the construction of some international agendas
is almost unthinkable without the presence of these unique actors (CFR.- SUBDERE:
2005).

The innovative factor of these actors focused on three facts: on the one hand, having
disputed and taken away from the States their prominence on the international scene,
that is, they eroded the quasi-monopoly of the States on foreign action (CFR.MARÍN:
2000 ); on the other, having symbolized the bridge that inserted the demands of civil
society on that same level and, finally, having proposed a new conceptualization of
power and the distribution of power as an exclusively state issue 13.

These new actors (groups or institutions with diverse disposition to environmental,

political, economic, social, cultural and even sports issues, among others, that have a
degree of influence capable of influencing their behavior or action in international life)
and their various forms of manifestation (companies

multinationals, transnational actors of all kinds, private banks, capital funds,

companies, international non-governmental organizations, groups

subnationals, etc.) (CFR.- SOTILLO: 2002); They demanded that the world's diverse
and multifaceted international institutions, public and private, make internal reforms.
regional and global, and the consolidation of the individual as a subject of international
law, demand the democratization of international instruments. And they even demand
access to international mechanisms and international justice itself.” (PIOVESAN:
2004). 13 “The emergence of transnational non-state actors – which in strategic jargon
are part of asymmetric threats – have generated new sources of power, and force us to
rethink the way power is distributed in international politics. The terrorist attacks against
the United States have raised this trend, which already existed but had a low profile, on
the international agenda. The groups that perpetrated the attacks have power, and are
capable of generating acts of force of global reach that redefine the agenda of the
hegemonic actor of the international system, an issue that is unattainable for many
states. However, this phenomenon is much more widespread than we usually want to
see. International criminal organizations or drug trafficking cartels have no less
capacity than Islamist terrorist networks. "They just haven't made the political decision
to use that power the way Al Qaeda did." (PIOVESAN: 2004).
33 to respond, adequately, to its incessant expansion and establishment. The
diplomatic activities of each State, for example, were, perhaps, the most affected by
these new actors because they closely shared the nature of the same sphere of action.
However, for some, this relationship affected the diplomatic foundations to the point of
causing a “crisis of diplomacy” (CFR.DANSPECKGRUBER: 2001), or as Oscar
Hernández says:

“The reality in which the Diplomatic agent moves is no longer as simply interstate as it
was in the past, since traditionally the international actors had been only the States.
Today there are also countless organizations, factors and realities that are so dynamic
that they place us on a plane that is as dissimilar as it is challenging. There are
international organizations, non-governmental organizations, insurgents and
belligerents that still produce a significant number of conflicts throughout the planet”
(HERNANDEZ: 1997). The oldest diplomatic structures date back more than four
thousand years (CFR.- COHEN: 1996, 2), and during all that time they have only
shared their natural scope with the States. In recent years, these structures have faced
the fact that Non-Governmental Organizations, multinational corporations and various
domestic and international interest groups have occupied and continue to conquer
privileged positions in this natural environment, which means a sensitive fracture to a
model institutional that remained unchanged in its foundations for more than forty
centuries. But, we must not make the mistake of confusing the New International
Actors as diplomatic agents, as Beatriz Ramírez Vásquez states:

“These new international actors that respond to the interests of governmental and non-
governmental sectors are not considered diplomats even though they are immersed in
the field that includes diplomacy” (RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 6).

34 The interference of these new actors in the world system and their influence, helped
by globalization and contained by the military security apparatus of the States, has
extended an extensive sense of legitimacy to each of the diplomatic initiatives and
strategies focused on the peace, therefore, now, they are elements to consider for any
approach and successful claim (CFR.-

DANSPECKGRUBER: 2001).

Furthermore, because new actors have specific interests, unlike States, whose
interests are diverse, they are groups capable of providing other actors, including
diplomatic cadres, with detailed information regarding a situation (CFR.-
DANSPECKGRUBER: 2001 ) and, also, they are capable of transmitting a high degree
of interest and enthusiasm for bringing to light non-traditional topics of global relevance
(CFR.- MARTINEZ, Freddy: 2003). In short, the exclusive jurisdiction of States is
questioned in some international spheres by these bodies and, now, traditional
diplomatic tasks (informing, communicating, negotiating and reporting across borders)
are increasingly being carried out by non-diplomatic agents. outside and inside
governments (CFR.- COHEN: 1996) 14.

“The exclusive jurisdiction of states is questioned in some quarters and non-state

bodies are active on the international scene. While international contacts and
negotiations proliferate, the traditional task of the diplomat – to report, communicate,
and negotiate across borders – are being increasingly performed by non-diplomats,
inside and outside government” (CFR.- COHEN: 1996).

14

35 2.1.2.- The Rise of Multilateralism:

Parallel to the phenomenon of new international actors, the emergence and imposition
of multilateral initiatives has given a new nuance to this NOI. Historically, international
relations were marked by incessant unilateral and bilateral practices between nation
states; However, although these have not disappeared, the international vocation to
search for decisions that influence the international scene and whose origin is based
on multilateral agreement, is an exceptional and auspicious fact for world peace.
Multilateralism

“hope has grown for a new world, instantly communicated and supportive, supported
by the conviction of the ethical imperative of international norms that organize
international conduct around universally shared values” (GARCÍA SAYÁN: 2001).
However, multilateral aspirations must recognize that unilateralism (and bilateralism)
have shown significant advantages in the pragmatic treatment of crises, according to
the current circumstances and their national interest (CFR.GARCÍA SAYÁN: 2001),
therefore:

“In the context of this still unresolved tension (…) the benefits that these unilateral
policies bring in the short term must be carefully analyzed in light of their costs in the
long term due to the pernicious effects that erode multilateralism, the stability of the
rules and legitimacy of the international system as a viable mechanism to promote
world peace, resolve conflicts and promote balanced and sustainable development. In
recent years, the new political reality convinced us of the need for a substantive
change in international organizations, their agendas and negotiation processes, and
the urgency of a new consensus on a practical approach to multilateralism. The current
challenge for multilateralism is posed as a form of organization of world politics and the
global economy through different spaces for dialogue, international negotiation and
setting of rules, around a common agenda. Agenda that reflects not only the interests
of the most powerful States and in which all States share concerns and challenges with
other transnational actors in

36 around the defense and promotion of democracy, human rights, and international
cooperation” (GARCÍA SAYÁN: 2001). In view of this, the development of
multilateralism, according to Kim Holmes, will only be possible if multilateral diplomacy
stops producing more than empty declarations and tangibly advances peace, freedom,
sustainable development, health and humanitarian assistance in benefit of ordinary
people on all continents (CFR.- HOLMES: 2003). Although, in our opinion, the
development of multilateralism will advance in great strides, in this new order, when the
United States and other international powers perceive that unilateral actions no longer
offer the same advantages that they once offered for their foreign policy and national
security, Or, in the words of Frederic Emam-Zadé Gerardino: “It may well be that
multilateralism is the only sensible path the US could take in foreign policy. This path,
however, will not be easy for you, as it will be very uncomfortable for you to be a super
power and limit yourself to the decisions of others. This path will not be easy for the
United Nations Organization either. The problems of Somalia, Haiti and the Baltic
region have opened the question and have threatened to destroy the good reputation
of the United Nations Organization as a forum for global multilateral decisions, since
both interventions are seen more as US interventions and not as much as interventions
of the United Nations Organization” (EMAM-ZADÉ GERARDINO: 2000). The incessant
multilateral trends, under the shadow of globalization, have meant that the various
agencies in charge of the foreign affairs of the States must face the new dynamics with
the need to prepare their diplomatic corps and agents not only in traditional issues of
their policy. exterior, but also, in diverse and multifaceted topics (CFR.- STEMPEL D.:
1995, 1-6). Among these topics, very typical of Multilateral Diplomacy (CFR.-
MORALES LAMA: 2004, 10) 15, are those related to economic development (CFR.-
STEMPEL D.: 1995, 2), the

Manuel Morales Lama defines Multilateral Diplomacy in the following way: “It is the
modality of Diplomacy that generally refers to relations between more than two States
(or these with other subjects of International Law) and can also take on a permanent or
temporary nature. The first is enhanced through the

fifteen

37 which has been a mandatory reference topic in recent decades as well as religious,
military and scientific topics (CFR.- STEMPEL D.: 1995, 2). In this sense, Rosario
Green mentions the following in reference to the Mexican experience:

“The continuous expansion of international society has made the agenda of interstate
relations more complex, in such a way that an active and moderate diplomacy must
bring together diverse knowledge, specialties and experience for Mexico's insertion into
the international economy” (GREEN: 1999 , 33). Likewise, the advance of Multilateral
Diplomacy and its proliferation at a global level where, now, various nations with
heterogeneous cultural identities meet to discuss global issues, has emphasized the
need for Intercultural Diplomacy (CFR.- STEMPEL D.: 1995, 3 ), which emphasizes
that diplomatic bodies, as institutional organizations whose nature does not deviate
from negotiation, must seek to acquire knowledge and complete information about the
values and ideologies of the nations of the world to obtain a more cosmogonic vision of
the interests present in the negotiation processes.

Multilateral Diplomacy had its true impetus at the end of the Cold War, when, after
forty-five years, according to Henry Kissinger: “the men in white hats accepted the
transformation of the men in black hats” (KISSINGER: 1994, 130) 16 , thus creating a
field conducive to a more active diplomacy that required the foreign ministries to have a
powerful capacity for analysis and response, full of high-level technical work and
carried out by diplomats in-house, who have the necessary knowledge and
experiences in the field. area (CFR.PLANTEY, Alan. In: MORALES LAMA: 2002, 14).

International Organizations, while the second is carried out through international

conferences” (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 10). 16 “The men in the white hats
accepted the conversion of the men in black hats” (KISSINGER: 1994, 130).

38

More recently, Multilateral Diplomacy, as an instrumental manifestation of

multilateralism, has achieved great dynamism in international political spaces focused
on integration processes (CFR.- PEÑA: 2000) 17. In recent years, it is common to see
in international meetings and conferences or summits how representatives of many
countries around the world advocate the need to develop community (common)
policies between their States. These initiatives seek to formalize integration projects
that express the determined will to: build shared paths, through cooperation, towards
the accelerated development of their economies and obtain a political order capable of
deepening the principles of institutional functionality necessary for that development,
that is, democratic principles (CFR.- OWEN: 2004).

When integration projects begin to take shape, Multilateral Diplomacy begins to play
more significant roles since, through it, the formal guidelines and rules of the process
that proposes the union of national wills will be built.

The multilateral negotiations that precede an integration project, without a doubt, are
arduous. Overcoming asymmetries between States interested in participating in the
union are topics of great debate and constant monitoring, not to mention the careful
debates on the establishment of the legal framework that will demarcate the
dimensions of the organization once integrated. States analyze

carefully the positions of their counterparts and in the search for the optimal and fair
agreement, they will seek consensus, however, international economic integration
processes will always be the result of uncontrollable forces and

17

According to Félix Peña, integration projects presuppose the existence of spaces

belonging to two or more sovereign States willing to reciprocal cooperation with the
objective of expanding their exchanges and stimulating their development through
common legal and economic institutions (CFR.- PEÑA: 2000).

39 irresistible, so there will always be a margin of risk and uncertainty for the decisions
made (CFR.- LIZANO: 2000). “In some cases, integration occurs in an orderly,
consensual and balanced manner. In other cases, spontaneous capital movements
and massive population migrations lead to imbalances, tensions, inequalities,
weaknesses and serious social and economic risks” (MARTÍNEZ: 2002). In this way,
the deep forces (CFR.- BOERSNER: 2003) 18 of international relations also constitute
an obstacle to the prosperity of the decisions and intentions originating from multilateral
agreement and a challenge for diplomacy.

2.1.3.- The Consolidation of International Law:

The relations of States on the international scene throughout history have always been
marked by incessant wars and conflicts. This made the world scene look like an
arbitrary and congested field that was difficult to regulate and where peace was
considered an aspiration, almost a dream, unattainable by the political structures of
those times. But starting in the 20th century, a global initiative began to emerge, a little
more formal, to enforce compliance with an international legal framework capable of
peacefully resolving disputes, as well as capable of regulating and punishing the
conduct of States that threaten the healthy coexistence of the international community.
International Law, since then, has made so much progress that it has established itself
in recent years as the most actively progressive branch of legal science, the most
innovative and the one that offers the best expectations (CFR.- MORALES LAMA:
2004, 18). And although today its forms and practices are not perfect, at least, the
According to Demetrio Boersner: Deep forces are undetectable tendencies that persist
on the international scene and which remain absent from the attention of States,
researchers and political and internationalist analysts, but which at the same time
surreptitiously configure and redefine global dynamics although their own origin comes
from international society. This term was introduced by Pierre Renouvin in the sixties
(60's). (See.- BOERSNER: 2003) or (See.- RENOUVIN: 1982).
18

40 International Law gave a periodic touch of stability to the ancient and convulsed
world panorama and built peaceful paths for the resolution of disputes. These elements
configured a new type of game rules that led to redefining the world order as an area
thirsty for new forms of legality and legitimacy (CFR.- HEIN: 2002, 3); and more, when
the relations of States multiplied and touched on new topics of interest in the last sixty
years, causing International Law to extend to various areas to strengthen the
harmonious reciprocal coexistence between States.

International Law is a set of principles and norms that determines the mutual rights and
duties of States and other subjects of the international community (CFR.- HEIN: 2002,
3). This discipline has evolved from a classical doctrine (which only recognized States
as subjects of international law), to a modern doctrine (which admits the individual,
international organizations, supranational entities, transnational companies and States
as subjects of international law) (CFR.- HEIN: 2002, 3). Its development was related to
the rise of democratic societies over the dictatorial systems of Latin America, the
experience of Yugoslavia, the Second World War, the birth of the United Nations (UN),
among others, although its formal origin was the Treaty of the Peace of Westphalia in
1648 (CFR.- SA INZ: 2003), then the French Revolution and the Congress of Vienna of
1815 (CFR.- GARCÍA MELENDEZ: 2002). However, only in recent years has it been
able to structure a solid legal system, specifically, when: A) it came to define which
subjects the norm could be applied to and, B) it distinguished which norms were
specific to International Law (CFR.- SAINZ: 2003).

International Law, when establishing the norm, restricts the rights of States in the
relevant matter and specifies that said rights are limited by the rights of other States.
This decision-making power of International Law is defined as an extra-legal
framework; prohibits acts against order, morality and good

41 common interest of the community from a level much higher than the will of the
States and their conception of sovereignty. So why do States abide by International
Law? According to Andrea Christianne Zomosa Signoret, this is because:

“Despite the lack of a legislative power and an international executive authority to

guarantee the maintenance of the legal order, the reality is that, almost all the time,
nations abide by international law, and that it has developed in such a way which,
today, has great significance for the behavior of any nation although government
officials hardly know it. This is because, undoubtedly, there are other extralegal forces
that serve as a stimulus to the observance of its principles and the fulfillment of its
obligations, and which show that international law is not only coercive, but is based on
cooperation and regulation of the conduct of nations and that, as Schwarzenberger
said, in addition to the right to power there is that of reciprocity and coordination. States
decide to recognize the intrinsic obligatory nature of international law and prefer the
ulterior interest of having a stable world system over others that could bring them
closer benefits, but that could have negative consequences in the short, medium or
long term” (ZOMOSA SIGNORET: 2003 , 187-188). Likewise, Andrea Zomosa
mentions what reasons a State may have to violate International Law:

“Although almost all nations abide by the law, ensuring that they always do so would
be an exaggeration since, on the other hand, violations are also often resorted to.
Although law enforcement is assumed to be rational policy, nations are not always
rational and do not always consciously make balances between costs and benefits or,
in doing so, find that the benefits of breaking a law far outweigh the disadvantages. The
costs of violations are not as visible as their benefits and, conversely, the gains from
compliance are unpredictable and long-term, and a nation will be able to make the
political decision to violate the law as long as it is willing to tolerate the consequences. ”
(ZOMOSA SIGNORET: 2003, 190-191). International Law thus frames a renunciation
of unlimited sovereignty (CFR.GARCÍA MELENDEZ: 2002) and is structured as an
institutional language to organize power relations between nations and give fixity to
their meaning (CFR.DECAUX, E. In: ZOMOSA SIGNORET: 2003, 186-191). The
organized international community, now, is not as sovereign as before, but justice,
order,

42 stability and aspirations for peace are sufficient compensatory elements for that
“loss.”

Currently, International Law is divided into several aspects 19, and two of the most
notable are: DIP and Private International Law. Private International Law is a set of
rules that regulate legal and controversial relationships between natural persons of
different nationalities, as well as disputes arising from antagonistic or incompatible
legal systems (CFR.- GUERRA: 2003). While the DIP (or Law of People) is the set of
rules and principles that regulates the relationships and principles of people or legal
subjects in the international community (CFR.- SAINZ: 2003). Its function, according to
Manuel Morales Lama, is threefold: First, it establishes the duties and rights of actors in
the international community. Next, it determines the powers of each State and, finally,
regulates international organizations or institutions (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004,
19).

The paradigm of the DIP is to protect the individual before the State (CFR.- SAINZ:
2003). This novelty is unique in the NOI and focuses on the fact that the individual and
the State are subjects of international law. But, for the DIP to be able to impose justice
in these cases, it must proceed from a level higher than the scope and practice of the
domestic law of the States. For this reason, the International Court of Human Rights in
The Hague and other Human Rights commissions were created as institutions with
jurisdiction to hear cases where the excesses of States have
International Law legislates and regulates various areas based on various matters
that, traditionally, were the subject of claims by States. Just as in a community of
neighbors, International Law exposes the rules of good neighborliness in very specific
legal and doctrinal points; Thus, it offers States, and their antagonistic interests, a way
to channel their opinions through formal parameters without the need to use force. For
example, among the subjects it regulates we can name: Diplomatic Law, International
Economic Law, International Cooperation Law, Economic Integration Law, Community
Law, International Environmental Law, Law of the Sea, Aeronautical Law, Space Law,
International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, International
Refugee Law, Consular Law, among others. For any of these regulations to be valid in
the internal legal system of each State, the State must sign and ratify the treaty that
gave rise to the regulatory framework. Here appears the discussion between the
conflict between the Internal Law of the State and International Law. (See.-
SEPÚLVEDA: 1995).
19

43 harmed individuals. However, its consensual nature and its institutional weakness
currently limit its effectiveness (CFR.- ZOMOSA SIGNORET: 2003, 184), for this
reason, the D IP seems incomplete and empty to require mandatory nature (CFR.-
ZOMOSA SIGNORET: 2003, 180-186).

The mandatory nature of the DIP is a difficult issue in the NOI and this is due to the fact
that some States resent how this right limits their own sovereignty. Previously, when a
State violated the role of the individual as a subject of international law, especially with
regard to matters of human rights (jus cogens principles) (CFR.- SEPÚLVEDA: 1995,
176), there was no way to judge responsibilities. ; With the arrival of the DIP, those
responsible had a standard to be judged and, even, States could be taken to trial.
However, in this regard there is a caveat: “Foreign States are prevented from
performing legislative, administrative or judicial functions in the territory of the state that
exercises exclusive internal sovereignty there. That a foreign law is given applicability
in a sovereign state can only be a consequence of an international legal norm
contained in a treaty or of an internal legal norm of the receiving state that allows the
extraterritorial applicability of that foreign legal norm. This occurs in matters of
international conflict of laws, in private international law” (CFR.- GARCÍA MELENDEZ:
2002). Therefore, since States are not capable of administering justice, it is
international organizations that administer it, so States see how their sovereignty is
reduced since they can be intervened in light of a binding decision against them (CFR.
- SAINZ: 2003).

44 The consolidation of international organizations as a fundamental political

instrument in the relations of States developed after the Second World War. Regional
organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS); supranational
organizations such as the European Union (EU); universal and technical organizations
such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the WTO;
specialized UN bodies such as the General Assembly or the International Court of
Justice, and non-UN bodies

Governments, such as those for the defense of human rights, the environment and
democracy, became subjects of international law of great importance. Even they, in
contemporary times, have emphasized that international law should no longer justify
either its existence or its mandatory nature (CFR.- ZOMOSA SIGNORET: 2003, 191-
192). Although International Law should assume greater explanations about the
interpretation and significance of controversies and their resolution, for some, it is
becoming discriminatory since its application seems to depend on the most powerful
States (CFR.- ZOMOSA SIGNORET: 2003, 191-192).

The strengthening of International Law and other regulatory structures; the sensitive
loss of sovereignty of the States; the accentuation of Human Rights; The subjectivity of
the Individual before the State and the propagation of international organizations,
among others, have structured a new meaning in the international relations of States.
This panorama forced the diplomatic structures of countries around the world to make
major reformulations in their institutions. In this sense, Raymond Cohen, thinking about
these phenomena and globalization, noted that diplomacy has changed substantially:

45 “In the past, diplomacy was seen as the main mechanism for the management of
international transactions, but one of the byproducts of globalization has been an
erosion of the exclusive functions and prerogatives of States and of the professions
that once held them. they favored The state is still important, but it is observable that
supranational organizations, business corporations, other transnational bodies and
non-governmental organizations have revived the medieval rights of non-sovereign
entities to receive envoys, conduct negotiations and conclude agreements” (COHEN :
nineteen ninety six). 20 Curiously, in our opinion, when States had the need to form
new diplomatic structures to exercise permanent representation before the first
international organizations, such as the League of Nations or the subsequent UN, there
the diplomatic structures known to more than four thousand years and, in itself, the
general theory of diplomacy, suffered a noticeable change that did not attract due
attention from scholars. If we bring up the fact that Marxist theory, for example, at one
point could no longer maintain that States were the only actors on the international
stage (statecentrism) and almost immediately entered into a process of revisionism that
paved the way to neo-Marxism, we see no plausible explanation why the general
theory of diplomacy has not entered into a process of priority revisionism prior to the
works of authors such as Ivo Duchacek and James Der Deriam, almost forty years
after those events. But in one way or another, International Law resized the dimensions
of diplomacy in that: a) it required new institutional structures to face the changes; b) it
merited the assimilation of varied and non-traditional interests by the States, which
multiplied the levels of diplomatic action; c) promoted the qualitative proliferation of
functional interests for the international community and; d) made diplomacy a more
dynamic, incessant and open field (democratic diplomacy).
“In the past, diplomacy was seen as the key mechanism responsible for managing
international transactions, yet one of the by-products of globalization is an erosion of
the exclusive functions and prerogatives of the state and the professions that served it.
States remain very important, but observably supranational organizations, trading
corporations, others transactional bodies, and nongovernmental organizations, have
revived the medieval right of non-sovereign entities to send and receive envoys,
conduct negotiations, and conclude agreements” (COHEN: 1996).
twenty

46 2.1.4.- The New Conflicts: For more than forty years the world was ideologically
and politically divided into two recognizable, defining and contradictory hegemonic
forces of power. After the end of World War II, two blocks of countries built until 1989 a
bipolar world order similar to the one the world experienced two thousand years before
in the Roman Empire (between Athens and Sparta) (CFR.- JØRGENSEN: 1997). But
on this occasion, the USA (exalting democratic and capitalist values) and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (defending communist or socialist values), led a struggle for
control of important spaces of influence worldwide, each using the help and support
from a large group of satellite countries geographically spread throughout the world.

Confrontation and threats of nuclear war ceased with the collapse of the Soviet Union;
process that, although it had begun in the mid-eighties 21 and continued in gradual
development until the early years of the nineties, in the eyes of the world had
culminated with the collapse of the Berlin Wall (1989), a fact symbolic and
extraordinary that gave a definitive date to the end of the Cold War. From that moment
on, a true change of era was felt in the international environment. The first trends
showed: a) How the world was entering an unstable and fragmented political order
(CFR.- PAÑEDA REINLEIN: 2002, 2); b) How the global military-strategic hegemony of
the USA was affirmed (CFR.FUENTES: 2004, 1); c) How a system of international
economic relations based on market mechanisms expanded (CFR.- PAÑEDA
REINLEIN: 2002, 1-2); d) How democratic values and universal respect for Human
Rights expanded throughout the world as a universal value (CFR.- PAÑEDA
REINLEIN: 2002, 11); e) How a multipolar economic order was structured (CFR.-
PAÑEDA
The dismantling of the Soviet Union began to manifest itself with the arrival of Mikhail
Gorbachev to the government and the application of two political doctrines
unprecedented in the history of the Soviet community: Glasnost and Perestroika.
twenty-one

47 REINLEIN: 2002, 10); f) How there is no longer the same control as that
experienced in the Cold War (CFR.- BOERSNER: 2003) and f) How hope for a stable
and lasting world peace arose.

But that hope for peace did not last long 22 . According to González Ojeda, the
remaining conflicts in Europe and other parts of the Post-Cold War world, such as
growing ethnic and political tensions in North Asia and the Korean Peninsula, and the
tendency towards genocide in some regions of Africa, supported the emergence of
threats (CFR.- GONZÁLEZ OJEDA: 2001). On the other hand, Ernesto López goes
much further when he mentions that, today, there are “new threats”: “The
multidimensionality of the security problem is clearly manifested, in my view, in what
are now called 'new threats'. '. To the classic or conventional threats derived from the
eventuality of external military aggression, these 'new' ones are added, configuring a
novelly multifaceted picture” (LÓPEZ, Ernesto: 2001, 377). These new threats to
security have a fractal character (CFR.- NEF: 2001, 43), in which dysfunctions at a
micro (local) level have macro repercussions, and vice versa. It is for this reason that
Human Security 23 is a State policy, based on multilateral international cooperation,
analysis, planning and multi-sectoral action, whose guidelines are both preventive and
pro-active (CFR.- NEF : 2001, 43). That is to say, new threats and conflicts put Human
Security at risk and to weaken this trend it is necessary, in some way, for insecurity to
be carefully managed by States. However, there is a problem according to Jorge Nef:
For example, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait triggered the Gulf War in 1991. In the 1994
annual report of the United Nations Development Programme, New Dimensions of
Human Security, reference is made to the concept of Human Security in the areas of
employment security, income, health, the environment, security regarding crime and
common violence. This report ends by calling for the search for a new development
paradigm "that places human beings at the center of development, considers economic
growth as a means and not as an end, protects the life opportunities of future
generations by just like current generations and respect the natural systems on which
all human beings depend. (CFR.- SILVA: 2001, 65).
23 22

48 “First of all, the problem of insecurity (…) is transnational, in which borders and
sovereignties lose importance. Faced with them, bilateralism and hegemonic power
tend to be inoperative and the existing multilateral mechanisms, despite being
essential, are still inadequate. However, addressing these problems requires concerted
action, prevention, and the configuration of increasingly broader security communities.
Second, insecurity is the result of complex threats to the security of everyone. In them,
environmental, economic, social, political and cultural variables are systemically
intertwined that cannot be addressed with the usual economic tools (for example,
technical assistance or foreign investment) and military tools (counterinsurgency, low
intensity operations)” (CFR.- NEF: 2001, 42-43). This new international dynamic
overcame the latent and lethal threat, such as

predictable, of international relations during the Cold War and replaced it with a set of
invertebrate, poorly predictable and more real threats (CFR.- PALMA: 2001, 108).
When the control that the United States and the Soviet Union maintained in all the
communities of the world disappeared, the new international scene was left adrift.
There was no longer the same control as that experienced in the Cold War (CFR.-
BOERSNER: 2003) and the minor conflicts that for so long were contained by another
greater threat began to appear in small pockets on all the continents of the world.
According to Claudio Fuentes, the new global conflicts (or new threats) in the Post-
Cold War stage can have five aspects that determine their nature or tendency: “A)
Interstate Border Conflicts: In Latin America, there are 10 active border conflicts
between 1990 and In 2001, there were 16 militarized disputes due to border conflicts.
However, there has been a significant decrease in the recurrence of this type of
conflict. B) Interstate conflicts over access and control of technology: This trend has
accompanied us for centuries, especially those linked to military development. Today it
translates into the control of access to nuclear technology and, more recently, to
technology for genetic manipulation. The United States defined “rogue states” as those
nations that have the potential to develop nuclear capabilities, including Iraq, Iran,
Libya, Pakistan and North Korea. C) Conflicts over access to natural resources,
including water: The United Nations has just published a report indicating that the fight
for water will be one of the main sources of conflict in the future. To this must be added
the constant pressure for access to other resources for the production of

49 energy and food. D) Civil war within a State: A fourth type of conflict refers to civil
wars, whether ethnic, religious, political or derived from other economic, social or
cultural conflicts that confront a force that seeks to dispute the control of state power.
those in power. The case of Guatemala and El Salvador in past decades and, in a
certain sense, Colombia today would illustrate this situation in the region. E) Failed
States or land without law: characteristic in countries where the lack of a state that
organizes basic elements of national coexistence is observed. These are situations
where severe institutional conditions result in state organizations being incapable of
providing security as well as their basic services (health, housing, education, justice) to
society as a whole, and a deep questioning of the legitimacy of the state. State. One of
the defining characteristics of a failed state is linked to the loss of control over the use
of force by the State. That scenario is related to significant levels of poverty, drug and
weapons trafficking networks, and the disintegration of basic social organizations in a
society. Recently we have seen this scenario repeated in Afghanistan, Angola,
Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Sudan”
(SOURCES: 2004, 4-6). This panorama influenced the conception of security and
defense of the States and gave rise to the emergence of new conditions of
development and new realities (CFR.- LÓPEZ, Ernesto: 2001, 376). For example, the
economic interdependence encouraged by globalization and the formation of coalitions
to confront conflicts in the international arena (from the Gulf War to the current war in
Afghanistan) and the increasing commitment of medium and even small countries in
integration of forces assigned to peacekeeping missions, achieved significant changes
at the level of international security (CFR.LÓPEZ, Ernesto: 2001, 376) 24. And even
once the conflicts became a serious concern for the international community, it did not
take long for the UN to take action on the matter. And by the year 2000

24

It is worth mentioning that Ernesto López presents these examples inspired by the
works of Keohane R. and Nye J. (CFR.- KEOHANE: 1988).

50 “A first discussion took place based on Info me Brahimi that aimed to improve the
efficiency of peace operations. Then, the UN produced the report “The Responsibility to
Protect” (2001) where emphasis was placed on the security of the individual and,
finally, the High Commission established by the UN Secretary General to address
threats to global security (2004) (…) The spirit of these initiatives has been to generate
conflict prevention tools such as early warning mechanisms, specific sanctions,
diplomatic missions, and the preventive deployment of peacekeeping operations”
(SOURCES: 2004, 4-6) 25. Likewise, among other elements that have mutated is the
“object of international security”, as stated by Ernesto López:

“The object of security can be, as it was exclusively in the past, the State. But any
collectivity that is threatened in some way can also be (for example, minorities within
multicultural or multinational States: Serbs, Bosnians, Kurds, Yanomanis, Kamayuras,
etc.). Or also the individuals that make up a State or a society, that is, simply the
people” (CFR.- LÓPEZ, Ernesto: 2001, 377). Finally, Ernesto López also affirms that
the actors, scenarios and levels of action in international security have changed in light
of classical knowledge: “The actors have also multiplied. Along with the classic and still
central State, societies, groups and even individuals have gained prominence in
matters of security. There are also transnational actors (NATO, for example). The
scenarios, for their part, are supranational, national or subnational. Al Qaeda, the
organization headed by Bin Laden, is a subnational actor. It deploys its action on the
transnational stage when it exercises the offensive, and subnationally, when it
exercises the defensive. And from the point of view of the purposes of its actions it
seems to invoke a supranational and supraterritorial object: the defense of the 'true'
'Islam'” (CFR.LÓPEZ, Ernesto: 2001, 377).

25

“In comparative terms, it is relevant to note that in the ten years following the end of
the Cold War, 103 armed conflicts were evident, of which 93 corresponded to internal
conflicts. Therefore, currently the world faces mostly conflicts of an intra-state nature.
One of the main consequences of this type of conflict is the high proportion of civilian
victims and the increase in forced and massive population displacements, which in
some cases led to mass killings of civilians. (SOURCES: 2004).

51 In short, the new conflicts and their diverse ways of manifesting themselves have
caused the international regime to organize itself to focus threats and design concerted
courses of action (CFR.- ROJAS ARAVENA: 2001, 25). This parameter of action
immediately opened the way to Preventive Diplomacy, which, as a natural response of
the States, came to channel the threats based on the anticipated analysis of the risks in
order to create opportune and untimely spaces for dialogue, as soon as possible.
suspect the harmful potential of some new social phenomenon of an international
nature. “In this perspective, we appreciate that preventive diplomacy has been
conquering an essential area for action in the international arena, through its various
forms, such as efforts aimed at preventing an armed conflict, as fact-finding missions,
good offices and goodwill, such as the appointment of special envoys in areas of
tension and efforts to bring the parties to a possible conflict to the negotiating table. On
the other hand, just like preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution, functions inherent
to the United Nations, the concept of 'peacekeeping' has been expanding to a diversity
of activities and functions for the UN. Hence, the task of peacekeeping, like that of
establishing peace, is subject to an essential limitation: for peacekeeping to have
results, it is essential that the parties to a conflict have the political will necessary for
this” (CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: 2001, 36).
Preventive Diplomacy works within the limits permitted by International Law and
complements the need for the State's foreign policy (CFR.MORALES LAMA: 2004-b).
If this were not the case, the execution of preventive procedures, based on the analysis
of large sources of information, with the purpose of: a) avoiding or mitigating the
undesirable consequences of international events that could significantly affect the
internal sphere of the countries. ; b) reduce the risks for people and, c) consolidate
Human Security at all its levels and with it classical security and global security (CFR.-
ROJAS ARAVENA: 2001, 25); It would be useless due to its lack of
representativeness.

52 2.1.5.- Multipolar Economic and Political Order: It would be imprecise to say that
there is a multipolar military order in this NOI. Previously we suggested that in this
sense the USA is a military and strategic hegemony without comparison on a global
level. However, in economic and political issues the scene changes. In these issues,
multilateralism is palpable. In an economic sense, the opening of national markets, the
increase in international trade and financial flows, the spatial reorganization of
production, the diffusion of labor-saving technologies, the reform of the welfare state,
the incessant division of labor, among others, it resulted in: a) an increase in
interdependence between different countries and economies; b) the birth of a process
of fragmentation and differentiation at an intrastate and/or local scale and, especially;
c) the manifest tendency towards the formation of regional economic poles (CFR.-
LÓPEZ, Ernesto: 2001, 376); d) the growing awareness of the need for new
international mechanisms that channel the energies of globalization; e) the
multiplication of supraregional political units and f) the growing adhesion of countries to
new multilateral institutions (Kyoto Protocol, International Criminal Court) (CFR.-
PAÑEDA REINLEIN: 2002).
From the economic point of view there are three centers of power: USA, Japan, Europe
with India and China rapidly developing their industrial and technological capacity
(CFR.- SOURCES: 2004, 2). These centers maintain attention to access and control of
natural resources essential for their economies. In this sense, this lack stimulates a
beneficial inequality for the multipolar order, since by needing natural resources such
as water, marine resources or energy resources, a minimum degree of necessary and
desirable interdependence is created with other States for the constant development of
their economic systems. .

53 However, in the face of commercial, financial and environmental crises, greater

interdependence creates higher levels of vulnerability in the areas of influence (CFR.-
BORJAS). Here there is an important difference between countries that have a state
“cushion” or “reserve” to respond to a crisis by providing basic services to the
population, and those that do not have such capacity (CFR.- FUENTES: 2004, 4).
Likewise,

“Higher levels of interdependence also highlight the existence of 'Global Public

Goods', that is, goods on which no exclusion can be applied to any human being, for
example, living in an uncontaminated environment. It is a systemic view, which
recognizes that nations and people cannot be isolated or excluded from a globally
related system. The pollution from a car in Ohio directly affects the possibility of
children acquiring cancer in Punta Arenas due to the weakening of the Ozone layer”
(CFR.- FUENTES: 2004, 4) 26. Interdependence also recreates a global production
chain. Access to products from different countries takes extraordinary levels in this
order, however, the globalization of finance and production does not imply the
emergence of a completely open world without borders, but rather, the emergence of
large economic zones. supranationals, which internally practice free trade, and which,
externally, relate to the rest, configuring a more complex multipolar world (CFR.-
PAÑEDA REINLEIN: 2002).

“Several other elements have been considered 'global public goods' including human
rights, human development, financial stability, and even democracy” (FUENTES:
2004).

26

54 “A few years ago, at the end of the 1980s, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 'triad'
theory seemed incontrovertible. In the new division of the world into spheres of
economic influence, the United States would continue to retain its role as global arbiter
and its most direct action would be exercised on the American continent. Japan, and
around it the 'four dragons' of the Pacific, structured the economic space of Asia, while
Europe would open towards the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe.
However, during the 90s some substantial changes have occurred, due to
globalization. In Asia, China and India are the new poles in full growth, self-sufficient.
Little by little, new regional associations are opening up in that region of the world. The
United States shows very specific interests in the American continent, fundamentally
related to strategic resources, while Latin American supraregional associations with
great strength and economic potential, such as the Southern Common Market, are
showing a desire for equidistance between the United States of America and Europe. .
Finally, the European Union is not limited to extending its cooperation towards Eastern
Europe, where various countries, particularly (...) Poland and Hungary, are rapidly
approaching European growth standards, but has shown the desire to generate a
dynamic of creation of a free trade area in the Mediterranean. In short, the world,
contrary to those predictions, seems to be heading towards a multipolar configuration,
with new countries that can become future epicenters of supranational spaces and with
new regional associations on the five continents” (CFR.- PAÑEDA REINLEIN: 2002 ).
This global trend leads us to believe in the displacement of geopolitics to
geoeconomics as centers of confrontation and generation of conflicts (CFR.BORJAS).
This approach is based on the fact that international economic agents acquire the
character of new protagonists in the international sphere and by taking this leading
role, trade negotiations become the central axis that will determine not only the future
of a commercial alliance but also , that of world peace. It is enough, for example, that a
country (or block of integrated countries) needs a trade item from another country (or
block of integrated countries) and the latter, considering the exchange harmful, does
not agree to the former's requests for it to be causes economic and political tension.
And although it is unlikely that today this situation will end in a war, world history is full
of experiences that remind us that this has been the case. Furthermore, in our time
there are new economic and financial variables that, in theory, could cause tension due
to their

55 vulnerable and fluctuating nature capable of altering the economic stability of

countries and markets (CFR.- BORJAS). For example, unlike previous centuries,
tariffs, trade policies, monetary convertibility, technology, profits and costs,
compatibility of business configurations, macroeconomic policies, fiscal policies, among
others, are topics of arduous discussion and with the capacity to create conflictive
frictions. .

Likewise, it can be noted that apart from the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics,
there is the shift from East-West relations to North-South relations, centers of
confrontation and generation of conflicts. After the Cold War, the world economic
panorama changed in that it moved the nature of economic relations from the
“communism-capitalism” contradiction to the “development-underdevelopment”
contradiction. Starting in the mid-nineties and with the overcoming of capitalism over
communism, it became evident that the world accentuated the contrast between
developed countries (States whose geographical position tended to be located in the
northern hemisphere of the planet) and underdeveloped countries ( countries whose
geographical position tended to be in the southern hemisphere of the planet). On the
other hand, other studies emphasized the West-East axis, to give the same
explanation. For example, the West means the developed world and the East the
underdeveloped world, but instead of talking about fracture or contrast, from this
perspective, it is said that the West is becoming disinterested in underdeveloped
countries (CFR.- BOERSNER: 2003) .

Developed countries had a privileged position with respect to underdeveloped

countries who, to a moderate extent, could use the technology, education, economic
stability, capital, means of production, among other indicators, that these countries had.
And although this perception was already well known before 1989, it is at this time that
the differences deepened. Faced with this situation, the natural response of the
underdeveloped regions of the world was a dizzying and determined advance towards
economic integration processes as a way out of underdevelopment (CFR.- OWEN:
2004).

56 The advance of international integration processes with a view to economic blocks

responded to uncontrollable and irresistible forces. Their constitution processes, which
in most cases are still far from advanced levels, combine orderly, consensual and
balanced actions along with palpable risks such as spontaneous movements of capital
and massive population migrations (CFR.MARTÍNEZ, Juan: 2002) and Furthermore,
they conquer, little by little, economic, financial and commercial spaces worldwide for
the approval of underdeveloped countries.

Regional blocs complicate the conception of economic multipolarity because they have
been imposed as prevailing mechanisms in trade negotiations (CFR.- MARTÍNEZ,
Juan: 2002). Even international trade flows are concentrated first in intra-blocks and
finally in extra-blocks (CFR.- BORJAS). The world's economic integration processes,
for example, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Southern
Common Market (MERCOSUR), the Andean Community (CAN), the European Union
(EU), the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN), Caribbean Community
(CARICOM), Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), Common Market

Central America (CACM), the Economic Community of West African States

(ECOWAS), the Economic Cooperation for Asia and the Pacific (CEAP) project, among
many others, are processes that bring together the will of countries to direct them
towards community paths in pursuit of the economic and social development of their
societies or, better, in the words of María Rubino, they are processes that “presuppose
the existence of spaces belonging to two or more sovereign States willing to reciprocal
cooperation with the objective of expanding their exchanges and stimulating its
development through common legal and economic institutions” (CFR.- RUBINO: 2000).

57 Its advance configures the current economic order as a highly competitive field
(CFR.- CHESNAIS, Françoise. In: SOTELO V.: 1999, 17). The blocs try to conquer
strategic markets worldwide and in doing so, curiously, weaken the field of action of
globalization. The regional nature of integration projects allows the political, economic
and social values and forms of the blocks to remain intact before forces that tend to
homogenization (CFR.- BOERSNER: 2003) 27. Consequently, the regional blocs not
only manifest the living embodiment of the commitment of underdeveloped and
developed governments to a future of social and economic development for their
people, but also to maintain their identity to a certain extent intact.

In summary, the multipolar order exists and is verifiable, the economic and financial
centers, the production and marketing centers, the regional blocs and the multinational
companies, indicate the decentralization of economic forces and, far from remaining in
reduced geographical spaces, they tend to atomize. and rebuild even more in the
coming years.

Now, in a political sense the multipolar order also exists, although seriously
segmented, unstable and fragile. The elements that detract from its existence are few,
but very relevant. On the one hand, decisions on issues of global interest within these
international organizations revolve around the interests of the powers, leaving aside
other less influential countries. On the other hand, “one of today's great debates in
international relations is linked to the character, duration and viability of a 'reluctant US
imperialism'” (FUENTES: 2004, 2). The unilateralist tendency of the United States,
which usually assumes various global initiatives and policies almost without following
the due consultation procedure of the Organization of the

27

“Globalization is reduced by regionalist blocs” (BOERSNER: 2003).

58 United Nations, I have considerably weakened world confidence in the organization

28 .

The UN, the Organization of American States (OAS), and other international forums
and organizations of the same profile, constantly approve their political resolution
mechanisms in the face of these trends, however, the multiplication of interests, actors
and scenarios with diverse fields and levels of action, combined with the political will of
the majority of the countries in the world to democratize decisions, have favored many
great achievements that increase distrust of a future where political decisions will be
coordinated, representative, democratic and qualitatively very concerned with the
realities of the issues that must be decided 29.

The weakness of the international political order indicates the erosion of Political
Security. This concept is appropriate to analyze the political system of the Nation State,
however, if we take some of its characteristic elements and take them to analyze the
international scene, it will be possible to gather some ideas to understand the delicate
situation of the international political scene of our days. . Firstly, Political Security does
encompass the notion of good government, conflict resolution, consensus, democracy
(CFR.- NEF: 2001, 51) 30, the possibility that a political order
To understand the unilateralist position of the United States of America, it is worth
mentioning, according to Jorge Da Silva, that: “In the newspaper 'El Clarín', in the
August 18, 2001 edition, you can read: 'Bush's rejection of the Multilateralism'. Since
taking office last February, President George Bush has rejected every international
treaty, always using the same pretext: 'they are fatally defective.' So far, the Bush
administration has rejected the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, of the same year; the ratification of three initiatives favored by Clinton:
the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court and the Nuclear Test Ban, signed
by the Democrat but not ratified. Also, in July 2001, the United States and Israel
unilaterally abandoned the Conference against Racism and Intolerance in Durban,
South Africa. (DA SILVA: 2001, 287). 29 This is in fact a global phenomenon that
encourages States to look for other ways to solve problems. 30 “Politics, in terms of the
distribution of valuable and necessary things through decisions of authority, constitutes
the organizing principle of community life. Without it, the other 'securities' would be
impossible. In this sense, consensus and democracy - both substantive, as well as in
terms of process and norm - are consubstantial to political security. The political
process involves a continuous flow of conflict management (and resolution) between
three simultaneous contradictions. The first is between economic capabilities and
aspirations
28

The ability of the international community to face a crisis and provide satisfactory
responses to the members of the world community will not depend solely on economic
interests or individual interests, but on the ability learned by the community to manage
conflicts in their entire context. Second, the lack of an efficient international political
order will encourage perceptions of illegitimacy and distrust as actions are taken.
Thirdly, an efficient international political order must keep the number of problems that
are addressed reduced to the minimum possible. Fourthly, although every international
political order has an agenda of issues of interest, its efficient conduct will depend on
the criteria under which a situation of risk or threat qualifies to be incorporated into the
regime of urgency and exception implicit in the Agenda.

Seen in this way, let us proceed to dismantle these conceptions of the international
political order of our time. First, the unilateral conduct of the USA in publishing the
Helms-Burton Act in 1996, which was a law that sought to govern legal issues far
beyond its borders, meant the total forgetfulness of the sovereignty of other countries;
or the conduct of France when it carried out nuclear tests on the Muroroa Atoll in 1995,
which represented an outrage to the calls of the international community for it to stop
its intentions. Second, currently there are still harsh international questions about the
way the US justified its offensive on Iraq; or the conduct of Pakistan and India, who
plunge the international community into an atmosphere of distrust regarding the
probable use of their nuclear arsenal in a war between both States. Third, international
political organizations, due to their international vocation, can hardly have just a small
handful of problems to solve. Fourth, the agenda of international political organizations
constantly follows a closed schedule and this tour depends on the particular interests of
the powers. However, the latter can
social. The second is between those who earn most of the surplus (or elites) and the
rest of the population ('masses'). The third contradiction occurs between the capacity
for self-government (autonomy) and subordination or dependence on other units”
(NEF: 2001).

60 vary. Remember the case in which Venezuela incisively turned the spheres of
dialogue of the OAS to examine the attitude of the USA with respect to its probable
participation in the events of April 2002, weeks after what had happened and which
was not understood as a situation risk by several members by indirectly supporting US
interference in the continent. All these new phenomena suggest that we find ourselves
in a world in which the old international order has not yet died and a new multilateral
order has not yet been born (CFR.PAÑEDA REINLEIN: 2002).

In conclusion, if we use a moderate vision of the concept of Political Security in the

international arena, that is, “International Political Security”, which could be defined as
the principles and functions that exalt and ensure the good administration of the
multifaceted demands of the members of the community and where consensus,
democracy, the search for peace, the legality and legitimacy of international
organizations and the scope of the resolutions of these organizations prevail, in
accordance with values linked to mandatory norms. or ius cogens and the DIP; We can
say, based on the above, that the current international political order would not deserve
a high qualification to perfectly honor and raise a flag that inspires the full achievement
of the dogmas of International Political Security. In fact, he would even moderately
have that right, not to say that he lacks powers. However, International Political
Security, as a concept, proposes a challenge, an interesting challenge worth meeting.
But as long as the particular interests of the States and unilateral attitudes persist in the
international political order and do not offer better results than the means of
concertation, multilateralism will not be able to establish itself further nor will it be
possible to make great strides towards the benefits that the desirable Full International
Political Security.

Meanwhile, diplomacy will then have a great responsibility. In the economic aspect, it
must use specialized and dynamic structures on issues

61 commercial and financial 31 to face the new, changing and incessant challenges
and respond to the different global economic fronts. At the same time, it must resign
itself to losing certain fields of action in those same areas, which, after all, are not a
genuine natural diplomatic field, due to the palpable consequence that the National
State sees the power it exercises by the presence of supranational organizations,
transnationalization and multinationals (CFR.-

BOERSNER: 2003). “The globalization of the world economy, the mobility of people
and capital, and the global penetration of the media have combined with the purpose of
limiting the freedom of action of States” (CUTLER: 1999, 59). Although a factor of
change in modern diplomatic practice has been the growing rise of international trade,
it cannot be denied that the diversification of international interactions and actors has
further nuanced traditional diplomatic functions. In this panorama, international actors,
such as multinational companies and corporations, carry out diplomacy, their own
diplomacy. In the words of Beatriz Ramírez Vázquez, this circumstance gives a new
meaning to commercial diplomacy (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 6). The
coordination of company activities across national borders constitutes a form of
commercial diplomacy carried out by private actors (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001,
6-8). These representatives operate in a field that once only belonged to the States as
established by traditional diplomacy (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 6-8). They
follow their own interests and in doing so mobilize commercial relationships that, far
from State supervision, complement the national economy and fulfill

The exceptional nature of international trade requires that the State's participation in
these areas be channeled by a highly trained human force, which, not necessarily,
must belong to the career diplomatic branch. Trade missions organized at the
government level may be composed of career diplomats and others. The latter would
be known as commercial attachés, who can be distinguished with the character of
diplomats, as long as it is pertinent to make the distinction. The consequences of the
rank of diplomat confer immunities and privileges.

31

62 with the objectives set forth by traditional commercial diplomacy, or so the theory
indicates when it comes to trade missions organized at the government level: “A trade
mission is a properly organized group that travels abroad with the purpose of
increasing the exchange of goods and services, and mainly with the aim of exporting
what there is a market for” (GARCÍA: 1986, 82). On the other hand, in the political
aspect, the States have developed a renewed dialogue in Summit Diplomacy, even
with a low operational level, however, with a strong guiding character (CFR.- ROJAS
ARAVENA: 2001, 24). Summits in recent years have evolved as a key and opportune
space for States to resolve or deal with disputes. Its progress, indirectly, formulates the
advance of a multipolar political order. Furthermore, these meetings peacefully
examine a considerable number of problems and differences according to law and
observance of International Law. And when they establish solutions, at least, they favor
the relative absence of classic conflicts between States (CFR.PALMA: 2001, 120),
using the help of other elements external to the meeting. “Some think conflicts don't
happen because 'deterrence' works. However, there are other reasons why classic
conflicts do not proliferate: the weight of international law, the cost-benefit relationship
since conflict can be a bad business, the greater economic interdependence, the
growth of democratic institutions, the possible deterioration of the international image
and the international pressures against the conflict” (PALMA: 2001, 120). Likewise,
Parliamentary Diplomacy and the diplomacy of regional blocs play an important role
today. They allow a rapprochement between neighboring States to seek solutions and
coordination mechanisms that benefit them together. The diplomacy of consultation
mechanisms constitutes a very important source for multilateral diplomacy and for
personal or direct diplomacy (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 5). In summary,
summit diplomacy, parliamentary diplomacy and regional bloc diplomacy are
consequences of the

63 international predisposition for a fair and democratic multipolar political order.

Likewise, these follow the aspirations of the members of the international community
for peace without forgetting that:

“… to leave behind the hypotheses of conflict and war preparations, strict observance
of international law and compliance with the commitments assumed, peaceful
resolution of differences and non-use of force is necessary; political coordination and
diplomatic consultation; economic, social and cultural integration, confidence-building
policies and measures; joint border development agreements; neighborhood
commissions; military linkage and cooperation; and, finally, design of cooperative
security guidelines based on the needs of medium and small States, and subregional
and regional ones” (CFR.- PALMA: 2001, 120).

64 2.1.6.- Crisis of the Neoliberal State Model:

Since 1990, recessions and economic crises have become common in the Andean
region (CFR.- TICKNER; MANSON: 2001, 138). This situation has been mainly
associated with the implementation of neoliberal reforms 32 and with the inability of
most countries to insert themselves effectively into the world market (CFR.- TICKNER;
MANSON: 2001, 138). Policies aimed at controlling instability, however, apart from
arriving late in many States in the region, encountered the heated fracture between the
relations of the State and society. The internal conflicts that occurred complicated the
economic scenario and favorable solutions for the States. It was evident, then, that the
liberal model had entered into crisis and its natural response, neoliberalism, too. “Some
political scholars have agreed that the dimension and characteristics of these conflicts
mark the exhaustion of the liberal economic model administered by an incompetent
and corrupt political system. In effect, these social outbreaks came to crown the
profound crisis of governability, supported by pyrrhic inter-party agreements and pacts,
with political parties more concerned with shielding their conduct from impunity” (CFR.-
QUINTANA: 2001, 208). In fact, although the magnitude of these conflicts challenges
global “governance”, still linked to issues of power, it also brings to the fore the State
Security over the Human Security of the populations (CFR.- DA SILVA: 2001, 283 -
284) and denounce fractures between the National State and the sectors of their nation
(CFR.- BOERSNER: 2003), which could indicate a preponderance of neoliberal
principles (CFR.- DA SILVA: 2001, 283-284), which establish that:

In the last decade, all Latin American and Caribbean countries have carried out
structural reforms aimed at the market and improving the efficiency of the economy,
accelerating growth, etc. These reforms have been mainly oriented to six areas: trade
liberalization, tax policy, financial deregulation, privatization, labor legislation and the
transformation of the pension system. (CFR.- BEJARANO).

32

65 “…the economic development of a country would be the precondition for human

development and the well-being of its citizens. This justifies the misery of countries and
peoples. This also justifies the immense inequalities within countries with good
economic performance, but with human groups living in conditions of extreme poverty
equal to those experienced by people in very poor countries in economic terms. 'The
economy is doing well but the people are doing poorly,' a Brazilian president once said,
expressing the idea that first it is necessary to grow economically” (CFR.- DA SILVA:
2001, 283-284). But what really is Neoliberalism? First of all, Neoliberalism means a
new type of liberalism. So what was the old guy all about? Liberalism has existed as a
humanist doctrine since the 17th century, however, it was born as an economic school
in 1776 when, in Europe, Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations.”

This book promoted the abolition of state intervention in economic matters: no

restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to trade, no tariffs. Free trade was, according
to Smith, the best way to develop a nation's economy. Such ideas were liberal in the
sense that they promoted the absence of controls. This application of individualism
stimulated free enterprise and free competition, meaning that capitalists were able to
accumulate wealth without limits. But once the theoretical postulates of liberalism could
not support the reality that it was the best way to develop a nation's economy, a group
of thinkers, faithful to the vision of Adam Smith, built a more theoretical support around
liberalism. complete. This entailed the influence of liberal contributions and restored the
old approaches to the extent of contemporary times. In this way, neoliberalism is born,
which, according to the Luis Ángel Arango library of the Bank of the Republic of
Colombia, can be defined as:

66 “…a program of economic reforms that aims to ensure that some countries do not
fall behind in their process of coupling to the globalized world. However, problems
appear when it is discovered that not all countries have the capacity to compete in the
same way in the globalized world, as well as that hierarchies are widely marked.
Neoliberalism was born in the eighties in the United States, where some economic
thinkers from the United States, Germany and England, supported by economics
professionals, were hired by international financial organizations such as the
International Monetary Fund to achieve a new economic model, model that would end
up spreading to much of the world. Neoliberalism constantly criticizes the so-called
welfare state, which was a type of state that functioned successfully in Europe and the
Scandinavian countries for some decades, but which in the 1970s, due to the global
crisis that was being experienced, was left behind. in question. This is how
neoliberalism seeks to exclude the State from participation and control over the market,
since otherwise the following points could not be carried out: a) Rejection of State
intervention in the economy, whether in a State welfare or in a regime based on the
notion of real socialism; b) Defend the market as the only way to achieve economic
regulation in all countries; c) Constantly defend and promote, to achieve the maximum
development of the global economy, free economic competition. However, to achieve
this it is obvious that some reforms must be carried out to make such claims possible:
1) State Reduction: The State is intended to be more efficient and easier to control; 2)
Trade openness: The aim is, through the elimination of tariffs, for imports and exports
to function more fluidly and effectively; 3) Structural Adjustment: Through adjustment
processes, the goal is to make the countries' economies more efficient. According to
the above, one could think that what neoliberalism really seeks is to find a way so that
nations with fewer export possibilities and with a minimum capacity for market
participation do not suffer so much in the process of coupling to the globalized world;
However, today, the controversy raised by the implementation of this model is still
alive, since it is no secret to anyone that the majority of the capital circulating in the
world remains in the hands of world powers such as the United States or some
countries. Europeans” (CFR.LUIS ANGEL ARANGO LIBRARY). Also, specifically, it
can be said that liberalism promotes the non-intervention of the State in economic
matters and neoliberalism also does so, unless it adds the following notions to classical
theory: the privatization of national companies; the reduction of public spending; salary
reduction; openness to international trade and investment; total freedom for the
movement of capital, goods and services and; elimination of the concept of “public
good” or “community”, and its replacement by “individual responsibility” (CFR.-
MARTÍNEZ; GARCÍA: 1999).

67 On the other hand, Jesús Antonio Bejarano mentions that neoliberalism comes to
reality (the theory) when it is instrumentalized in the economic policy of countries: “…
The fundamental objective of economic policy, according to neoliberal guidelines, is to
promote flexible functioning of the market by eliminating all obstacles to free
competition. It is hardly necessary to say that neoliberalism has adopted the theory of
free trade in all its versions and has relied on one or another to justify its conception of
the world as a large market where everyone competes on equal terms between each
country according to their possibilities. . This implies not only the exposure of the
economy to international competition, but also the adoption of flexible exchange rates
and, ultimately, the dismantling of all types of protections, stimuli and aid to producers.
In these circumstances, confidence in the flexibility of the economy and in the role of
prices in restoring equilibrium situations, the regeneration of trade balances through
openness and free exchange rates are the main guidelines. of economic policy” (CFR.-
BEJARANO). The recommendations of the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank were widely received in the underdeveloped states of the world and as the
recommendations were being adopted, the international economic order was modified,
while offering results that were very far from those expected. The crisis of
neoliberalism, according to Eugenio Espinosa, had begun: “This crisis of neoliberalism
is manifested in low rates of economic growth, in environmental deterioration, in
growing poverty and social exclusion, in numerous intra- and international conflicts, in
unilateral exercise of international policies, in the recurring crises of the financial
bubble, in the claims and protests of indigenous, unemployed and excluded people in
all parts of the world” (CFR.ESPINOSA). The Asian, Mexican and Argentine crisis in
the 1990s served as an example of the implications of this crisis, however, the
consequences were not even remotely regional as they spread to the rest of the world.
The growing interdependence between countries caused crises, no matter how distant
they may seem, to influence and affect the global socioeconomic system, fostering
deep imbalances in the international financial system, with enormous

68 repercussion for the inhabitants of the planet (CFR.- PERALES SALVADOR:

2002). Furthermore, the interrelation of the economies and the degree of development
acquired by the world economic system made it difficult for countries in crisis to
develop based on the functioning of their own internal conditions, that is, it was
impossible for them to close themselves off from transcendental changes. that
occurred and occur in the environment and, it was also impossible, for the environment
to escape the events (CFR.- PERALES SALVADOR: 2002).

The insecurity of the economic system gradually led countries to seek solutions to
external pressures. Perhaps, for this reason, there was a notable interest in the
formation and evolution of integration projects without leaving aside the neoliberal
discourse (CFR.- GARCÍA RODRÍGUEZ: 1999). However, deep down, this trend
seemed to favor the idea that in the global neoliberal economy there was only one type
of winner and loser. According to Adría Sotelo Valencia: “In the neoliberal economy
there are winners and losers. Among the first, there are large capitals that move in the
area of loan money capital, strictly speaking, banking and financial capital; the fractions
of large modernized industrial capital that has the economic and financial conditions of
reconversion to face the opening of foreign markets and, finally, the large foreign
capital where multinational corporations appear. Among the losers are the punished
social classes and groups such as the industrial proletariat, the poor peasantry and
sectors of the industrial bourgeoisie, which led the import substitution process in the
past. Also the so-called middle classes (salaried and non-salaried) have been
threatened by the crisis and by the starving behavior of the neoliberal model” (SOTELO
V.: 1999, 33).

69 The governments of underdeveloped countries by placing confidence in future

macroeconomic achievements: in the level of real production, in the positive behavior
of employment and the trends to reduce unemployment and structural
underemployment in the economy, within the framework of a trend towards improving
salaries; in the achievement of moderate inflation and in external relations
characterized by stable exchange markets and, finally, in the “balance” of the balance
of trade and payments (CFR.- SOTELO V.: 1999, 31); and by not perceiving the advent
of these, they succumbed to social pressures that, thirsty for immediate changes,
governments sought short-term solutions to appease the demands. Almost all the
solutions that were applied to face the delicate situations were characterized by
accepting protectionism policies when negotiating and applying the dismantling of
applicable quotas or tariffs, for example (CFR.- BORJAS). Venezuela even turned its
back on neoliberal theses in “its own way” when it intervened in the banking system in
1994 or when it restricted its monetary exchange rate policy in 2003.

“The social and distributive consequences of neoliberalism are matters that should be
evaluated with greater attention and less passion. Public unions have demonized
privatizations and the reduction of the State, populists have made a caricature of
openness, many production unions have reacted by dismantling tariffs, all as a
consequence of the reduction of their privileges. But on the neoliberal side, the
successes have not been overwhelming. Privatizations have been used in many
countries for dark businesses in high places, growth is not guaranteed and in many
cases neither stability, and in many countries the social effects in terms of increased
poverty have been significant. In the last three years and for these and other reasons,
governments have been forced to retreat in many aspects of liberalization policy,
especially what has to do with trade policy. In some parts the fiscal crisis has forced the
imposition of surcharges on imports, in other cases, such as in Venezuela, the
liberalization and unification of the exchange rate has been reversed and in other
countries the privatization process has been considerably slowed down. So the
strength with which neoliberal models were imposed in the second half of the eighties
and the first years of the nineties seems to be in a slight decline” (SOTELO V.: 1999,
31).

70 But why was the neoliberal model so difficult to sustain? According to Adría Sotelo
Valencia, and in light of the dependency theory, it is due to two reasons:

“We only draw attention to two facts. Firstly, (...) this propensity of the neoliberal
capitalist pattern does not imply that dependent capitalism 'does not grow' (...) but, on
the contrary, it does so based on variables such as external debt, super-exploitation of
workers, the privatization and monopolization of the economy, the specialization and
development of exports, etc., as evidenced by modern dependency theory. Secondly,
this failure is not for the entire bourgeoisie, but only for some of its fractions and for the
entire salaried society that does not have adequate means of defense against the crisis
and the usury of the exchange systems. and financial” (SOTELO V.: 1999, 31-33). That
is to say, since neoliberalism does not offer security to salaried society from free
economic swings, it is not prepared for economic and financial crises, in such a way
that they can become bankrupt at any time and, two, since neoliberalism relegates
Human Security in a second plan or, governments give up great democratic
achievements for macroeconomic policies that affirm that economic development is the
sole and indispensable basis for the consolidation of Human Security, thus justifying
the sacrifices and taking us to the doors of a post-industrial society (CFR.- OWEN:
2003). However, it is necessary to highlight that despite the risks of neoliberalism within
the postindustrial era 33, the application of the neoliberal model has brought with it
certain advantages:

We find an interesting definition of a society in the Postindustrial era in the words of

Abraham Pérez Daza: “Indeed, one of the most significant features of postindustrial era
societies is the general feeling of insecurity. Furthermore, the emergence of new risks
is, to a certain extent, compensated by the radical reduction of dangers from natural
sources (such as the harmful consequences of diseases or catastrophes). Therefore, it
can rather be plausibly argued that, for many and very diverse reasons, the subjective
experience of risks is clearly superior to the objective existence itself; however, there is
a very high level of benefit that these risks provide to the society justify them, but, at
the same time, the citizen, in order to truly exercise his freedom, needs to have a
certain security and confidence that these risks are not greater than what they appear
to be. (PÉREZ DAZA) Also, in this regard it is recommended to see: (CFR.- SILVA
SANCHEZ: 1999) and (CFR.- GIDDENS: 2000).

33

71 “Neoliberal models do not appear to have been as successful as their defenders

advocate nor as disastrous as their critics claim. They have contributed to moderating
excess interventionism and its consequences: economic inefficiency, exacerbation of
monopolies, corruption, inequality in income distribution, etc.; It has contributed to
generating transparency in economic processes, improving productivity and technical
change. But it has also contributed to weakening social policies, the possibilities of
access for poor groups to basic services, it has concentrated the benefits offered by
market opportunities in a few groups, so that if the advantages of the State were not
clear before , now the advantages of the market are not clear. Today, in most
countries, a kind of middle ground between the market and state intervention is being
sought. The point of discussion consists fundamentally of the way in which the State
can be controlled and monitored in its interventions, so that these truly respond to
collective needs and not to the objectives of the bureaucratic groups based in the
State. What seems to be on the horizon then is a more open discussion in terms of
better democracy for better State action in the economy, that is, a greater capacity for
civil society to control the State, to ensure greater governability, understood in terms of
the restricted sense of the capacity of public policies to satisfy collective expectations”
(CFR.BEJARANO). Seen this way, neoliberalism is a theoretical conformation that
ultimately provides valuable logical and rational elements for social development. What
has failed is the neoliberal state model, which must begin a path of reconstruction, as
stated by Alejandra Liriano:

“As we know, globalizing trends have been questioning the relevance of the State in
social construction. Today, however, and based on the concrete experiences of crisis
of the neoliberal state model, this vision begins a path of reconstruction. In this context,
it is necessary to rethink its role in the construction of human security and the
dimensions in which the State must intervene effectively in its generation” (CFR.-
LIRIANO: 2001, 268). Now, the crisis of the neoliberal state model by committing the
affected States to get out of the difficulty based on different economic tactics and
strategies, also opened the state need, together with the foreign affairs secretariats, to
coordinate and devise possible effective responses through rapprochement with other
countries or economic blocks. This relationship meant that the characteristics of the

72 current phase of the world economic system would add new aspects to be
managed to the usual interests of commercial diplomacy. And certainly, the
contemporary diplomacy of underdeveloped countries is very aware of issues such as:
accelerated disinflation, especially for primary products; b) the rise of structural
unemployment, especially in European and Third World countries; c) deterioration of
the instruments of income distribution (sponsored by rentier capital in the financial
sphere); d) marginalization and disengagement of entire countries and regions from the
dynamic circuits of international trade and finance; e) intensification of competition
between the fundamental “economic blocs” and f) the modification of the social labor-
capital relationship, generating new differentiated wage forms (CFR.- CHESNAIS, F.
In: SOTELO V.: 1999, 17). These elements further congest the path to Human Security
and the State, which looks after the interests of the community, takes these issues
seriously because they are projected beyond its borders. In such a way that diplomacy
here acquires a strategic conjunctural importance of care (CFR.- ARELLANO: 1980,
67).

The diplomacy of countries in the face of this crisis tends to be divided into three
behaviors. The first is that of the countries that follow and defend neoliberal principles.
In this case, diplomacy seeks to make the world's business and financial community
see how the political, social and economic system of its State is a favorable
environment for foreign investment, and it also seeks to open or maintain commercial
spaces for national production. .

The second is that of the countries that once supported and institutionalized
neoliberalism or liberalism and are now immersed in a process to dismantle that
system or have already dismantled the system. In this case, diplomacy decisively
seeks, although in the first type it is equally present, trust. It is widely seen how the
economic and financial centers of the world, accustomed to a particular system of
relations, prefer not to invest in those environments that

73 turn out to be different from those they know. The risks are summarized in that the
financial and commercial forces of the world are increasingly conquered by neoliberal
values and when a country or regional group closes itself to those values, they can
hardly offer confidence to the vast majority. Potential investors would have to adapt
their action platforms to be able to sympathize with these “dissident” commercial
spaces. This effort implies a double cost and therefore, only the achievement of

Trust would be the ideal channel to overcome the reluctance of potential investors. In
this type of diplomatic activity, the explanations are exacerbated and constant; and it is
no wonder, since the “dissident” State will make every effort to make the changes that
occur in its system appear reasonable, due and legitimate and, for its own survival in
this interdependent world, it will do that and more to ingratiate itself. with the
international community and promote its national production.

The third is that of countries that are in the midst of a crisis phase. On the one hand, it
has not abandoned neoliberalism, but on the other, it has dismantled some neoliberal
institutions. In this case, diplomacy is a moderate version of the previous two, except
because it is more circumstantial. Crises are temporary and change, disappear or
transform. In these cases, diplomacy is adjusted to the times and processes. Unlike the
other two behaviors that are more or less perennial, this one varies over time. Even
given that some economic crises can last for years, it could be said that there is a
certain degree of perpetuity, but ultimately this diplomatic conduct is more attentive to
internal changes and willing to inform the international financial community of the
State's capacity to comply with agreements already made and those to be made.
Promotion, commercial expansion initiatives, political security, the search for trust will
be invariable themes, however, they will be difficult to sustain when there is a crisis,
which is why it can be stated that this type of diplomatic conduct is the most laborious
of the three. Finally, in the current period of transition and consolidation of a new stage
of the world capitalist system, the countries of the periphery

74 (Latin America) must focus their diplomatic structures towards new development
strategies at two levels:

“1.- on determined cooperation between the State and private agents to sustain a
continuous program of management and creation of infrastructure, which promotes
social and technological progress and the international competitiveness of their
national economies, and reforms that encourage and expand greater active
participation of all social sectors in the economic and productive life of the country; 2.on
the consolidation of regional integration projects within the framework of the new
regionalism where countries, with geographical and historical affinities, decide to join
their efforts in pursuit of preferential agreements and common programs for the
economic and social development of the region” (GARCÍA RODRÍGUEZ : 1999) 34.
2.1.7.- Diplomatic Trends: Recent events motivated many countries to change and
rethink their perceptions of the international order and therefore their diplomatic
structures and agendas. The changes that occurred internally in the States were even
called in many ways, however, there was a recurrence of calling these changes "The
New Diplomacy", a term with which they aspired to conceptually encompass all of the
changes that occurred. they had been developing to face the new international reality
from the point of view of the Foreign Relations Secretariats of each country. This term
was not used to define the relevant areas that were beyond its borders, on the
contrary, it began to be used in a very particular sense in reference to its States. That
is to say, although the term “The New Diplomacy” implied changes in the particular
perception of the States regarding their political vision of the NOI, this word was not
imported to the generality of the nations of the world, which is why it was It became
very common to hear about the New Austrian Diplomacy or the New Japanese
Diplomacy, for example, but there was still no talk of the New World Diplomacy. Now,
among the countries that realigned

He also recommends the interesting contributions to the debate around the new
international economic framework and new development strategies by: Jagdish.
Bhagwati (CFR.- BHAGWATI :1992); and Bjorn Hettner (CFR.BJORN: 1994).

3. 4

75 their position and disposition in political affairs from this perspective are the USA,
Mexico, Russia, the United Kingdom and China, among others; countries that, if they
did not attend to the needs required by the NOI, their preponderance or international
position, with respect to other countries, could have declined, since other emerging
countries, without a doubt, having the opportunity to modernize their diplomatic and
institutional structures , more than all, commercial, could make their way between
these States and conquer new, more outstanding positions.

In this sense, the way in which the New North American Diplomacy manifests itself is
exceptional. The bases of its diplomacy evolve alongside technology (CFR.- MARTIN:
2001) and at the dizzying pace at which it collects information, it acts at the same pace.

The New American Diplomacy has been characterized in recent years by being more
aggressive, in terms of not giving up its global hegemonic position to new emerging
powers or smaller terrorist groups, for example, and non-terrorists who seek to weaken
their presence in the NOI. Specifically, the mobilization of troops as a persuasive or
warlike tool (if necessary), the greater emphasis on the implementation of policies
before the UN and the drafting of laws that go beyond its borders, are no longer options
and have passed to be habitual institutionalized behaviors that do not need, in certain
cases, the consent of the States belonging to the United Nations, but rather the legal
approval of their own senate is enough for them to be effective (CFR.- LÓPEZ P.:
2001). These formulas of action, based on information, have been seen as a setback in
comparison with the diplomatic conquests that have been achieved (such as the influx
of multilateral initiatives), however, within them a deep diplomacy that is very conscious
of their interests, but in terms of their forms, the procedures have been so open and
unilateralist (CFR.- LÓPEZ P.: 2001) that they have created friction around the USA in
UN sessions. This country, which does not detach itself from technology

76 military information to support its actions and that does not forget the need to train
its diplomats, even to act in an instigating and unofficial sense when necessary (CFR.-
LÓPEZ P.: 2001), leaves little doubt that it has offered a different way of understanding
diplomacy today.

On the other hand, the New Mexican Diplomacy also presumes the existence of a
pattern of behaviors and procedures that have modified its traditional perception of
International Relations since the Cold War. According to the opinion of Ambassador
Jorge Palacios Treviño, Mexico entered a new diplomatic stage when it surpassed the
guidelines of the Estrada doctrine and some other principles that for years guided
Mexican foreign policy: “The decision of the Mexican Government to intensify the
promotion and respect of human rights in the world, and the participation of Mexico as
a non-permanent member of the Security Council (because it is said that this buys
lawsuits) are, among others, the reasons indicated by some commentators to sentence
the end of the Doctrine Estrada. There are even those who think that, along with the
Doctrine, some principles that have governed Mexico's foreign policy will be left behind,
such as the self-determination of peoples and its correlative of non-intervention in the
internal affairs of the States, which are not only enshrined in the Mexican Political
Constitution but also in the Charter of the United Nations. The Estrada Doctrine is one
of Mexico's most valuable contributions to International Law, perhaps the most famous,
but it is little known and, therefore, it is interpreted in various ways. Hence, some praise
it and others denigrate it, some say that Mexico applies it and others say it does not.
For this reason, I consider it useful to refer here to what the Estrada Doctrine is. In the
Estrada Doctrine two parts can be distinguished: the first is a rejection of the practice of
recognizing or not recognizing governments that come to power by a means that is not
provided for in the respective Constitution, since powerful governments take advantage
of this practice. to obtain advantages from weak countries. Mexico, like other countries
on this continent, suffered it – among other occasions as a consequence of the
Revolution of 1910, and that induced the Mexican Government to take the position
contained in the statement of the Ministry of Relations of September 27, 1930, which
was later given the name Doctrina Estrada in homage to its author, Mr. Genaro
Estrada, then Secretary of Foreign Relations” (PALACIOS TREVIÑO: 2004).

77 This perception is also complemented by the fact that Mexico has recently been an
assiduous supporter of the follow-up of the DIP Norms synthesized in the Vienna
Charter, in terms of Human Rights, the insertion of the citizen in the international field
and, on the other hand, On the other hand, to decisively try to achieve (as a
fundamental objective) a greater commercial rapprochement with the USA and Canada
(CFR.- SUÁREZ M: 2000) 35 to sustain and consolidate its presence in Central
America, a region that tends to slip out of their hands due to the strong internal
economic crisis that the country experienced in the mid-nineties (CFR.- RAMÍREZ:
2001). Also, this type of foreign policy has defined Mexico as a typical representative of
multilateral action, which, as a recent phenomenon, influences the academic
understanding of its diplomacy (CFR.- BOERSNER: 2003).

Likewise, the Russian Federation exposes a New Diplomacy that has not yet
successfully overcome the fact that its diplomatic institutions were structured and
specialized internally for more than 60 years to specific objectives that belonged to the
USSR. And now, as those international aspirations have expired for its reality, it has
sought to remodel an entire obsolete system that, currently, roughly speaking, aspires
to rebuild its eroded imperialist attitude, be it with the signing of multiple international
agreements that seek to support its weakened internal political system (CFR.-
IVANOV: 2002). The Russian Federation has currently made efforts to purify its
diplomatic institutions and to do so it has had to invest efforts to bring its officials closer
to unusual topics on its international agenda. Due to changes on a global scale, while
simultaneously achieving its national interests, Russia had to undergo a process of
forced withdrawal that prevented it from moving fully in terms of foreign policy, this
undoubtedly influenced a kind of retraction of its international relations (CFR.-
JOUBLANC: 2004). Secondly, subsequently, President Putin's administration has
implemented a foreign policy based on a pragmatic nature, called by them as an
“orientation

multivector” (CFR.- JOUBLANC: 2004).

Next, the United Kingdom presents us with a New Diplomacy more adapted to present
events than transcendental ones. In reference to an aspect of the New North American
Diplomacy, the United Kingdom has assumed a position more inclined to analyze the
sources of international risk from the moment they arise in order to act on them and
avoid a future conflict (CFR.- STRAW: 2002). In the perfect display of a little concern,
but rather, a lot of occupation (CFR.- FISHER: 2004), English diplomacy insistently
participates in international relations with greater speed and punctuality unlike what it
had traditionally shown with its typical conservatism. . This change is based on the
development of communication technologies, which, as we mentioned before, have
shortened geographical distances, thus allowing affordable procedures in matters of
interest.

79 And finally, China gives us an idea of a New Diplomacy in that its interest in being a
more declared world power (CFR.- OWEN: 2003), at least, for the Asian continent, has
led it to adopt positions that In the light of some scholars they are exceptional. China,
like Russia, has been immersed in a process of de-ideologization of its foreign policy
with the exception that this began to originate in the second half of the 20th century
and that it longed for China's acceptance at the international level. Furthermore, its
political system began the culmination of a national restructuring process that seeks to
couple its communist market system with the capitalist market system present in the
Asian region. China was even accepted into the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) in 2004, which will allow it to access a market of more than 1.7 billion
consumers in 2005. However, the most notable thing about China's current
international political perception for Asia and the rest of the world is that to enter
ASEAN it met a set of requirements inspired by democratic and neoliberal principles, in
contrast to what its constitution expresses. where it is stated that it is a communist
country. The new Chinese diplomacy aims to create the necessary foundations to
further insert China into world trade and having entered ASEAN can be seen as an
immense diplomatic and commercial achievement, typical of a country conscious of
being a great power in the century. XXI. Otherwise, China's diplomacy has had a
questionable look regarding the Taiwan issue. The confrontation dates back to 1949
when relations between them fractured. China considers the island of Taiwan one of its
provinces and, for its part, Taiwan also defines itself as an Independent State. China
has traditionally used many official diplomatic and internal political resources to try to
persuade Taiwan of its disastrous nationalist attitude (CFR.- MEYER: 1997). However,
its traditional conservative position changed on this issue in recent years by making
use of a provocative policy through missile practices and mobilization of naval weapons
a few kilometers from the island's territory, to make its military power clear. This
attitude, which could be defined as presumptuous and ostentatious, indicates an
atypical passage in history.

80 contemporary international because rarely has a point been reached where the
foreign policy of an Asian state has caused so much suspicion to the other States in
the region. Furthermore, this attitude is a sign and proof that the conquests of the DIP
in the NOI are not such. A date when the international community can have effective
response mechanisms when it no longer tolerates these types of procedures still
seems unimaginable. But, at least we now know where to start, that is, to leave behind
the element of the considerable correlations of forces that the actors that take part in a
conflict may have as a prism to administer international justice.

Seen in this way, diplomacy in recent years has had colorful tasks and perhaps it can
be understood that 1) the NOI favors and tolerates unconventional diplomatic
procedures that would not have been possible to execute long ago, likewise, it makes it
clear that the regulatory mechanisms of International Relations between States (such
as the DIP or the United Nations Organization with its Security Council) are not
sufficient to control national excesses or their impact on the international scene. In this
way, it is possible to speak of a NOI that is more susceptible to the incidence of new
diplomatic manifestations; 2) jointly, these new diplomatic procedures are entirely
innovative practices that the acting States, previously in their history, had not noticed or
thought about, which defines them as modern diplomatic practices that surpass certain
traditional practices because they they can achieve certain objectives more quickly or
safely; 3) Likewise, these practices give notion of a clear intention to adjust or optimize
the internal institutions of the States in the face of the new international social
paradigms; 4) these new diplomatic practices have been influenced by technological
advances so that conversations and written communications are now transmitted more
fluently, which helps decision-making to be inserted with great dynamism in
international relations; 5) and finally, within these practices and despite the political
changes, they still manifest

81 characteristics that give us notions of continuity of old foreign policies, such as the
Monroe Doctrine in new forms, geopolitical considerations, etc. 2.2.- Diplomacy and Its
Forms: 2.2.1.- Diplomacy:

Diplomacy is one of the oldest arts in the world (CFR .- COULUMBIS: 1986). The
evidence for this statement goes back to ancient Asian cultures where it was
rudimentarily practiced and to ancient European cultures where it acquired a more
institutional meaning 36, that is, diplomacy in its origins left aside the recurring activities
of simple messaging and advanced to other levels, such as the negotiation of matters
of interest between those primitive centers of power (CFR.COHEN: 1996). According to
Guillermo Marín, this advance indicates the first great revolution in diplomacy:

“The first revolution of diplomacy was that of its birth as an institution. In reality, the art
or craft of international relations has existed since the first contacts between different
peoples occurred, during the most remote Antiquity. It is known that, as early as the
14th century BC, there was some type of formal relationship between Egyptians and
the inhabitants of Mesopotamia. But it was the close contact between the city-states of
classical Greece that gave rise to institutionalized diplomacy. Heralds and a certain
code of conduct granted him a letter of nature. The diplomatic relations of this first
period were punctual. From then on, gradually, political power was centralized and
communication between the different entities that housed it was intensified” (MARÍN:
2000).
36

Even in the Roman Empire, it was the first to grant passports to its citizens in order to
control their transit within the empire's possessions. Passports and safe-conduct
passes were stamped on double metal plates, which were folded in a special way. The
Romans called these documents diplomas. (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VAZQUEZ: 2001, 1).
Etymologically “Diplomacy derives from the word diploma, which in turn comes from
the Greek verb diplóo, which means to bend. Diplomas were despatches, privileges or
other instruments authorized by a Sovereign and supported by his seal and arms. The
original was conveniently archived. Hence, diplomacy, for many years, was associated
in the human mind with the conservation of archives, the analysis of ancient treaties or
with the license or privileges conferred on a person. However, today, it basically refers
to the study of the formulation and execution of the foreign action of States, carried out
by peaceful means” (MORALES LAMA: 2004) (VER.- RAMÍREZ VAZQUEZ: 2001).

82 The second great revolution in diplomacy occurred around the 14th century in
Europe, when Italy encouraged representatives of Renaissance cities to settle
permanently in other cities in order to ward off internal threats of war between its
principalities. The systematic use of envoys for various purposes had expired to give
way to more formal and prolonged representations conscious of the search for peace
and understanding (MARÍN: 2000).

“… -The - Cabinets in charge of foreign business followed, from the court, the
adventures of the first ambassadors. The formula of modern diplomacy had been
invented: an organization supported by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the center and
embassies in the periphery, and the incipient exercise of a tetralogy of diplomatic
functions (observation and information, negotiation, representation and protection of
national interests). The nation state that emerged in Westphalia, three centuries later,
consolidated the second revolution in diplomacy. The relations between the state
political units were channeled, and were controlled from the poles where power was
concentrated” (MARÍN: 2000). Since then, the prosperity of diplomacy followed a path
towards the maturity of a third revolution, somewhat hypothetical for Guillermo Martín:

“The diplomacy of the third revolution, if it comes, will be neither as occasional as that
of Antiquity nor as rigid and channeled as the modern one, but it will have elements of
both. It will be more like a magma of flows, sporadic and permanent at the same time,
from the most diverse sources and towards the most varied directions. Elusive of
centralized control, it will be more dispersed and more global. More cooperative and
more open. Much more complex. A challenge for whoever has to manage it” (MARÍN:
2000). However, Manuel Morales Lama distinguishes five evolutionary stages of
diplomacy, which, as Guillermo Marín points out, had their origin when the first
organized power groups tried to avoid violent solutions through dialogue and
negotiation (CFR .- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 32).

83 Manuel Morales Lama indicates that the first stage extends from the origins to the
15th century. This stage is distinguished by being ambulatory or circumstantial,
because ambassadors are sent only when precise matters have to be resolved, such
as conclusions of peace treaties, alliances, trade agreements, declarations of war, and
by being, in addition, informal, since no fixed rules had been established. Also, he
adds, this diplomacy was conditioned by geography, due to the limitations of the media
(CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 33).

The second stage coincides with the time when the great discoveries and the
Renaissance provoked a movement of interpenetration of peoples in Europe. The
development of diplomacy was animated by a permanent feature (envoys were
assigned with the idea of staying for a long time in the territory of another State and
diplomatic functions were regulated), inconstant (the rules were imprecise, especially,
concerning privileges, immunities and precedence, the latter being the cause of
innumerable conflicts), there was no diplomatic career (the envoys were selected by
the Sovereign among magistrates, great merchants and other trusted men),
representation of the Sovereign (the envoy was considered a representative of the ruler
rather than a State) and, observation and surveillance mission (because the envoys
became centers of espionage and intrigue in the affairs of the receiving state, they
were frowned upon by those States, until the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 specified
the need for constant and reciprocal surveillance of nations, which is why it contributed
significantly to generalizing the system of permanent diplomacy in Europe because it
established the legal equality of States and religious freedom; regulating relations
between the Catholic and Protestant Church) (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 34-36).

84 In the third stage (classical diplomacy), diplomacy acquired stable characteristics,

thanks to the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the dissemination of several works
(CFR.MORALES LAMA: 2004, 36) 37. This stage is characterized because: a)
diplomats are representatives of the State, like diplomatic missions; b) espionage and
subversion of Diplomatic Missions begins to disappear and; c) diplomacy begins to be
exercised by diplomats and diplomatic decisions are decentralized, which, now, would
not be completely plenipotentiary (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 37-38).

The fourth stage begins with the middle of the 20th century. Its origins were linked to
the need to review the current principles of international coexistence, after the horrific
experiences of the First and Second World Wars. At this level, Diplomacy was
characterized by: a) being more open or public, because it begins with the publication
and registration of all international treaties without prejudice, of course, to the
reservation that, in general, must protect their preparation and negotiation, also
causing the end of secret diplomacy; b) because it was a bloc diplomacy, the States
met in blocs that shared the same ideology and the decisions were made by the State
that led the bloc; c) diplomatic relations now take place between governments and
peoples; d) public opinion and economic objectives become important in diplomatic
decision-making; e) the abandonment of the doctrine of extraterritoriality (now the
diplomatic headquarters are under the sovereignty of the receiving State, contravening
a precept that prevailed for centuries); finally, f) technical diplomacy appears (decisions
could now be made by technical staff in meetings of international organizations) (CFR.-
MORALES LAMA: 2004, 39-42).
37

Manuel Morales Lama mentions: De Legationibus Libri Tres de Gentili, A. (1612); De

Iure Belli et Pacis by Grotius H. (1625); De La Manière De Nègocier Avec Les
Souverains De Callières (Paris, 1717); L'ambassadeur et ses fonctions de Wicquetfort
(The Hague, 1724); and Bynkershoek's De Foro Legatorum (1727).

85 The fifth stage, according to Manuel Morales Lama, is recognized as contemporary

diplomacy. Here, diplomacy is in a process of revisionism that seeks to adjust to the
new trends of the international order, such as: a) the fact that international society has
been transformed into an eminently political society; b) the strengthening of
International Law; c) the emergence of parliamentary diplomacy; d) and the
interdependence of States and the constant increase in international assemblies that
they create or generate (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 42-43).

Since then it is inappropriate to deny that diplomacy is not a tool that serves to
represent the interests of a country in its relations abroad. Diplomacy is the engine of
international relations, it is a means of communication, a very efficient scientific and
artistic instrument of negotiation that is based on international reciprocity (CFR.-
GARCÍA: 1982, 66) and its intelligent exercise implies clarity of objectives in matter of
foreign policy (CFR.- ICAZA: 1999, 11). Diplomacy “remains in the engine room of
international relations” (COHEN: 1998, 04).

In summary, diplomacy has changed according to the historical context in which it has
found itself, however, it seems that one of its most distinctive and invariable aspects is
a rigid and channeled trait, but before making any other assessment of this issue it is
advisable to review of certain concepts that in one way or another have described what
we have known over time as Diplomacy.

86 Specifically, the use of the term “Diplomacy” is relatively new and dates back to
1796 in England, when Edmund Burke promoted its attribution to the formal relations
between States in the international arena (CFR.NICHOLSON: 2003) 38. Some time
later, the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the Congress of Aachen of 1818 added to
this concept notions that added the issue of diplomatic service as a profession with its
own rules and hierarchies and as part of the public service of the States (CFR.-
MORALES LAMA : 2004, 26). In later conferences, diplomacy adopted more precise
notions in the form of rules, immunities and privileges, for the performance of
diplomatic work and the diplomat (CFR.RAMÍREZ VAZQUEZ: 2001), so by the end of
the 19th century progress had been made in regarding the definition of the pragmatic
part of diplomacy, but it was another reality to try to accurately define the dimensions of
this term in a theoretical sense. Empty and vague definitions came and went and only
in the 20th century did theory begin to shape some valuable definitions about this
concept. A somewhat basic definition of Diplomacy can be obtained from the
perspective of Harold Nicholson:

“Diplomacy is the management of international relations through negotiation; the

method by which these relationships are adjusted and managed through ambassadors
and envoys; the craft or art of the diplomat” (NICHOLSON: 1955, 14).
Harold Nicholson also notes that “Burke criticized the French for their ambivalent
diplomacy during the Napoleonic Wars. Since then the term has been limited to the
field of international politics and foreign affairs.”

38

87 On the other hand, Korovin establishes that diplomacy should be considered as

daily and peaceful work for the stimulation and improvement of foreign policy and that it
is carried out by the State bodies for international relations (CFR.KOROVIN: 1976,
288 ). While José Lión Depetre alludes that Diplomacy is “the science and art of the
representation of States and negotiations” (DEPETRE: 1974). However, for him, in a
more judicious sense, today we could speak of Diplomacy as: “The method of
establishing, maintaining and strengthening official relations between States, through
negotiations carried out by Heads of State or Government, Ministers of Foreign Affairs
and Diplomatic agents” (DEPETRE: 1974). For his part, José Ángel Ruiz Jiménez
mentions that: “Traditionally, the term diplomacy is used in at least two senses: the first
and more restricted refers to the process by which governments maintain relations
through official agents and under the formal conditions of international law; The
second, of a broader scope, defines the methods or techniques of foreign policy that
influence the international system, that is, the art of negotiation as the axis of
international relations. Regarding the first sense, the objective of conventional
diplomacy is to expand and improve the interests of the State. These focus above all
on safeguarding their independence, security and integrity – territorial, economic and
political – and on obtaining the broadest freedom of action. Furthermore, this type of
diplomacy seeks to obtain the maximum advantages for the nation itself, preferably
avoiding the use of force and the creation of resentments in other States. Traditional
diplomacy seeks to strengthen the State by obtaining advantages and allies in the
international arena while neutralizing its opponents, usually by generating good will
towards the State it represents. It is an alternative to war to achieve the objectives of
countries, its weapons being the word and a will to negotiate that frequently, although
not in all cases, are oriented towards the preservation of peace. Generally, although
not invariably, diplomacy negotiates agreements and resolves problems that arise
between states. It may include coercive threats, its scope, flexibility and effectiveness
being closely linked to the power of the State or States that resort to them” (RUIZ
JIMENEZ: 2004, 82-83). Or, it is worth mentioning, the classic definition by Paúl Sharp,
which, in our opinion, is the most precise of those we have been able to analyze:

88 “Diplomacy is the discreet human practice formulated by an explicit construction;

representation, negotiation and the necessary manipulation of ambiguous identities. –
And- As such, it provides powerful metaphors not only for the understanding of
diplomatic work, but for the understanding of international relations in general”
(SHARP: 1999, 32). Finally, in Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, signed on April 16, 1961, it is stated that the diplomatic functions are
basically the following: “a) Represent the accrediting State before the receiving State;
b) Protect in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and those of its
nationals within the limits permitted by international law; c) Negotiate with the
Government of the receiving State; d) Find out by all lawful means the conditions and
the evolution of events in the receiving State and inform the Government of the sending
State thereof; e) Promote friendly relations and develop economic, cultural and
scientific relations between the accrediting State and the receiving State” (UNITED
NATIONS ORGANIZATION: 1961). As we see, each of these concepts suggests that it
will be diplomatic, and will belong to diplomatic law, all that procedure or action
undertaken by States towards other States or subjects of International Law, where
formality necessarily deprives itself, which will be understood , as the international act
that enjoys a certain degree of legitimacy and legality in the eyes of International Law
or other States of the world (CFR.- CAHIER: 1965). And specifically, the diplomatic act
is more formal that, according to Diplomatic Law, recognizes: “the set of legal norms
intended to regulate the relations that are created between the different bodies of the
subjects of international law permanently or temporarily in charge of relations. exteriors
of such subjects” (CFR.- CAHIER: 1965).

The formal acts supervised by diplomacy define its main functions, these could be
established in four aspects: a) provide the government itself with information about the
material and moral conditions, the political vicissitudes and the intentions of the country
in which the diplomat is accredited; b) which competes

89 mainly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and consists of the reading and processing
of informative material obtained from its diplomatic and consular representatives, as
well as the international press; c) diplomacy must advise governments in international
political circumstances of particular importance. That is, by far, the most delicate
function and the one that reveals the ambivalence of the diplomatic profession, since
the ambassador is a technician of international relations who must carefully weigh the
consequences of his actions and initiatives and; d) it is the function of ambassadors to
inform and enlighten foreign governments about their own assessments and
negotiating positions (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 82-84).

Diplomatic theory is closely associated with international law. This legal framework
continually discussed and modified formed rules of interaction that exert an influence
on the moral concept and international duty (CFR.CAHIER: 1965). Among these rules,
there are two normative configurations that support, at most, diplomatic theory. We
refer to Diplomatic Law and Consular Law.

2.2.2.- Diplomatic and Consular Law: Diplomatic Law is a branch of the DIP and
regulates diplomatic status, as well as the relationships that are created between
States (or of these with other subjects of international law) in the same way,
establishes and regulates the bodies and agents in charge of foreign relations on a
permanent or temporary basis. Likewise, it establishes the rules that regulate the
negotiations that these representations have carried out (CFR.- MORALES LAMA:
2004, 20). However, it is necessary to establish the difference between Diplomatic Law
and Diplomacy. The latter is essentially the technique and art of conducting the foreign
policy of States. While diplomatic law establishes the rules and procedures that
regulate their relations. Consequently, Diplomacy becomes a component

90 essential part of Diplomatic Law, possibly its most noble part (CFR.- MORALES LA
MA: 2004, 20).

Consular Law, for its part, refers to the set of legal rules that regulate the establishment
of consular relations, the status of consular offices as well as the competence and
exercise of consular functions. Unlike Diplomatic Law, which is a branch of the DIP,
Consular Law includes international legal norms and also the provisions of the internal
law of the States (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 21). Consular Law configures the
role of the Consular Section of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. The Consular Section
is responsible for all activities related to consular activity itself, among which are those
related to visas, notarial activities, monitoring of nationals residing in the receiving
country (protection and security), 39 emigrations, dispatch of boats etc. (CFR.-
HERNÁNDEZ: 1997).

Both Diplomatic and Consular Law find normative reference in the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of
1963. These norms, which were born as international treaties, were based on the
habitual and regular conduct that States assumed when they established formal
relations with other States throughout history (customary law); and in the treaties,
regulations and agreements of understanding on similar matters that States have
signed in history to give coherence to their diplomatic relations with other States
(conventional law). Once established, they established the contemporary functions of
diplomacy, which were further consolidated when the Vienna Convention on Foreign
Affairs was signed in 1969.

39

It is said that the type of protection of nationals abroad determines consular action in
its entirety.

91 the Law of International Treaties. Each convention was approved by the United
Nations Organization (CFR.- GARCÍA: 1982, 80) 40 .

These regulations made it possible to categorize and define the diplomatic and
consular service 41. Thanks to them, basic distinctions and categorizations were made
in a field that, although little threatened by disorder, needed an international legal
system that regulated diplomatic actions to provide greater legitimacy and legality to
efforts to contribute: “to the development of friendly relations between nations,
regardless of their differences in constitutional and social regime” (UNITED NATIONS
ORGANIZATION: 1961), and to “the effective performance of the functions of
diplomatic missions as representatives of the States” (UNITED NATIONS
ORGANIZATION: THE UNITED NATIONS: 1961).

Diplomatic and consular relations have similarities and differences. Similarities,

because they are united by a common external profile, that is, above all diplomatic and
consular relations will be established and carried out under the supervision of the body
that, authorized by the internal law of the state, fulfills the function of foreign political
direction of the country . Differences, because although they are systems of
international relations whose functions are precisely contemplated by domestic law and
DIP, both seek different goals. For example, the relationships

diplomatic can be multilateral, but consular can be bilateral; Diplomatic relations are
governed by the DIP both in form and substance, while consular relations have the
effects of domestic law; The statements of an ambassador can generate
consequences and obligations to the State, on the other hand, the statements of a
consul generate consequences in domestic law. As we see, diplomatic relations have
more links with the representation of the
 Or See RAMÍREZ VAZQUEZ: 2001. For example, the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations established the hierarchy of agents who exercised diplomacy, that
is, diplomats: a) ambassadors, legates and apostolic nuncios; b) extraordinary envoys
and plenipotentiary ministers; c) resident ministers; d) business managers.
41

40

92 State than consular relations (more technical activities), therefore, it would not be
inappropriate to think that a State accredits its diplomatic agents, of one branch or
another, asserting the importance of one with respect to the importance of the other. As
it happens, the ambassador is appointed with a letter of credence. And the diplomatic
agent of the consular branch is appointed with a letter patent. See the following graph
where the differences are read structured:

Diplomatic Relations is Multilateral and Bilateral. It is governed by Public International

Law. The declarations generate consequences and obligations for the State. They
represent the State. They are accredited by credential letters.

Consular Relations is Bilateral. It is governed by Internal Law and Public International

Law. The declarations only generate consequences in Internal Law. It is a technical
function. They are accredited by letters patent.

The Vienna conventions, although they marked the differences between diplomatic and
consular relations, also framed some doctrinal principles unique to both branches, such
as the right of legation or jus legatio. The right of legation is the power that States have
to send or receive official emissaries on behalf of their governments (CFR.- RAMÍREZ
VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 3) 42 . Jus legatio has two aspects: the jus passivum (right to
receive) and the jus activum (right to send), such right can be freely used by all States
with international legal personality, before other States and before international
organizations ( CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 3).

“The right of legation depends on the interest of States in maintaining international

relations. The right of legation can be established through treaties in which the
contracting parties recognize the power to use said right in their reciprocal
relationships” (CFR.- RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 3).

42

Or See also MORALES: 1986. Or See MORALES LAMA: 2004, 98.

93 Diplomatic representation is an entity of international law as long as it enjoys

reciprocal recognition between States. States, according to their internal sovereignty,
have the authority to appoint their diplomatic agents. A country can appoint whoever it
sees fit to represent it abroad: but it is also indisputable that the government authorities
that are going to receive it can, by virtue of the same right, not accept it in their territory
(persona non grata) (CFR .RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 2) 43. A diplomatic agent has
the function of representing and protecting the interests of the State that sends him.
The correct choice of diplomatic agents normally influences the success of the
representation of a State abroad. And we say normally, because sometimes there are
deep elements or forces that are out of reach of diplomatic agents. In view of this fact
that generates a deficiency in diplomatic work, there is a resource that compensates for
this situation: the sense of opportunity.

That is to say, given that diplomacy seeks rapprochement between States based on an
objective and taking care of the content and form of their relations, based on
international negotiation 44, it will try to achieve the objectives based on reliable bases,
but as Social relations do not offer this type of basis, you will only be able to conjecture
your negotiation mechanisms and strategies on weak ideas and perceptions of the
reality and international situation that surrounds you, unless you support this natural
deficiency with large banks of information. This scenario of uncertainty, likewise, merits
developing a sense of opportunity to fully exploit international events and, especially,
fortuitous events. Furthermore, since diplomatic activities can strengthen the position of
a country within the international sphere, the correct use of opportunities obtains a
double value. The response capacity of diplomatic cadres in the international arena is,
without a doubt, a point

Or See also MORALES: 1986. Or See MORALES LAMA: 2004, 154. Negotiation is
the most used and well-known task in the diplomatic field since by relying on the form,
substance and means to establish intercultural communication, it becomes the most
used tool that generates the best results in foreign policy.
44

43

94 key to any aspiration for success, but you must keep in mind that the forces that
accentuate power asymmetries will always have unsuspected consequences. For this
reason, diplomacy in its long years of experience has had a greater need to have
skilled diplomats capable of succeeding in the face of disparate political orientations,
and especially, for the diplomacy of incipient developing countries, which, as they have
a passive position in the international environment, they are more in need of
specialized diplomatic cadres, which is not the key to success, but it does increase the
possibilities of not losing ground and preponderance in global power structures. Thus,
international negotiation can reduce international power asymmetries, while diplomatic
negotiation aims to find the best possible solution to international conflicts, which
generates alternatives that favor the interests of the parties and establish lines of
rapprochement and cooperation, taking into account Be careful not to miss
opportunities.

International law establishes that among the functions that a diplomat must perform are
observation. An observation should be understood as collecting information by all legal
means about the situation of the receiving State and sending it to the accrediting State.
Diplomats are foreigners who represent the interests of the State that accredits them
and therefore seek to obtain useful information for the purposes of the government.
Observation ceases to be a diplomatic task when diplomats, under the protection of
their privileges and immunities, are responsible for collecting confidential information
from the governments that receive them. For this reason, diplomacy can be tainted with
a bad reputation if observation is confused with espionage (CFR.- RAMÍREZ
VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 4).
95 2.2.3.- Modalities of Diplomatic Interaction: The modalities in which diplomatic
approaches are carried out between States are extremely complex, varied and even at
different levels (CFR.RAMÍREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 4-5). States use certain forms or
patterns of rapprochement with other States considering their national interests and
their priorities on the international agenda. There is no single way to carry out a
diplomatic approach; circumstances show States a mosaic of possibilities to establish,
maintain and strengthen diplomatic interactions with other States (CFR.- RAMÍREZ
VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 4-5). The complexity and diversity of international interactions have
led scholars to classify diplomatic modalities in various ways. For example, there are
classifications based on: relevance or convenience, the way of deciding, the way of
acting, the actors involved, historical periods, the geographical areas in which the
actors are located and, especially, based on the doctrinal and conjunctural formula that
States can assume with respect to members of the international scene. This

The horizon becomes even more complicated when it is perceived that each of the
elements to be evaluated can adopt or assimilate other elements. That is, one type of
diplomatic activity can use another to increase its functional capacity. However, before
developing this point, it is necessary to indicate the role that diplomacy plays as an
administrative element of the foreign policy of States. A foreign policy is to translate the
national interests of a State on the international level to achieve short, medium or long-
term benefits. In this perspective, there are no foreign policy expenses but investments
(CFR.- MORALES, Miguel: 2000). Or in the words of Josef Thesing: “Foreign policy is
defined as the attempt to represent the interests of a State, in order to thereby achieve
influence with respect to other States. This effort is part of a system of internal and
external interests and possibilities that can also be translated or materialized in the
constellation of world politics” (CFR.- THESING).

96 Regarding the interests that shape the foreign policy of a State, it can be divided
into two sources: Government Interests and State Interests. Each one on its own
makes up the Foreign Policy of the Government and the Foreign Policy of the State.
Once together they create the Foreign Policy of the Nation, although it is very possible
that in the union one type of interest prevails over the other. Subsequently, the
manifestations of Foreign Policy are concentrated in the agency, secretariat or ministry
of foreign affairs of the nation so that this institution executes foreign policy and gives it
due follow-up. The executing agency of foreign policy, by definition, are diplomatic
activities, that is, the actions and interests that are expressed in the work of diplomatic
agents, which focus the policies designated towards the subjects of International law.
Finally, in a dialectical sense, the interests of the State and the Government will
analyze the responses coming from the subjects of international law. In a schematic
and simplified way, the procedure is as follows:

FOREIGN POLICY ADMINISTRATION OUTLINE

Government Interests State Interests

Foreign policy

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Diplomatic Divisions

Execution Mechanisms Analysis Responses Subjects of International Law Foreign

Policy of the Nation and Interests of the Nation

97 The mechanisms for the execution of diplomatic actions are, to their full extent,
modalities of rapprochement and interaction procedures, but it is worth mentioning that
within foreign relations not everything is linked to foreign policies, that is, there are
interests at stake. that are not linked to the foreign policy of any State, for example, the
interests of new international actors. In this sense, Luis Dallanegra says the following:
“Foreign policy is the result of decision-making based on an explicit or implicit project,
taking into account the national interest, and not the result of 'reactions' to 'impacts'
coming from of the international system. Foreign relations show external links, but they
are not foreign policy” (DALLANEGRA: 2004). 2.2.3.1.- Bilateral Diplomacy: It is the
most common and ancestral modality of diplomacy 45. In fact, the birth of diplomacy
cannot be separated from the birth of this type of diplomatic activity. Bilateral diplomacy
is the establishment of relations between two States or between one of them and
another subject of international law (CFR.MORALES LAMA: 2004, 10). Bilateral
diplomacy exists at the same time that a subject of international law sends
representatives to the sphere of another subject of international law and the latter
receives them in order to establish relations, discuss common issues and implement
policies (CFR.- COHEN: 1996 , 3). No
It is worth mentioning that the General Theory of Diplomacy does not conceive the
idea of “Unilateral Diplomacy”, because it does not explain another reference or subject
of international law with whom to establish relations. However, the closest meaning to
this idea would be unilateral agreements, that is, those that are established between
two States and where one agrees to supply another with a certain item, without
expecting little or no remuneration in return. However, recently the use of the term
“Unilateral Diplomacy” has become common to explain how some countries,
independently and without consultation with the international community, carry out
certain behaviors beyond their borders, causing palpable consequences on the
international scene. . This attitude would imply a policy contrary to the values of good
neighborliness at the international level, which would be against the maximum
diplomatic principle: the search for peace. Therefore, whether this attitude is offensive
or coercive or not, it would be inappropriate to consider the term “Unilateral Diplomacy”
as belonging to the branch of the general theory of diplomacy. On the other hand, it
could be used as a synonym for a type of foreign policy, whose value would be
legitimate, since according to Harold Nicholson, Diplomacy, as a word and concept,
has five different contexts or meanings: as a synonym for foreign policy; as negotiation;
as a branch of the foreign service; as a quality and; as the process by which
negotiation takes place. Indiscriminate use of these can cause confusion. (CFR.-
NICHOLSON: 1997).
Four. Five

98 However, the representatives must enjoy the legitimate recognition of the State that
endorses them. This fact is so crucial that the idea of diplomacy is inconceivable
without an idea of legitimate representation (CFR.- SHARP, Paul. In: HAINE: 1997, 4).

2.2.3.2.- Multilateral Diplomacy: Multilateral diplomacy refers to the relationships

established between more than two States or subjects of international law (CFR.-
MORALES LAMA: 2004, 10). Its origins date back to the meetings prior to the signing
of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 when representatives of the principalities that
participated in the Thirty Years' War attended conferences (CFR.- MORALES LAMA:
2004, 12). Compared to bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy is recent if it is taken
into account that it recently began to be consolidated. Its consolidation was related to
the establishment and evolution of international organizations and institutions and
conferences, more than anything, because these instances represent for the States
forums for discussion and solution of the common problems of the international
community (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004 , 5). The UN is the model body for the
evolution of multilateral diplomacy. There more than 182 sovereign States, through
specialized bodies and agencies, seek to manage the interests and objectives of their
members in pursuit of consensual solutions based on the foundations of the United
Nations Charter. Now, it is necessary to mention that within the branch of multilateral
diplomacy there are some variables that deserve to be studied separately: Conference
Diplomacy, Parliamentary Diplomacy and Regional Block Diplomacy.

Conference diplomacy is characterized by the fact that representatives of governments

or states, ecclesiastical communities and other groups meet at a certain location, under
the scheme of a large meeting, to discuss matters within their jurisdiction. It is used in
international assemblies as a typical

99 mechanism for large-scale multilateral negotiations, therefore, it is used in any

meeting of international organizations today and is seen as synonymous with open
diplomacy (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 11-12).

Parliamentary diplomacy originates from the schemes and dynamics of regional groups
46. Specifically, it is characterized because the representatives of governments or
States that are members of an international institution or belong to a regional
integration project expose their interests to the other members under the terms of
legislative lobbying where agreements are obtained through the creation of a majority. .
In such a way that the decisions of these discussion centers are normally mandatory
and binding on all members of the organization. To achieve this objective, the legal
statutes of the bloc must be recognized and respected by the national congresses of
each Member State. The Latin American parliament is a sui generis example of the
space where parliamentary diplomacy can be developed in terms of the use of
maneuvers typical of national assemblies to represent the interests of each State
before the other States. In these discussion centers, this type of diplomacy can function
as an agent for the creation of legal norms, contributing to the preparatory work of
authentic international legislation (CFR.MORALES LAMA: 2004, 12-13), which is why it
is seen as the modality of diplomacy that offers the best expectations (CFR.-
MORALES LAMA: 2004, 12-13).

Finally, regional diplomacy, far from parliamentary diplomacy and extra-regional

diplomacy, encourages dialogue between the States of a certain geographical area.
Summits are a means of rapprochement used regionally and allow personal diplomacy
between heads of state to be carried out at the highest level. This type of regional bloc
diplomacy is the form of practice

Parliamentary diplomacy was named after the North American academic and politician
Dean Risk, and for R Alton Lee: “Through this modality of diplomacy, less powerful
states usually obtain an articulated and tangible expression of their desires and
demands” (MORALES LAMA: 2005-b).

46

100 diplomacy that has become popular in recent decades (CFR.- RAMIREZ
VÁZQUEZ: 2001: 5).

2.2.3.3.- Permanent Diplomacy and Temporary Diplomacy: Permanent diplomatic

activities are those in which subjects of international law express their determined
intention to establish representations before other subjects of international law in a
continuous and prevailing manner (CFR.MORALES LAMA: 2004, 10). In the case of
bilateral diplomacy, it is carried out with the institutionalization of resident diplomatic
missions (Embassies 47) in other States, although fifty years ago it was common
through Legations. Legations are diplomatic missions of lower rank than the Embassy,
they were historically very important, but after the Second World War the majority of
States chose to raise their rank and convert them into embassies, which is why, today,
their open process The disappearance has led this type of Diplomatic Mission to its
virtual extinction, although the formation of this institution is still possible due to the
administrative silence of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (CFR.-
MORALES LAMA: 2004, 67). In the case of multilateral diplomacy, it is carried out with
diplomatic representations in international organizations (CFR.- MORALES LAMA:
2004, 10). Temporary diplomatic activities (also known as ad hoc Diplomacy) are those
in which the subjects of international law express their determined intention to establish

representations before other subjects of international law in a transitory and non-

perishable manner (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 10). In the case of bilateral
diplomacy, it is carried out with the institutionalization of special missions that seek to
deal with very

“In bilateral relations, there may be the case of “Concurrent Ambassador”. This is a
head of mission who for special reasons is accredited to two or more States, in the
same region, and has his headquarters in that considered suitable for his interests by
the accrediting country. However, it must be taken into account that there are countries
that may refuse to receive concurrent ambassadors, and that there are others that
expressly oppose accrediting them when they are based in certain countries that they
consider inconvenient 'for reasons that they have no obligation to explain. '”.
(MORALES LAMA: 2004-c).

47

101 punctual. In the case of bilateral diplomacy, it is carried out when international
conferences are held (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 10).

2.2.3.4.- Direct Diplomacy (Summit or Presidential): This type of diplomacy is also

known as Personal or High Level diplomacy. Its birth dates back to the era of absolute
monarchies. It is characterized by the interference or direct participation of the Heads
of State or Government or Ministers or Secretaries of Foreign Affairs in the construction
of relations between subjects of international law (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 10).
It is diplomacy at the highest level that requires hard work from lower-level diplomatic
agents; since the preparatory work they carry out will bring success or not to the
meetings (CFR.- RAMIREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 5). These meetings are often decisive for
the good understanding of nations, for the resolution of current controversies, for
promoting cooperation projects, as well as for promoting economic and cultural
exchanges (CFR.- RAMIREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 5). Likewise, another quality is the
spectacular nature of the negotiations that take place between the high levels of each
State, which could make the failure of the summit more outstanding, irritating and
dangerous (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 11 ). However, nowadays it is increasingly
common for Heads of State or Government to come into contact, without
intermediaries, to raise or resolve issues that in other times would have been dealt with
through diplomatic missions (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 11). Finally, it is worth
mentioning that this type of diplomacy combines elements of both multilateral and
bilateral diplomacy. On the one hand, it retains certain features typical of negotiations
in international forums, but is free of complex procedural rules (CFR.- ICAZA: 1999,
33).

102 2.2.3.5.- Secret Diplomacy: The bad reputation of diplomacy finds an apex in its
favor when diplomatic activity is carried out in a confidential environment. The secret
nature of some international negotiations is defined because States have, on rare
occasions, a great interest in the agreements to be reached (even achieved) being
balanced and lasting, by not having to submit to public or international opinion (CFR .-
RAMIREZ VÁZQUEZ: 2001, 4). According to Icaza, these actions find their justification
in the fact that the agencies in charge of a State's foreign policy are convinced that
there are prejudices about diplomatic activity, which reveal an extraordinary confusion
between the ends and the means, that is, between the foreign policy itself and
diplomatic negotiation, which is nothing more than an instrument of that (CFR.- ICAZA:
1999, 09). Although Kofi Annan suggests that the secretive activities of diplomacy
should not be such, as long as impartiality supports democracy instead of force, in
such a way that the possibility arises that the secretive activities of diplomacy can be
legitimate if they act to maintain security against a probable enemy (CFR.- ANNAN).
2.2.3.6.- Open Diplomacy: The reserved nature of diplomacy began to weaken after the
First World War when international public opinion, eager to avoid another war so
inhumane, bloodthirsty and uninformed, began to show interest in the point in question.
that there were diplomatic relations between the States that had participated in the
conflict. And it was no wonder, because already at the end of that war many citizens,
including the soldiers themselves on the battle fronts and the rulers, were not sure why
the war had started, why they were fighting or what their objectives were. finals (CFR.-
BOERSNER: 2003) 48 . Public opinion

48

“The reason is that, unlike other previous wars, driven by limited and concrete motives,
the First World War pursued unlimited objectives” (HOBSBAWM: 1994).

103 aspired to build a more effective diplomacy and not as hermetic as the European
diplomacy of that period, that is, a perishable and coordinated diplomacy; a diplomacy
capable of filling the moral and ethical void left by the resounding failure experienced;
In short, a diplomacy that is neither exclusive nor exclusive, a diplomacy open to the
people. “In 1914 Europe was shaken by World War I and the conflict destroyed the
reputation of the European diplomatic system, while the secret diplomacy maintained
by the majority of statesmen had been one of its triggers. American President Thomas
Woodrow Wilson became the greatest defender of open diplomacy whose priority
objectives should be the maintenance of collective security and international political
balance. In place of the old system, Wilson proposed a new diplomacy which he
outlined in his Fourteen Points. The drafts of the public pacts would be decided at
international conferences in which small and great powers would participate equally. To
maintain peace, national borders would coincide with ethnic borders. All members of
the international community would commit to defending these borders against any
nation that sought to change them by force. Countries would seek common interest
instead of national interest and would submit their conflicts to international arbitration
for peaceful resolution. Many of Wilson's ideas were included in the 1919 Treaty of
Versailles and the League of Nations. However, after the United States rejected its
entry into the Society and returned to its traditional isolationist policy, the European
States restarted the system of political balance and the defense of national interests
through professional diplomats” (CFR.- MICROSOFT CORPORATION: 2005 ). The
birth of the League of Nations gave way to what would be known as democratic
diplomacy. This type of diplomacy sought to: a) impose on States the obligation to
register and publish international treaties; b) promote the exercise of diplomacy through
international conferences; and c) emphasize the adoption of the principle that no treaty
could be considered concluded until it has been approved by the congresses of the
signatory countries (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 11). In this way and for the first
time in centuries, the issues of diplomacy were not closely linked to the rulers but to the
people themselves. However, democratic diplomacy did not have greater significance
after the

104 disappearance of the League of Nations since the mandatory terms it demanded
never found legal support that sufficiently committed the States. On the other hand,
with the arrival of the United Nations, this support would be specified in the DIP
regulations. This small difference in legal support is what paved the way for open
diplomacy, which, although not perfect, has achieved greater success than the
diplomatic formula offered by its predecessor.

2.2.3.7.- Doctrinal Diplomacy: It is very common for a State to assume a foreign policy
that contains very little relationship with other policies it has implemented. When this
occurs, scholars tend to conceptually name, almost immediately, the phenomenon in
order to recognize and distinguish it as a different element with respect to the others.
This task, the naming, is done based on the evaluation of the background that this
foreign policy contains through the analysis of the objectives it pursues. Once this
requirement is met, scholars proceed to issue or recommend a defining concept for
that foreign policy with a name closely linked to the nature of the foreign policy that is
being implemented, which hides the particular perception that that State has about the
international scene. The diplomacy of the dollar, the diplomacy of the stick, the
diplomacy of forced pacification, the diplomacy of neutralization, the diplomacy of
negotiated peace, unilateral diplomacy, the Betancourt doctrine or the Estrada doctrine,
toilet diplomacy, among many others. and countless names, are concepts that define
well-planned foreign policies at a global level or tactics or tricks of the exercise of
diplomacy. Each of these denominations is not based on doctrines and ideologies
typical of an era, a State, a situation and a need; however, they are not diplomacy, they
are ways of exercising and structuring diplomacy in the international field.
105 In the same order of differentiating what politics is from the political, where the
former is the authoritative transmission of values and this is when the authoritative
transmission of values comes to life; Diplomacy, which is the game of influence
between States, differs in the ways in which it comes to life. That is to say, foreign
policies that are distinguished as diplomatic forms are not such, since they are rules of
how to exercise diplomacy with respect to other countries (CFR.- NICHOLSON: 1997,
3-4) 49. They are rules, orders, conditions, policies and even trends created by the
political will of the centers that administer the foreign policies of the States towards
their dependencies abroad and, especially, they do not modify the known diplomatic
structures (embassies, consulates, agents and diplomatic missions, multilateral and
bilateral relations, permanent and temporary relations, negotiations, interests, etc.).
Diplomatic structures remain intact in the face of foreign policies, in such a way that the
presence or absence of these policies does not affect or change the very essence of
the theoretical center of diplomacy, but they do adapt it to international circumstances.
However, the valuable thing about its existence is that if we bring together all the
foreign policies or doctrinal policies of States towards other States in a single
conceptual formula, we will be able to recognize a modality of genuine diplomatic
interaction, because it is perceptible to reason. We will call this modality Doctrinal
Diplomacy and this will be understood as the theoretical structure where the various
and innumerable foreign policies of States towards other States in the international
community are found and added together. This diplomatic modality is found in the most
superfluous and distant regions from the theoretical center of diplomacy, because they
do not redefine diplomacy, but rather they model it and habituate it to certain
circumstances. Doctrinal Diplomacy even has the quality of gathering around
diplomacy the interest or rejection of international social forces. For example, social
forces turn with centripetal force to diplomacy when the foreign policies of nations tend
to emphasize a
Harold Nicholson also mentioned that the characteristics of Diplomacy (as a concept)
facilitate confusion as to its true meaning. The reasons focus on the indiscriminate use
as a noun and adjective.
49

106 will for union and world peace. In the opposite direction, social forces turn with
centrifugal force to diplomacy when the foreign policies of nations tend to emphasize
actions based on force rather than actions based on necessity as a necessary principle
to influence relations.

concertation,

international. This type of social movement puts at risk the same values that lie at the
very center of diplomacy, as we present in the following graphs:

DIPLOMACY

DIPLOMACY

There will always be social forces revolving as centripetal forces around Diplomacy
only when the foreign policy of a State proposes a policy of peace and agreement with
other international actors.
There will always be social forces revolving like centrifugal forces around Diplomacy
only when the foreign policy of a State proposes a policy based on force and
imposition.

For example, stick diplomacy promoted centrifugal forces around the relations between
the States of the American continent because the message of American diplomacy
posed a moderate threat or a latent retaliation to those American countries that were
not in accordance with its perception of what It was to be the international scene of the
continent. In addition to the suspicions, intrigues and fear that it caused in some
political spheres of the region, the sovereign attitude that the United States sought to
impose with this foreign policy deteriorated some historical ties between this country
and other neighbors, but in no case the foreign policy of the States Americans
remained in the hands of military spheres. Diplomatic activities during this period

107 were reduced in intensity, although little compared to the low levels compared to
the World Wars.

On the other hand, the diplomacy of negotiated peace promoted centripetal forces in
Colombia as it led the government agencies (in the Samper - Pastrana period) to
gather efforts commonly shared with the guerrilla to seek solutions to the conflict. The
difference between centrifugal diplomacy and centripetal diplomacy is that the former
does not know any other support for its actions than those based on force or
instigation, unlike the latter, which has peace and understanding by mutual agreement
in mind as a desirable mechanism. and necessary for political stability.

In summary, although doctrinal diplomacy is related to the most superfluous regions of

the diplomatic theoretical sphere, these are, by nature: those that are most in contact
with reality from the point of view of theory; the most conflictive, changing and
incessant; They enter the general theory of diplomacy because it is a definable
theoretical region and not because of the different ways in which it can be manifested.
In such a way that it is more valuable to talk about Doctrinal Diplomacy than Dollar
Diplomacy, for example, because the latter is a vague composition of the former, which
is the matrix theoretical composition where this and many other foreign policies of
different types are found. names and forms.

2.2.3.8.- Technical Diplomacy: The rise of the division of labor throughout the 20th
century, originating in the industrial revolution of the 19th century and the dizzying
accumulation of knowledge, emphasized the growing presence of a highly skilled
human workforce. qualified and specialized, who with highly instrumentalized
knowledge, initiated a true revolution in all known sciences, because they used
mechanical processes to access or modulate reality and demonstrated with patent
results,

108 in some cases, that traditional theoretical paradigms were already obsolete.
Although this phenomenon prospered for a time, in the long run it corroborated another
panorama where the hard sciences always benefited more than in the case of the soft
or social sciences, in which no substantial progress was perceived. The advance of
technocracy (and its technocrats) and of technicians in international affairs began to
wane at the precise moment in which it became evident that States, human
communities and individuals did not respond to fixed laws, much less moderate ones.
just like the machines. Their efforts to manipulate reality from a factual point of view,
considering their objects of analysis as simple numbers in an immense matrix of data,
did not obtain the expected results and by the middle of the 20th century it was already
inappropriate to blindly trust in technical knowledge to direct the policies of
governments to their citizens. However, despite this, technicians still exist and are still
present in human societies making decisions. This is because some aspects of
technical knowledge are valuable to apply in very specific and rare cases. In
international relations, technical knowledge has been limited to commercial and
financial issues more than anything else. For example, it is widely used in
macroeconomic policies between States and in trade policies. The latter, of greater
development, has given rise to the so-called commercial diplomacy. But for the rest,
there are facets in which its presence is unnecessary, as Manuel Morales Lama points
out when mentioning what the experience of diplomacy has been like in light of this
trend: “More than forty years ago it was thought that the end of Traditional Diplomacy
was close, since many of the decisions were being made in meetings of technicians,
within international organizations. However, the need for a certain penetration, tact and
an art that technicians do not possess, ensures a space for Traditional or Classic
Diplomacy, and this is how experts in this discipline are required as advisors or
counselors in these meetings. Currently, Traditional Diplomacy has contributing
functions with the so-called Technical Diplomacy, since the permanent Diplomatic
Mission (...) will be responsible for

109 participate in the preparation of the conclave, but it will also serve the technicians
of its nation as a source of information about the host country and, finally, using the
centralized information of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the diplomats accredited there
will prepare one of the files on which the technical delegation of your country will work”
(CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2 004, 13-14). Finally, we can say that this type of diplomatic
activity is characterized because the issues that are negotiated between States are
dealt with, mostly, by diplomatic agents who do not hold the highest rank of the
diplomatic mission, that is, the technicians 50. Likewise, it can be added that it is
characterized because the topics discussed are adapted to commercial, financial and
information terms, excluding political topics. Furthermore, the intertwined nature of
some issues concerning technical diplomacy, especially issues of macroeconomic
policies between countries, makes it difficult to be followed by a collegiate diplomatic
corps, and limits it to a few agents specialized only in those issues.

2.2.3.9.- Realistic and Idealist Diplomacy; Active or Passive Diplomacy and

Constitutional Diplomacy: Diplomacy has been seen in the theoretical aspect in
summarized ways in terms of its way of proceeding. For example, if the diplomatic
procedures of a State or group of them manifest an emphatic character in defending
and imposing its national interests using its power, it could be said that its diplomacy is
realistic 51. César Sepúlveda mentions that this type of diplomacy (which has its
theoretical origins in the works of Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan) is
characterized: a) by the instrumental use of the “National Interest”, which often distorts
the ethical sense and b) by the criteria that come into play when negotiating
(CFR.SEPÚLVEDA: 1960, 142-144).
This quality of “rank parallelism” has led many authors to consider that this type of
diplomacy is a form of “parallel diplomacy”, apart from the fact that the Technicians
sometimes carry out negotiations that fall into those areas, however , far from this
version, we recommend reading the works of Ivo Duchacek, on “parallel diplomacy”. 51
It is worth mentioning that realists admit that ideologies and ideals form an important
part of a correlation of real forces. (CFR.- BOERSNER: 2003).
fifty

110

“The failure of all previous world peace schemes must be sought in the persistent
conditions from which the disagreements resulted (...) In all social groups - whatever
their size - the struggle for influence and control is perceived. power (...) The realist
seeks to mitigate rivalries between nations, through checks and balances and through
transaction and bargaining” (CFR.SEPÚLVEDA: 1960, 142-144). On the other hand,
Vespasiano De La Rosaleda considers that Realist Diplomacy is where actions of all
kinds are justified, taking the “national interest” as justification (CFR.- DE LA
ROSALEDA: 2001) and Juan José de Olloqui constructs a way of seeing this
diplomacy by calling it Total Diplomacy when it conceives that this instrument of peace
requires using all the means at our disposal to achieve the objectives of Foreign Policy
(CFR.- DE OLLOQUI, Juan José. In: DE LA ROSALEDA: 2001).

Now, if diplomatic procedures are willingly directed towards the indivisibility of peace or
the search for consensual solutions with the possibility of putting aside one's own
national interests, one could say that it is idealistic. Both Realist and Idealist diplomacy
only defend the postulates of the theories from which they get their name:

“Realism is a doctrinal approach to international relations that is characterized by

assuming that they respond to realities that, without being alien to humans, usually
exceed their wills. Realism is opposed to idealism according to which international
relations can be freely determined by the will of governments and regulated by
International Law” (REVILLA MONTOYA: 2003). The birth of Realist and Idealist
diplomacy dates back to the first half of the 20th century. The first appears when
Theodore Roosevelt assumes the presidency of the United States (1901-1909) and the
second when his counterpart Woodrow Wilson does so years later (1913-1921).

111 “Before the First Great War, the United States was already a world power,
however its isolationism prevailed in its foreign policy. It was not until the presidency of
Theodore Roosevelt that the United States fully entered world politics. He insisted that
an international role be attributed to the United States because its national interest
demanded it and because, according to him, A global balance of power was
inconceivable without American participation. For Woodrow Wilson, the justification for
the United States' international role was messianic: the country had no obligation to the
balance of power, but rather to spread American principles throughout the world.'
Roosevelt, in his annual address to Congress in 1904, said that in America, US
adherence to the Monroe Doctrine can force the nation, in flagrant cases of evil or
incompetence, to exercise, even reluctantly, an international police power. Wilson, in
his first State of the Union address, on December 2, 1913, set the guidelines for what
later became known as Wilsonism. Universal law and not balance, national integrity
and not national self-assertion were, in Wilson's view, the foundations of international
order. Wilson stated that 'nothing that concerns humanity can be alien or indifferent to
us.'” (REVILLA MONTOYA: 2003). Likewise, if the diplomatic procedures of a State or
group of them, or of the international scene itself, show a slow nature in situations that
demand activity, it could be said that diplomacy is passive. On the other hand, if
diplomatic procedures have great dynamism, it would be active diplomacy. However,
there is discussion about what periods determine the appearance of active or passive
diplomacy. Curiously, it is considered that active diplomacy is typical of times of peace,
since countries have greater initiative for action than when there are times of war,
since, in these periods, initiatives are left behind due to the risks and possible
consequences of conflicts. .

Finally, in the mid-nineties Michael Glennon introduced to the modern debate on

diplomacy an analysis of the permanent conflict between constitutionalism and
diplomacy that has characterized the definition of US foreign policy since 1945. In his
work “Constitutional Diplomacy” he analyzes, among other topics, the relationship of
the president with Congress, the role of the Judiciary and the tension between
international law and American law. Likewise, it reiterates the need to develop a true
Constitutional Diplomacy, that is, to abandon

112 the predominance of the Executive Branch to ensure the active participation,
inscribed in the Constitution, of the three branches of power in the definition of the
foreign policy of the USA (CFR.- GLENNON: 1996).

2.2.3.10.- Classic or Traditional Diplomacy and Modern Diplomacy: Until now it has
been suggested that the methods or techniques of foreign policy that influence the
international system, that is, the art of negotiation as the axis of international relations,
second sense of diplomacy (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 82), have undergone a
considerable transformation, while the first sense of diplomacy, that is, the process by
which governments maintain relations through official agents and under the formal
conditions of international law, has remained almost intact.

After the Cold War, when military functions largely replaced diplomatic functions and
operated within clearly differentiated areas of common and opposing objectives, and
negotiation acquired an essential factor such as proportional force, diplomacy entered
a stage that changed considerably its form, but not its substance. The new challenges
and the new environment that emerged and, most of all, the analysis of the previous
conflict together with the theoretical reflections on the relationships of human societies,
showed the important limitations of the traditional perspective of diplomacy, in terms of
its management. and its modus operandi, as well as the absence of sufficiently
effective violence prevention instruments (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 82). In this
way, gradually, the different study centers worldwide on international relations were
reconciling the idea that although it was a fact that the political work of conventional
diplomacy was, of course, necessary, it could be susceptible to being improved ( CFR.-
RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 82). The very nature of international politics required a review
process of diplomacy and after fifteen years the first fruits were being reaped.

113 Little by little the theories of modern diplomacy were born, without forgetting the
obsolete role of its predecessor.

“What some have called 'classical' diplomacy, that is, permanent diplomacy, which
was, according to Hedley Bull, a critical element in the functioning of an international
society, is today obsolete. Since the creation of the permanent ambassador, which is
an event close to the emergence of the State (...) diplomacy has been in a slow but
inevitable process of decline. Furthermore, it is often argued that with the modern
development of communications, the telephone (…) and now the Internet, the role and
function of an ambassador has been diminished and that today's diplomats have been
reduced to the status of a 'simple employee'. ' on the other end of the phone line. As
the State is losing preponderance as the main actor in international relations,
diplomacy also assumes a decreasing role. But, at the same time, we are faced with a
paradox: diplomats exist and have increased in number since the Second World War
and even since the end of the Cold War. The old or classic diplomacy, characterized by
its bilateral, secret nature and reserved for dark political interests, has not yet
disappeared. In many instances, this classic diplomacy is still useful today.” (HAINE:
1997, 2). For many, modern diplomacy exposes international agendas full of varied
topics (CFR.- HERNÁNDEZ: 1997), moves away from ambiguous contents
(CFR.FIERRO), is more creative and imaginative (CFR.- VILLEPIN: 2003) and has
multifaceted levels of analysis when proceeding (CFR.- MARTIN: 2001), however, its
greatest characteristic is that it greatly complements traditional diplomacy. Also, there
is a very defining quality of modern diplomacy and that is the management, use and
administration of information and communications. In the last decade of the 20th
century, information and communications technology underwent a development that
affected normal human behavior in many countries around the world. Therefore, the
government institutions of the States were also influenced by this technological impact
that was capable of optimizing administrative procedures and lowering their costs. The
various changes that occurred within the institutions were evident as the technological
revolution took root in the institutional structures and, perhaps, the most obvious
change was limited to the fact that the geographical distances between countries had
been reduced, but not from a realistic and

114 objective, but from the subjective perception and conviction of proximity, that is,
information and telecommunications technology has made the parameter of distance
unimportant and, even now, the most remote and remote areas of the world can
participate in various global processes that years ago they would not have been able to
participate in (CFR.- UTSUMI: 2001).

In this context, diplomatic activities have been no exception to the issue. The
proliferation of computer networks (such as the Internet) capable of transmitting
information at an increasingly rapid pace made it possible for diplomatic agents to
achieve more effective dialogues and recreate international observatories
(CFR.ROJAS: 1997) that make alert mechanisms more efficient. early. Also, the
advance of telecommunications has in practice meant that current diplomatic activities
are carried out without the need to send an official representation abroad, a strategy
that is a typical response to reducing costs by the Public Administration of the States.
(CFR.- AREA: 2004).

Secretary of State Franz Von Däniken, one of the highest-ranking diplomats in the
Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs, says there are certain basic elements in the
traditional duties of diplomacy that undoubtedly do not change. However, new
instruments, such as email and the Internet, typical of the 1990s, produce a certain
displacement of activities. Due to this, the relevance of the diplomat's personal
presence and personality increases. In short, the Old Diplomacy exists, as does the
New Diplomacy before your eyes (CFR.- VON DÄNIUKEN, Franz. In: SAAMELI: 2002).

This relationship, between Diplomacy and Technology, has received the distinction of
Virtual Diplomacy, which according to Smith Gordon could be defined, at its most basic
level, as the use of information technology to help conduct activities.

115 of international relations (CFR.- SMITH). This way of assuming Modern Diplomacy
encourages the idea of conceiving that current Diplomacy is related not only to the
pursuit of national interests but also to the management of global issues (CFR.-
GILCHRIST: 2004), this would mean a conceptual change in the very essence of
understanding Diplomacy in its traditional sense, however, Gilchrist, Alan considers
that:

“Virtual diplomacy does not pose essential differences in content from classical
diplomacy, but it does present changes in method and approach and a broader range
of actors – many of whom are not professional diplomats. The accelerated evolution of
technological change has also changed what we understand by information. In past
times the concept 'information' was, fundamentally, the collection, storage,
transmission, analysis and presentation of data. The next revolution raises the
question: What is the meaning and purpose of information? and this question entails a
redefinition of the tasks that require computer support and a redefinition of the
institutions involved, including diplomacy” (GILCHRIST: 2004). However, Todd Martín
responds to these arguments in a similar way. For him, although the current realities of
diplomatic relations reveal the importance of communication and information, this does
not interfere with the primary function of Diplomacy which is to facilitate communication
between the political leaders of States and other entities in world politics and Likewise,
it does not challenge the idea that information makes diplomatic institutions ideal
entities to explore how the new telecommunications environment favors the State and
Non-Governmental Actors (CFR.- MARTIN: 2001). Likewise, George Shultz does not
deny that the reality of current Diplomacy is to feed on information by “getting it,
evaluating it and putting it in the system for the benefit and perplexity of others”
(SHULTZ: 1997).

116 Finally, it is not inappropriate to think that this represents a profound impact on the
way diplomacy is directed and conceived (CFR.- SHULTZ: 1997). The information age
is undermining the platforms of Classical Diplomacy based on “realpolitik” (CFR.- DE
RIVERO. 2004) 52 and “hard power” (CFR.- FOIX: 2002) 53, and instead supports a
new type of diplomacy based on “cyberpolitik” 54 and with a preference for “soft
power”. However, there is still continuity, this new type of diplomacy still keeps within
itself some elements of Classical Diplomacy, so it is not convenient to believe that the
change in the means or tools of diplomatic action is a total fracture with respect to to
classical diplomacy.

2.2.3.11.- Track Two Diplomacy (Official or Citizen) and Multivial Diplomacy: For some,
this type of diplomatic interaction is limited to grassroots citizen projects and training,
dialogue or negotiation workshops, while others insist that it is a form of interaction
between professionals who are closely connected with politicians (CFR.- RUIZ
JIMENEZ: 2004, 85), although its capacity cannot be left aside, like the other forms of
diplomacy modalities, to conflict resolution.

This type of unofficial diplomatic activity had already been described and commented
on by the American diplomat Joseph Montville in 1982. On that occasion he defined
this type of diplomacy as “track two diplomacy”, in reference to a wide range of
unofficial contacts and interaction aimed at resolving conflicts.
De Rivero, Peruvian Ambassador to the UN, mentions in this brief essay an idea of
what should be understood by “realpolitik” in its translation into Spanish: “… realpolitik,
that is, (…) the structure of world power… ”. Realpolitik, too, responds to human
political activities that are based solely on the global power structure to wield and justify
any future action to be taken. (CFR.- DE REIVERO: 2004). 53 Foix mentions in this
brief essay an idea of what should be understood by “Hard Power” in its translation into
Spanish: "…hard power, that is, its military power…" (CFR.- FOIX: 2002). 54 It can be
suggested that Cyberpoli itik are human political activities in which information
management and the media are as fundamental, and in certain cases much more, as
the global power structure to wield and base any future action to be taken.
52

117 both internationally and within States, far from the diplomatic methods of the
conventional government system.

Montville used the expression in contrast to track one diplomacy, which includes
diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts through official government channels (CFR.-
NOTTER: 1996). This perception responded to a process of revisionism on diplomatic
matters that, within the traditional conception, were insufficient to explain the presence
of unofficial activities. According to Montville, track two diplomacy meant “unofficial and
unstructured interaction between members of opposing groups or nations that is
oriented toward conflict resolution, prioritizing the treatment of psychological factors”
(MONTVILLE, Joseph. In: FISCHER: 1997, 17).

Montville considered track two diplomacy as a process designed to assist official

leaders in exploring possible solutions, out of the public eye and without the necessary
requirements to negotiate formally, or to seek situations of advantage. According to
José Ángel Ruiz Jiménez, following Montville's initial definition, other scholars offered
their own interpretations of the term. “While numerous authors tended to use the terms
citizen diplomacy and track two diplomacy as equivalent, F ank Dukes and John Burton
established a distinction between the two, by which the former referred to a whole class
of unofficial procedures applicable internationally and intercommunal where different
cultures exist and the apparent need for better understanding that cannot be achieved
through more formal contacts. Examples they cite in this category include citizen
exchange visits, concerts, city twinning, educational exchanges, common research
projects and humanitarian aid. Track two diplomacy, on the other hand, was described
by Burton and Dukes as 'unofficial, informal interaction between members of adversary
nations or groups that aim to develop strategies, influence public opinion, and organize
human and material resources so that can contribute to resolving their conflict. Track
two diplomacy would therefore be designed to assist official leaders by compensating
for the restrictions imposed on them by their psychologically understandable traditional
need to appear strong, cunning and indomitable before their enemy, or at least to be
considered as

118 such. The definition of Burton and Dukes is very similar to that of Montville,
although the former emphasized the lack of formality of communication, defined
objectives aimed at influencing broad communities, and addressed the importance of
economic factors” (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 85). These forms of alternative
diplomacy suggested that the possibility of resolving conflicts peacefully does not
reside solely in governments and their official representatives, which is why the idea
began to take shape that ordinary citizens of varied origins, with diverse skills and
suitably organized could play a role. relevant role in peacemaking, peacebuilding 55
and conflict resolution processes 56. John McDonald believed that the basic concept
conceived by Montville regarding track two diplomacy was creating confusion about its
meaning and use, so he proceeded to design a model for multi-track diplomacy (CFR.-
RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 85).

McDonald's multi-road diplomacy 57 is based on five levels and all involve a type of
unofficial or citizen diplomacy aimed at helping to reverse escalations of violence and
resolve international conflicts (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 87). He defined the first
level as conventional diplomacy; the second would be limited to the efforts made by
professional, well-informed and involved private citizens. The third level would be
reserved for interactions carried out by corporations, companies or individuals in the
business world. He
“Peacemaking refers to activities aimed at achieving the end of an armed conflict;
peacekeeping or peace enforcement refers to the tasks of passive containment of
opposing groups (such as detachments of blue helmets marking the border between
rival factions, thus preventing their mutual aggression); The concept of peacebuilding is
more recent and also more ambitious, relating to actions aimed at strengthening and
consolidating peace, at the construction of peaceful, democratic and stable societies,
normally in the context of post-conflict situations. The term preventive diplomacy is also
being consolidated, with the aim of anticipating conflicts and trying to solve them before
violence breaks out.” See: (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 85). 56 This idea is what has
generated confusion regarding Parallel Diplomacy. 57 According to Carol Coronado:
“we can say that track two diplomacy, unofficial diplomacy and multiple track diplomacy
is simply what we know as citizen diplomacy, since it is the work or participation of
citizens unofficially committed to prevention, resolution, and transformation of ethnic,
national, regional or international conflicts. Its scope of practice is civil society, which
gives it that characteristic of citizen. This citizen diplomacy does not seek to replace
official diplomacy, it aims to work parallel to it, to achieve a common objective: peace.”
(CORONADO: 2004).
55

119 fourth level would denote direct exchange programs between citizens in any field
of interaction. Finally, the fifth level referred to the attempts developed through
countries in conflict to educate the public about the “other” (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ:
2004, 87-89). The fundamental basis of this multi-track diplomacy lies in the fact that
individuals and organizations are more effective working together than separately,
especially considering that most contemporary conflicts involve a wide and intricate
network of parties and factors that require systematic and consistent treatment. that
States are not enough to guarantee international cooperation or resolve differences
and conflicts 58.

It is worth mentioning that unofficial diplomatic actions are located beyond the
traditional and conceptual borders of Diplomacy. However, these occur and in some
cases are as beneficial (CFR.- NOTTER: 1996) as official diplomatic actions. In 1991,
Louise Diamond outlined eight fields of diplomatic action, based on a classification of
specialized officials that she carried out in the US Secretariat of Foreign Affairs, where
unofficial activities would be susceptible, in addition to the official field, in: 1) Non-
Governmental Areas, 2) Business Areas, 3) Academic Areas, 4) Activist Areas, 5)
Religious Issue Areas, 6) Issue Areas linked to Human Philanthropies, 7) Issue Areas
linked to the circulation of Information and, 8) Areas linked to Citizens. This Multiple
Tracks scam (CFR.- MC DONALD; DIAMOND: 2003) was the consequence of the fact
that it had become clear that the unofficial interaction in favor of the solution of
international conflicts was varied and complex so that the term Track Two Diplomacy
gave an adequate idea of the new trend of modern diplomacy (CFR.- NOTTER: 1996).

It is worth mentioning that Michael Bavly would propose a new model of multi-road
diplomacy that he suggests for multi-road diplomacy. He divides conflict resolution
diplomacy into a four-level hierarchical model, in which he focuses primarily on
differentiating the parties in conflict with a neutral third party, an expert mediator or
facilitator. (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 85-89).

58

120 It is worth mentioning that James Notter there are three categories of Extraofficial
Diplomatic Activities: •

Consultation: Consultation, perhaps the most common activity of track two, brings
together representatives of the conflicting parties, who participate in their personal
capacity, to facilitate discussion and generate innovative ideas to solve the problem.
When these unofficial participants have political influence, there is an opportunity for
these ideas to also be included in the official conflict resolution process (CFR.-
NOTTER: 1996).

Dialogue: Within the context of track two diplomacy, dialogue is a form of assisted
communication between the parties in conflict, when its objective is not to convince or
persuade, but rather to explore a meaning, that is, the meaning that the groups assign
to it. to its existence or to particular circumstances. It is about sharing that meaning
and, in doing so, finding the connection or the bridge to overcome the obstacles that
divide groups in conflict (CFR.- NOTTER: 1996).

Training: The third category of intervention in track two is training. Conflict resolution
experts use training to equip conflicting parties with the skills that are useful to resolve
and transform those conflicts. These capabilities often have application in many
different situations, from personal disputes to deep-seated national or ethnic conflicts
(CFR.- NOTTER: 1996). Also in these unofficial schemes, Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

recently deceased, mentioned that for several years there has been a very different
type of diplomatic activity. He speculated about the clandestine diplomacy 59 that

It is that type of secret diplomacy, based on negotiations and intuitu personae

conversations that are beyond diplomatic channels. (CFR.- HAINE: 1997, 3)

59
 121 is not at all formal and moves away from diplomatic channels 60: “clandestine
diplomacy in free societies, although more colorful than regular officials, rarely affects
the great events of history” (CFR.- EBAN, Abba. In: WHITE, ROBERT: 1997). Abba
Eban's statement recognizes that there can be diplomacy beyond the classic restrictive
borders regarding its definition, however, this contradicts the perception that diplomatic
activities that are beyond the formal, indeed, can bring repercussions on the States
(CFR.- COLL: 2003). This perception is based on the principle that on certain
occasions these clandestine actions can have formal consequences.

2.2.3.12.- Non-Violent Civil Diplomacy: Non-violent civil diplomacy includes two

complementary but distinct aspects: on the one hand, the activities organized and
developed by civil society for the peaceful transformation and resolution of conflicts; the
creation of forms of coexistence and programs of reconciliation and intercultural
integration; and maintaining lines of dialogue at the grassroots level, even when these
are broken or deadlocked at the conventional diplomatic level; and, on the other hand,
it is a means of directly influencing the decisions, behaviors, relationships and
regulatory frameworks of States so that their agendas give a leading role to positive
peace and human rights. This idea was offered by José Ángel Ruiz Jiménez in 2001
and although he affirms that it is under debate, he also mentions, by way of support,
that this modality of diplomacy is inspired between concepts: nonviolent popular
diplomacy, field diplomacy, and diplomacy from the base (CFR.RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004,
94-96).

The “Diplomatic Route” basically refers to the fact that certain procedures, generally
between two States, must be carried out through the corresponding foreign ministries
and diplomatic missions, in accordance with the principles, rules and procedures that
govern actions within this framework. The diplomatic channel, too, should not be
confused with the “Diplomatic Style,” which is the set of forms and terms used in oral
and written presentations of that nature, in accordance with established norms that
govern, with due precision, their use. (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2003-b).

60

122 According to their opinion, all of them have in common the intervention through
citizen bodies without direct relationship with their governments, on the ground, in
national or international conflicts, with the use of unequivocally non-violent
methodologies and with the aim of favoring a peaceful or At least, reduce the levels of
violence as much as possible. José Ángel Ruiz Jiménez states that: “The term
nonviolent popular diplomacy considers the meaning of the word popular as broader
than civil. It finds its origin in Italy and is a literal translation of the concept diplomazia
popolare nonviolenta, in turn heir to difesa popolare nonviolenta. This implies not only
the intervention of secular civil society, but also of a part of the grassroots religious
society and even of government agencies with great autonomy of action, such as
universities and city councils, both bodies with full and independent legal capacity.
Regarding field diplomacy, it is a concept consolidated in the lexicon of the United
Nations that implies the consideration of first and second level diplomacy - according to
Michael Bavly's scheme - as insufficient, and therefore an intervention on the ground is
necessary. This would not be an alternative but complementary and, to a certain
extent, autonomous. Furthermore, diplomacy from the base places special emphasis
on the assumption that the diplomatic intervention of third parties that would imply
maintenance, negotiation and construction of peace has to be done from and through
the base, that is, it must be a citizen and working on site from the micro. Likewise, it
gives a leading role to the reconstruction of the social fabric, to intercultural and
reconciliation elements” (CFR.- RUIZ JIMENEZ: 2004, 94). The proposed definition of
nonviolent civil diplomacy is an attempt to offer as comprehensive a bottom-up
peacemaking tool as possible. To do this: a) Recover the common elements of these
three terms; b) It more clearly specifies its nonviolent character with respect to
diplomacy from the base; c) Claims greater possibilities of autonomy and greater
richness in its capacity for action compared to field diplomacy, which seems more
restricted as it is above all a complement to conventional diplomacy and is more
oriented towards avoiding direct violence in cases of armed conflicts. ongoing or
completed, somewhat diluting its capacity as an instrument for preventing violence; d)
It aims to go beyond actions on the ground, adding the possibility of influencing the
agendas of the States. This can be done through specific self-managed campaigns or
by supporting initiatives from the international community to establish agreements that
provide greater protection and respect for human rights; e) finally, the civil term does
not have to exclude any of the actors indicated by the popular term” (CFR.- RUIZ
JIMENEZ: 2004, 95). 2.2.3.13.- Neo-Diplomacy, Anti-Diplomacy and Proto-Diplomacy:
In 1987 James Der Derian published his exceptional work On Diplomacy (CFR.- DER
DERIAN: 1987). In this book he presented to the world six modalities of diplomatic
interaction, or in his words, six paradigms to interpret and analyze the origins and
transformations of diplomacy. Specifically, he referred to diplomacy evolving through
the following periods: Myth-Diplomacy; Proto-Diplomacy; Anti-Diplomacy; Diplomacy;
Neo-Diplomacy and; Techno-Diplomacy (CFR.- AULAGNON: 2004). However, of all
these categories, we will only limit ourselves to studying their most valuable and
original contributions, which is why, first of all, we will leave aside Myth-Diplomacy
because it establishes lines of relationship not typical of subjects of international law,
that is, in horizontal relationships 61 . Secondly, we will leave aside his conception of
Diplomacy 62 and Techno-Diplomacy 63 because, in our opinion, they do not add more
than what has already been mentioned.

The arrival of new international actors on the international scene represented, in the
eyes of Der Derian, a new evolution in diplomacy. These actors took away the full
exclusivity of the States in international affairs and now, with the greatest insistence,
they made the diplomatic agendas of the States of the world
Horizontal relationships, in the theoretical themes of international relations, were
subject to the interrelationships between subjects of international law under equal
conditions, while vertical relationships are those where there are relationships between
subjects of international law that are governed by the prevalence of a power or
hierarchy. Der Derian states that the first stage of the evolution of diplomacy focused
on vertical relationships, that is, conflictive power relationships between the aspirations
of human beings and the designs of the gods, which is why he called this relationship
Myth-Diplomacy. 62 For James Der Derian, the evolutionary stage of Diplomacy, called
“Diplomacy”, is characterized by the consolidation of the Modern State and by the
unique and exclusive presence of States as main actors on the international scene. 63
“James Der Derian analyzes the 'script' of the 'diplomatic institution' through different
texts and intertexts applying the genealogical method, that is, analyzing the
relationships of the different 'scripts' in their relationship with power in different
historical stages, interpreting their origins and changes in texts and discourses. The
specific topic is the genealogy of 'Western estrangement' (diplomacy can only be
understood in terms of separation, of estrangement from another) from its biblical
origins to the current situation, defined as 'techno-diplomacy'." See SOLOMON G:
1999).
61

124 will be diverted by new and untraditional topics, such as feminism,

environmentalism, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, etc. Its
establishment also created new practices and interests for each of the world's
chancelleries. Der Derian called this new order NeoDiplomacy 64. With this term he
tried to refer to these alternative forms of mediation practiced by new actors and non-
traditional agents on the international scene, however, he stressed that these could
help or harm the purposes of diplomacy (CFR.- SENG SEE: 2001, 20 -twenty-one). For
him, neodiplomatic forms are not necessarily new, but their recent rise thanks to the
proliferation of track two diplomatic relations (CFR.- SENG SEE: 2001, 20-21), has
modified the traditional role of diplomacy by adding new topics. and variety to
negotiations and procedures, while transferring the usual state control of international
affairs to other areas. For some authors this list of facts is called Post-Diplomacy
(CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004-c). The need for this results from the international
action of non-governmental organizations whose logic goes beyond the modern
Nation-State, and therefore, beyond diplomacy (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004-c). Or if
you want, the term PostDiplomacy can be assisted by James Baker's vision of the
modern interference of public opinion in international affairs. The emerging role of
public opinion in the last ten years has built an unquestionable influential force in the
foreign affairs of States. Such a force is capable of creating a context where diplomats
could only follow events instead of creating them. This reduction of the role of
diplomats to the role of spectators defines, for Baker, the end of diplomacy (CFR.-
BAKER, James. In: HAINE: 1997, 3). Now, in our opinion, Post-Diplomacy could also
be reduced to the last episode in the history of diplomacy. The extension and
consolidation of integration projects around the world and their tendency to behave on
the international stage as a single force, not

64

For the purposes of this research, it is extremely important to note that in the term
Neo-Diplomacy, there is a script that differentiates one term from the other. See the
Neodiplomacy chapter

125 make it inappropriate to imagine that in the future the world could be divided
between economic blocks whose international representation will be on the shoulders
of Sole Ambassadors. That is to say, the consolidation of integration projects today has
emphasized a reduction in the obligations and functions of modern diplomacy (CFR.-
BRUTER: 1999, 183-205), in that it is now possible to speak of diplomats who They do
not represent the States, but rather an economic block, such as the EU (CFR.-
BRUTER: 1999, 183-205), whose project of interstate integration is considered by
some as an alternative to the National State and others as the evolution of new and
larger States (CFR.- STREECK: 1998, 315). There, the Member States, although they
currently have embassies abroad, notice how their national embassies are lagging
behind the EU representations in some areas that were previously their responsibility.
Hypothetically, the EU, as well as another bloc, could in the future designate a Sole
Ambassador to represent the interests of its member countries vis-à-vis the other
integrated blocs. Of course, to reach that stage, without a doubt, we will have to leave
behind the great obstacles and problems that we have at the present. Furthermore, this
suggests that many years, even centuries, will have to pass to reach that utopian world
of total understanding. . And it will be true that the conviction of the diplomacy of that
time will not be remotely as we know it and, also, it seems true that we have already
begun to move in that direction or, at least, that is what the words of the North
American president George suggest. Bush on March 3, 2003 at a Conference: “We are
still in the last stages of diplomacy.” Perhaps over time this trend towards the reduction
of the powers and obligations of modern embassies and the advancement of the
interference of civil society and corporations in these issues, as well as the
consolidation of other integration projects in the world, will advance to to such an extent
that they completely erode diplomatic activity in general 65 .

Zbigniew Brzezinski's phrase in 1970 is well known, saying: “if ministries and
embassies did not exist, they – today – would surely not have to be invented”; and the
phrase JK Galbraith who went so far as to say: “diplomats are spectacular examples of
the unemployed in disguise” (HAINE: 1997, 2). Both referred to this to describe how
unnecessary embassies and diplomats are in this new world order.

65

126 Next, James Der Derian called Anti-Diplomacy those relations between the State
and Non-States contrary to modern diplomacy. That is, when revolutions or uprisings
against the international status quo are promoted by groups opposed to the regime that
want no other solution than the destruction of the world order, States would have the
legitimate and non-negotiable task of defending their interests and establishing paths of
mediation. or negotiation with these groups, which, if they do not seek to access or
respond to some type of these insinuations, would establish a type of non-relationship.
There is no diplomacy in this type of relationship, and if there is no diplomacy, it is
something more than a war, it is Anti-Diplomacy because it does not seek peace but
rather destruction. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the term Anti-Diplomacy is used to
refer to the sinister and destabilizing international anti-system empire of terrorists and
drug traffickers, who are against the established order (CFR.MORALES LAMA: 2004-
c).

Finally, James Der Derian gives us another important definition when he talks about
Proto-Diplomacy. This term, which was also developed by Ivo Duchacek, implies all
those forms or procedures abroad that are carried out by non-central governments, that
is, by representations of organizations that are not yet full subjects of DIP, but act as
such as They aspire to achieve that level in the future. Its objectives and interests, at
this level, are political and expose a separatist identity (CFR.- DUCHACEK: 1990, 1-
33) 66 .

“That is, they are initiatives and activities of a subnational government that aspires to
establish itself as a fully sovereign State, all of which eventually constitutes the
preparatory work for a future secession and the international recognition of such a
situation” (CFR. - DUCHACEK: 1990, 1-33).

The Mexican experience of Chiapas or the guerrilla activities in Colombia, or the efforts
of the Canadian province of Quebec, are examples of this type of diplomacy.

66

127 2.2.3.14.- Parallel Diplomacy: In the 20th century, the presence on the
international stage of a set of actors who indisputably marked the general theory of
diplomacy became evident; we are referring to the activities of Non-Central
Governments. Specifically, this type of diplomatic activity is developed when a
department or province or subpolitical unit of a Nation-State participates in activities
that are beyond national borders in parallel with the representation of the State to
which it belongs with the objective of establishing, for their own interest, contacts or
cooperation links with other subnational governments or even with foreign (non) central
governments (CFR.MORALES LAMA: 2004-c). Ivo Duchacek and Panayotis Soldatos
studied

deeply this type of activities that escape the control or knowledge of the centers that
administer the foreign affairs of the Nation-State and called them differently (CFR.-
KRÄMER). Ivo Duchacek called it “microdiplomacy” 67 and Soldatos reformulated it
with the term “paradiplomacy”; and its use is very consolidated in the USA and Canada
(CFR.- FRERES: 2002, 12).

“The way they saw it, paradiplomacy is a term that describes the international role of
substate units primarily in industrialized, federally structured countries. The word para
indicates the distinction between this kind of international conduct and the diplomacy of
the central organs of the State. It refers to the activities of subnational units that are
parallel, coordinated or complementary and, sometimes, conflictive with the diplomacy
of said central bodies. The concept of paradiplomacy attempts to reflect the growing
autonomous international activities of federated units” (KRÄMER). However,
paradiplomacy has a weak point in the eyes of Raimund Krämer:

He also indicated that Macrodiplomacy is typical of the relationship between national

States. Also, Duchaceck establishes a difference between cross-border paradiplomacy,
transregional (units without a common border) and global paradiplomacy that deals
with “global issues” such as the environment, apartheid or development cooperation
(CFR.KRÄMER).

67

128 “The (…) term paradiplomacy consists – as I understand it – in its intimate

connection to the diplomacy of the central State. The term para, like micro, tastes like
second-hand politics and the term diplomacy seems to be primarily focused on high
politics, which indicates that the diplomatic activities of the central State are copied.
Other authors use expressions like oo. Limiting myself to the external activities of the
federated units in the broadest sense, I am pleased to use the term transfederated
introduced by the Iranian specialist H. AND. Chehabi to describe this type of
international politics. This definition includes ” (KRÄMER). More recently, based on
existing theoretical and empirical development, Noé Cornago defined paradiplomacy
as the involvement of non-central governments in international relations, through the
establishment of permanent or ad hoc contacts, with public or private entities, with the
purpose of promoting socioeconomic or cultural issues, as well as any other external
dimension of its constitutional powers (CFR.- CORNAGO: 2000). According to
Duchacek, this type of diplomacy could manifest itself in two fields of action. First,
these activities could begin with the establishment of permanent offices in foreign
capitals or centers of commerce or industry to represent a branch of a non-central
government. This type of action must have the consent of the subnational authorities,
who initiate this transnational process to protect or promote the domestic interests that
concern them (CFR.- DUCHACEK: 1990). Secondly, paradiplomacy could begin when
subnational entities become objectives of transnational entities and they allow
themselves to be carried away by the temptation to accept international
representations in their sub-systems (CFR.DUCHACEK: 1990).

129 The nature of these behaviors is based on the systemic impossibility of the Nation-
State to satisfy the demands of its subnational or national sub-States; the existence of
a constitutional order permissive enough so that national sub-States can assume, in
accordance with law, their international projects; the willingness of sub-state authorities
to enter their community into the processes of global globalization, or in this case, to
come to the aid of the “globalization of provincialism” (CFR.- DUCHACEK: 1990); and
finally, that other government centers have the legal and institutional capacity and the
will to create a link of formal and informal interaction with these sub-state centers 68.

The forms of paradiplomatic action vary in many forms, intensity, frequency and
objectives, which, for the most part, are technical, financial, economic, tourism, cultural
and the environment, in short, “second level” issues (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004-c),
although they can be political when it comes to issues of secession (CFR.-
DUCHACEK: 1990). On the other hand, its presence can significantly damage the
international image of the country and violates the principle of unity of action abroad.
This without taking into account, according to Manuel Morales Lama, "such actions
generally imply duplicity with its consequences regarding public spending and results,
all of this outside the postulates of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of
1961." , and what is more serious – lacking adequate internal institutional coordination
– even raises conceptual contradictions that are critically noted by external
interlocutors” (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2004, 11).

Good examples of this type of diplomacy are the activities created by the province of
Canada, Quebec, who have offices in the city of Dusseldorf; or the representation of
the province of Ontario in Frankfurt.

68

130 Likewise, Christian Freres believes that this phenomenon of paradiplomacy,

together with globalization, as well as other socioeconomic and political processes of
the last decade, reconsider the concept of sovereignty that once based the monopoly
of the States (CFR.- FRERES: 2002, 14). Or in the words of Gurutz Jáuregui: “In
today's world the role of international relations is no longer exclusive to States, but
corresponds to many other entities, institutions and organizations (intergovernmental,
non-governmental, infra-state or even to private entities of a commercial, professional,
cultural, social nature, etc.). Along with diplomacy, various forms appear (global,
interregional, cross-border, inter-metropolitan, etc.) of paradiplomacy whose subject is
not the State, and which are perfectly compatible with state diplomacy” (JÁUREGUI:
2001, 223). Finally, as a summary, let's see in outline how the various forms of
diplomacy can be classified:

131 MODALITIES OF DIPLOMACY BY CATEGORIES OF INTEREST For

Convenience and Relevance
Temporary Diplomacy Permanent Diplomacy Bilateral Diplomacy Multilateral Diploma
Direct Diplomacy Secret Diplomacy Diplomacy Between Regional Blocks Technical
Diplomacy Preventive Diplomacy Commercial Diplomacy Track Two Diplomacy By the
Way of Acting Technical Diplomacy Classical and Modern Diplomacy Track Two
Diplomacy Nonviolent Civil Diplomacy Parallel Diplomacy Constitutional Diplomacy
Multivial By Geographical Zones Diplomacy Between Regional Blocks Diplomacy
Outside Regional Blocks By Theoretical Links Realistic and Idealistic Diplomacy Active
and Passive Diplomacy Micro and Macro Diplomacy Post-Diplomacy By the Way of
Deciding Bilateral Diplomacy Multilateral Diploma Parliamentary Diplomacy Open
Diplomacy By its classic form Diplomacy Bilateral Diplomacy Multilateral Commercial
Diplomacy Direct Diplomacy Temporary Diplomacy Permanent Diplomacy Secret
Diplomacy Protodiplomacy

By the Doctrinal and Conjunctural Form

Garr ote Diplomacy Dollar Diplomacy Diplomacy for Forced Pacification Betancourt or
Estrada Doctrine Peace Diplomacy Preventive Diplomacy Intercultural Diplomacy
Others

By the Actors Involved Parallel Diplomacy Bilateral Diplomacy Neo-Diplomacy

Multilateral Diplomacy Nonviolent Civil Diplomacy Protodiplomacy

Through Historical Periods Classical and Modern Diplomacy Active and Passive
Diplomacy

Due to its modern form Parliamentary Diplomacy Open Diplomacy Technical

Diplomacy Track Two Diplomacy Nonviolent Civil Diplomacy Parallel Diplomacy
Diplomacy Between Regional Blocks Neo-Diplomacy Constitutional Diplomacy Multivial
Diplomacy

132 2.3.- Crisis of the General Theory of Diplomacy and Neodiplomacy: The
discussions about the role, status and nature of diplomacy are still very far from being
completed. In fact, aspects that for some experts should have been overcome a long
time ago have not yet been overcome. For example, one of these discussions that
seems endless, and very basic, is that for some, diplomacy is irrelevant to the
problems of international relations, while for others, diplomats remain essential to
resolve international issues and to represent the interests of the State abroad (CFR.-
HAINE: 1997) then how does theoretical knowledge advance if it is not capable of
solving its most basic problems? Simply, with difficulty.

Diplomacy in more than four thousand years of history has generated, on the other
hand, some indisputable elements for questioning. These were outlined, as we already
mentioned, in the Vienna Conventions and other sources of conventional law, which
form the framework of the general theory of diplomacy and whose last formal update
occurred in 1969 with the signing of the Vienna Convention on the Law of International
Treaties. At that time, conventional sources were considered to fully summarize the
inexhaustible experiences of customary law on the subject; however, more than thirty
years later, it seems inappropriate to consider them as such. The changes in the
international scene with globalization, interdependence, the new federalism, the
commercial and financial explosion, etc., rebuilt the traditional area of diplomacy and
have undermined the bases of the general theory of diplomacy and reformulated the
role of the diplomats.

133 This concatenation of facts raises the suspicion that, although diplomacy has been
a participant in relations between States over time, it could not escape constant
evolution as a concept and theory. The known conventional sources of diplomatic
theory do not offer explanations about some of our current diplomatic forms and
behaviors. Informal activities (CFR.- MONTVILLE, Joseph. In: FISCHER: 1997); the
interference of national political subsectors on the international scene (CFR.-
DUCHACEK: 1990); the interference of civil society and individuals in the foreign
policies of their national States (CFR.- BAKER, James. In: HAINE: 1997, 3); the
advancement of technology and the means of communication and transportation
(CFR.- HARMON: 1971); the massification of the topics on the agendas of the States
(CFR.- HERNÁNDEZ: 1997); the disappearance of the legations (CFR.MORALES
LAMA: 2004, 67); the growth of the society of States and subjects of international law
(CFR.- PLISCHKE: 1979); the emergence of the perception of democratic diplomacy
(CFR.- PLISCHKE: 1979); the spread of new fears and international threats (CFR.-
LÓPEZ, Ernesto: 2001); the qualitative selection of functional interests at the
international level (CFR.- BARSTON: 1988); the massification of the branches and
methods of diplomatic interaction (CFR.- SIMPSON: 1987); the multiplication of
multilateral initiatives; institutions and new international actors (CFR.-
DANSPECKGRUBER: 2001), among others, could specify the dynamics of modern
diplomacy, however, they are topics misunderstood by the sources of conventional law
of diplomatic theory.

Diplomatic theory, and its sine qua non, now suffer a compromise: the prevailing
international modernity demands that this concept and the theoretical range of
perceptions it holds, achieve a degree of flexibility so that it can combine the facts and
diplomatic acts of new date. Conventional diplomatic theory long ago crossed the doors
of a change in its identity, now it faces a crisis for housing within it explanations or
reasons for the new processes without altering the theoretical bases that underpin its
very existence, because, after

All in all, in practice, the qualities of diplomacy solve the most specific obstacles within
the international system with countless tactics and strategies. “The development of the
international system has created a scenario of diplomatic revolutions. Most of these
recent changes have been the democratization of the international crisis of diplomacy.
Although the actors and instruments of diplomacy have undergone profound changes,
the main objectives persist, peace and stability have endured the test of time. During
the 19th century, States were defined as the geostrategic expression of power,
economy of interests, colonial empires and as official participants in the balance of
power. However, over time these interests led to paths directed towards humanitarian
ideals, ideological conflicts, struggles for global political power and problems due to
cultural differences. Despite the entire nature of the conflict, diplomats have historically
brought peace and stability to the international system through the establishment of
forms of communication” (CFR.DANSPECKGRUBER: 2001). Since the end of the Cold
War, the center of the debates is related to the gradual metamorphosis of the State as
the main international actor and its loss of sovereignty (CFR.- STEMPEL D. 1995, 4);
to the international expansion of democracy; to the proliferation of theories about
international politics and bureaucracy; to the growing tendency to associate the
national interests of States with the development of their international competitiveness
instead of being associated with the political exercise of their sovereignty (CFR.-
HAINE: 1997, 4); and how these have had an impact on the crisis not only of the
general theory of diplomacy, to the point that some speak of the “end of diplomacy”
(CFR.- HAINE: 1997, 3), but also of its diplomatic agents themselves, which, within this
process of evolution, are no longer sure of what or who they really represent (CFR.-
HAINE: 1997, 4) 69, not to mention that they have become ineffective, unimportant and
expensive (HAINE: 1997, 2).

Michael Bruter has also developed this theme when he studied how the embassies of
the European Union assume different tasks at a global level, based on the principle
that they do not represent a specific country, but rather the entire community of States
that make up the union. For him, modernity has created a new form of embassy.
(CFR.- BRUTER: 1999, 184-185).

69

135 Furthermore, other thinkers have already analyzed the situation of Diplomacy and
tried to complement its theoretical deficiencies, so to speak, with interesting
contributions 70. As we already saw, Techno-Diplomacy; Commercial Diplomacy, Neo-
Diplomacy,

Non-Violent Civil Diplomacy, Track Two Diplomacy, Parallel Diplomacy, Constitutional

Diplomacy, among others, are proposals that perfect diplomatic theory and, at the
same time, denounce its insufficiencies. However, while the first appeals to expert and
highly specialized criteria to undertake diplomacy; the second to the interference of
commercial values to reconstruct a diplomacy more appropriate to the modern interests
of the States; the third to the intersubjectivity with which diplomacy can be understood
at a global level; the fourth to the emerging role of civil society in shaping the foreign
policies of their national States; the fifth to the unofficial forms of action of diplomatic
agents; and the sixth to the emerging interference of subnational political groups in
international affairs, none analyzes in detail the cosmogonic vision of the reality of
Diplomacy and, perhaps, this is due to the broad dimensions and implications that this
topic of analysis has. .

However, in our opinion, these theoretical syncretisms deserve attention, not because
of the topic from which they start, but because of what they allude to; because of the
insinuation they create. If we see the nature of these modern theories in their entirety
and notice how they greatly complement the general theory of diplomacy, which is
precarious to explain certain facts in a logical and rational way, we can notice how they
propose and found a new phase. or theoretical stage as a whole. A new, more flexible
stage. A new theoretical stage in synchronization with international realities. A new
stage that would not aim to reformulate the pragmatic role of the obligations and
functions of diplomatic institutions or agents, but rather, reformulate knowledge,
understanding and reflection on the area.

In this sense, it is worth mentioning among the most interesting contributions the work
of Kalypso Nicolaïdis (CFR.NICOLAÏDIS: 1996).

70

136 Just as once Marxism and realism could not stand the criticisms made of their
statecentrism; just as liberalism once could no longer defend its precarious proposition
that exchange between nations will not only increase wealth through the international
division of labor but will also tend to reduce political tensions and war; just as
functionalism once had no defense for its claim about how culture explained the
existence of social institutions by their capacity to satisfy human psychological needs in
complex societies; just as structuralism was once criticized for its devaluation of
individual autonomy and its apparent disregard for history; just as once modernism was
dedicated only to contact with reality to obtain knowledge; neomarxism, neorealism,
neoliberalism, neofunctionalism, neostructuralism and postmodernism came to their
aid; It is genuine to think, in a comparative sense, that a theoretical conglomerate
comes to the aid of the general theory of diplomacy to mark the differences between
diplomatic institutionalism and its theory. This way of thinking can be read since 1985
when the theoretical spheres of diplomacy began to be the object of timid revisionist
studies by some researchers worldwide. But it was only after the end of the Cold War
and the consequent fading of the control exercised by the once hegemonic axes of
international power (USA and the USSR) that revisionist studies multiplied and took on
a somewhat more inquisitive profile. This became possible because the nations of the
world realized that the new world order that was emerging would require a set of
diplomatic institutions different from those that were present in the Cold War. The
States, using the financial resources contained for a probable war, were encouraged to
provoke changes in the diplomatic institutional structures of their countries and initiated
processes of administrative modernization based on the aspiration of having a fully
operational and competitive political structure to represent his country internationally in
the face of the new panorama. However, it became evident that the changes would be
accompanied by forceful axioms. The States began their changes in the structures at
their best convenience.

137 diplomats without forgetting the availability they had. Soon each State was going
through its own process of institutional revisionism and the only thing that seemed to
be clear was the dilemma between tradition versus modernity spread throughout the
planet, such as a slogan whose consequences still accompany us today. day.
Meanwhile, the revisionist authors opened the debate on diplomacy by analyzing
various elements, most of all, how at a global level organized civil initiatives were
fruitfully and convincingly approaching governments and, how these, now with an
innovative consent that indicated an underlying atypical political will, in certain cases,
they agreed to respond to civil demands with profound restructuring and policies in
their institutions, especially those with international repercussions. Also, his works
analyzed the events that occurred in the recent history of the world, which, given their
original nuances, recreated the need to review diplomatic theory to make it more
accessible to give a fallible explanation of form, not substance, of these events. .
Furthermore, these facts, which were binding on almost all States in the world,
deserved the attention of the diplomatic divisions of the countries involved due to the
large number of interests at stake, however, due to their unusual characteristics of the
new knowledge and phenomena, the same diplomatic divisions chose to face the
established precepts in order to fully assume them, which made many academics
around the world think that diplomacy had taken a giant step in its evolution, so much
so that it had surpassed itself to become another level, since, inevitably, something had
changed. The notions of change, in all of these, were directed towards the analysis of
the sensitive widening of the fracture between classical diplomacy and the diplomacy
that was taking shape, and how it did not seem inappropriate to assume the new
manifestations and procedures of the subjects of international law. with other
theoretical formulas, including those not typical of international and social relations, for
example, references to Symbolic Interactionism became useful to explain

138 deeply why some States focused directly on some international interests, when
observers considered the existence of other interests more important and crucial.
Likewise, from the point of view of Symbolic Interactionism, it became clear that
diplomatic theory contrasted with reality in some aspects, such as the explanation of
the nature of diplomatic events, more than anything, because some currents of
symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology have focused their analyzes on those
social actions that, as human routines institutionalized or not, continue their course
independently of the consciousness of the actors (CFR. JOAS, Hans. In GIDDENS:
1990, 117-125). According to the general theory of diplomacy, a genuine diplomatic
event enjoys a certain degree of legality, legitimacy and representativeness of a DIP
subject, but in reality said theory does not exhaustively recognize that meaning when a
diplomatic event is informal or unofficial 71, that is, That is, when the diplomatic act
does not enjoy a certain degree of legitimacy and legality on the part of the subjects
who cause it. Furthermore, in certain cases, diplomatic events are beyond the reach of
diplomatic agents in terms of their control (and awareness), as is the example of
consultations, dialogues and training (CFR.- NOTTER: 1996), whose origins are They
link to activities necessary for certain specific purposes and whose consequences
could lead to official and formal obligations for the subjects of international law. And
given that unofficial mechanisms have become very effective resources to face
problems such as large migrations, piracy, smuggling, and the activities of terrorist
groups (whether political, ecological, technological, economic, IT, etc.); and given that
institutional changes have been noted in terms of the organization and structuring of
the diplomatic divisions of each country to address this trend; and given that the
scenario of international relations demanded it, favored by new interests, it was evident
that revisionism, through Interactionism

Apart from legality, legitimacy and representativeness, a historical noun could be

added. In this sense, informal and unofficial events are characterized because they do
not leave a greater account of the events in which they are limited.

71

139 Symbolic, it would open the way to a theoretical figure capable of complementing
the deficiencies of the general theory of diplomacy.

From what has been described above, we understand the need for a new
conceptualization that, in relation to the general theory of diplomacy, would update its
theoretical perception and adapt it more to the demands of modern reflective
knowledge. This new conceptualization, which we will call “Neodiplomacy”, will be
understood as a more malleable and flexible version of the typical rigidity of the old or
classic vision and meaning of Diplomacy. Strictly speaking, this innovative perspective
focuses on the study of aspects that the general theory of diplomacy does not
satisfactorily explain, but that still acquire diplomatic presence. It is a theoretical
formula or accessible option that aims to overcome what is proposed by traditional
diplomatic theory through the complementation of its postulates, in order to adjust it to
the current reality that the relationship between the subjects of international law
exposes us to. Also, thus, through Neodiplomacy, a strategic option is created that
would allow modernity to be incorporated into the general theory of diplomacy, placing
emphasis on enabling the immanent characteristics of the theory in harmony with new
phenomena, especially with phenomenon of parallel and unofficial diplomatic practices
72, which, in our opinion, must be enabled, as a theoretical consolidation strategy
(CFR.- TOKMAN: 2001), within the theoretical approach; without
The deep idea that diplomacy carries within itself the method by which subjects of
international law, through their authorized officials, maintain mutual relations with other
States or international actors, to carry out political, economic and legal transactions,
among others, it indicates that diplomacy, as a concept and theory, is immersed in an
official sphere that represents and simplifies the interests of an entire nation or group.
That is to say, diplomatic actions per se carry behind the interests and convenience of
the communal entity they represent and are recognized if they enjoy a certain degree
of representativeness and, this will be, when it is evident that the legal and legitimate
powers of the States rest immutable on the shoulders of the diplomatic agents who
participate in these actions. But currently there are elements that indicate that this is
not the case, basically because the Internet in some way leaves legal and legitimate
powers in the background since they are no longer guarantees of representativeness.
Today it is enough for an unnamed person to have access to an ambassador's email. If
that person sends a communication to the Chancellor, the Chancellor will probably
believe right off the bat that it is a reliable communication from the ambassador. Here
the message will not be important, but the chancellor will have no way of verifying the
officiality of the message he has received. There are no guarantees to affirm the
reliability of the message. However, due to the spread of the Internet around the world,
the chancellor may possibly approve the message without carefully studying the
consequences. In such a way that the representativeness of diplomatic officials seeks,
today, new elements to manifest itself, which, perhaps, are necessarily found among
the official spheres.
72

140 undermining the principles required by the DIP and other sources of diplomatic
law.

The nature of this concept is to establish a difference between what is stated by the
general theory of diplomacy and what a more complete general theory of diplomacy
would express. However, it is necessary to mention that Neodiplomacy does not mean
a break with diplomatic notions. On the contrary, within Neodiplomacy there is a
continuity of the deepest bases of Diplomacy. According to Jules Cambón, Diplomacy
has changed in appearance, but its substance still remains intangible:

“Talking about new diplomacy and old diplomacy is equivalent to establishing a

distinction, without there being a difference. It is the external appearance, or if you
prefer the makeup of diplomacy that gradually changes. The substance will subsist in
the first place because human nature never changes. Secondly, because there is only
one way to settle international differences and, finally, because the most persuasive
method available to a Government is the word of an honest man” (CAMBÓN, Jules. In:
DE LA ROSALEDA: 2001. Neodiplomacy does not deny the nature of diplomacy, it
only gives continuity and complements it. Neodiplomacy sums up the formal studies
carried out around diplomacy and mentions that diplomacy has fundamentally changed
in three crucial aspects. The first, the presence of extraformal activities; the second, the
loss of control and sovereignty of the States of global dynamics due to the presence of
other subjects of international law, with less power, but influential enough to minimize
the activities of diplomatic officials and, the third, the development of the media,
technology and knowledge as simplifying elements of conventional diplomatic activities.
But in a more practical sense, brought to reality, Neodiplomacy can be defined as: the
discreet human practice in which the negotiated and carefully managed transmission of
interests between subjects of international law is carried out.

141 starting from an official representation (which can be virtual), which, being of
public or private origin, in different and suitable international instances and through
various techniques, raises multifaceted issues, even far beyond the traditional interests
of the States, and with a view to procreating a peaceful scenario of full understanding,
cooperation and concertation to safeguard human, public, food, commercial, financial,
cultural and political security. However, we must pause at this moment to refer to the
relevance of why this terminology will be used and not another.

The prefix Neo according to the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, means:
new, recent (CFR.- REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: 2001, 1068). While Diplomacy
means: science or knowledge of the interests and relationships of some nations with
others; Service of States in their international relations (CFR.- ROYAL ACADEMIA
ESPAÑOLA: 2001, 560). These definitions show the relationship with the topic that
concerns us, however, before delving into the characteristics of Neodiplomacy, we
must bring up the phonological similarity of this term with the definition made by James
Der Derian: Neo-Diplomacy (translation of its original English: Neo-Diplomacy). James
Der Derian used this term to describe the participation of new international actors on
the international scene, which, based on his genuine right as a researcher, was a
legitimate and timely proposal to describe the phenomenon he was dealing with.
However, the way in which he instrumentalized this concept leads to confusion, in our
opinion, since the English language structure that he used refers to a new fact, which it
is not (according to the same opinion of Der Derian 73). Secondly, in theoretical spaces
there is a tendency, with the exception of some languages, to use the prefix “neo” to
mention or define the presence of a theory or transcendental knowledge that, apart
from being different, inspires the idea of being a complemented, improved and
perfected version of previous knowledge or theory that gives rise to it. James Der
Derian when using the prefix “neo” in his definition
73

See DER DERIAN: 1987. Or See also: SENG SEE: 2001.

142 does not give reliable conceptual explanations of what “has really been overcome.”
That is to say, it refuses to declare what theory or knowledge was surpassed by its
name, unless, without a doubt, the new international actors are such a novel
phenomenon that the general diplomatic theory greatly influences it. However, we
believe that it does not alter the substance of diplomacy, but rather its form. James Der
Derian's NeoDiplomacy concept suggests a different modality of diplomacy in
substance and form, perhaps, it was for that reason that he preferred to use a "script"
to evade prejudices, but even so, it is our consideration that the new international
actors, They are that, actors, a new international subjectivity on a par with States,
which could have been defined as “Alter-diplomacy.” Alter (from the Latin Alter,
meaning “other”) due to the presence of other actors with international subjectivity; and
diplomacy, due to the international theoretical scene in which this phenomenon
manifests itself. Thirdly, since the term Der Derian proposes an evolutionary vision of
diplomacy, which went through the following periods: Myth-Diplomacy, Proto-
Diplomacy, Anti-Diplomacy, Diplomacy, Neo-Diplomacy and Techno-Diplomacy
(categorization made depending on the achievements and arrival of actors,
mechanisms and mutability of interests present in the diplomatic sphere), does not
meet our expectations in terms of believing that Diplomacy evolved to a new order
(NeoDiplomacy) with the arrival of new international actors. Smith Simpson considers
that diplomacy is an activity composed of invariable elements that have defined it
throughout history, and although its forms of institutionalization create new types of
diplomacy, it is risky to define a type of diplomacy with the adjectives “modern” or “
new”, because it is likely to be a reincarnation of a previous type of diplomacy (CFR.-
SIMPSON: 1987).

143 “diplomacy expresses a variety of histories, cultures, political philosophies and

systems, economic interests and ethnic values of the members of the international
community (...) diplomacy operates through strategies, tactics and techniques, as well
as personal qualities and skills of its practitioners. These basic elements (...) have
characterized diplomacy throughout history. The analysis of the process reveals the
significance (...) that it is not necessary to redefine a new type of diplomacy every
decade” (SIMPSON: 1987). James Der Derian's reckless definition has a defense
because the various conventional and customary sources of diplomatic theory propose
an administrative silence regarding international intersubjectivity. That is, it does not
mention anything about who can be subjects of international law since that right is
acquired in practice and not in theory. If this were the case, the various Vienna
conventions must have been reformulated in recent years to accommodate the new
actors, and because this did not happen, diplomacy did not evolve in substance but in
form. Diplomacy remained intact in its most distinctive characteristics, although the new
actors qualified its usual practices in a forceful way. Finally, the term Neo-Diplomacy by
James Der Derian can be perfectly differentiated from the term that we propose
Neodiplomacy, due to the detail of the “script”, however, the latter does not affirm the
existence of a special situation, as the former does, but rather rather, it affirms the
conglomeration of modern theories and approaches (including Neo-Diplomacy itself) as
distinctive elements of a theoretical advance in the formation of diplomatic theory.
While new international actors underlie Der Derian's Neo-Diplomacy, Neodiplomacy
underlies all of the works of Der Derian, Ivo Duchacek, Panayotis Soldatos, James
Notter, Ángel Ruiz Jiménez, Glennon Michael, Frank Dukes, John Burton, Joseph
Montville, Louise Diamond, Abba Eban, etc., since their efforts, in our opinion,
complement the worn-out general theory of diplomacy.

144 Neodiplomacy complements conventional diplomacy, that is, that diplomacy with
missions of chancellors and other officials abroad (CFR.HEILIGER: 2002) and that
international sphere that defended its sovereignties tooth and nail (CFR.- SAINZ:
2003 ), which has been left behind. The old diplomatic systems seem outdated
because they have not been able to provide the results for which they were created,
and now, in the face of new, more effective processes and knowledge, the hypothetical
foundations of the general theory of diplomacy have suffered from not being able to
jointly explain those processes. Furthermore, in fact, the administrative functions of
diplomats are no longer similar to those that were carried out fifty or forty years ago, so
it is understandable why the processes of review of Diplomatic Theory arose in many
States of the world. The analysis of the new phenomena based on the classic general
theory of diplomacy would be incongruous due to the limited field of reference it covers
to explain these new phenomena. Thus, it is valid to start from Neodiplomacy because
it could be useful to go further when it enhances the deficiencies of the previous theory
with various theoretical arguments, among which, 1) the possibility of unofficial
behavior is accepted for the benefit of usual diplomatic activities. ; Likewise, 2) it
handles the possibility that the interests of the States may not be their own but those of
a community or integrated bloc to which they belong; 3) conceives the actions of
cyberpolitik and soft power in state actions at the international level; 4) reflects on the
preparation of diplomatic agents and the multifaceted plans they must use; 5)
recognizes the polycentric and multifaceted relationships on the world stage between
Traditional Actors (States), International Organizations (public and private) and New
International Actors (Non-Governmental Organizations); 6) reflects on the permeability
of national sovereignty as an irrefutable fact; 7) does not deny that multilateralism has
been imposed as a global option towards peace over bilateral schemes; 8) recognizes
that in recent years there has been a surge in new obligations for diplomatic officials
which, on the one hand, has required them to now be more prepared, specialized and
proactive, as well as,

145 take into account the values of attachment to the institution and the country, along
with the need to be aware of working together; 9) inserts the theories of Human,
Commercial, Political, Cultural, Public, Food and Financial Security to understand the
attractiveness of the new interests of the subjects of international law; 10) considers
the development of media, technology and knowledge as simplifying elements of
conventional diplomatic activities; 11) accepts that the correlation of forces between
international actors are key elements to resolve international issues; 12) accepts that
there are elements of continuity with the general theory of diplomacy, especially in the
consular area; and finally, 13) accepts that there are elements beyond the control of
human will.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that Neodiplomacy may already be present as an

institutional manifestation in some States of the world, including Stenven Fisher, deputy
head of the diplomatic mission of the United Kingdom in Venezuela, mentions that the
USA, today, has high-level diplomacy. level, so different, that it is exclusive and, at the
same time, shared by the United Kingdom (CFR.- FISHER: 2004). Likewise, it clarifies
that this difference lies in the degree of bilateral integration of these countries, which is
very open and clear. The diplomatic procedures between these countries are
sophisticated, organized, intertwined and unique compared to the rest: “Neodiplomacy
exists, but only between the diplomatic relations of the United States and the United
Kingdom” (CFR.FISHER: 2004). So, if that is the case, will the MRE have some
neodiplomatic powers within it? We will see it below...

146 CHAPTER III.- METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK.3.1.- Type of Study: Due to

the particular nature of the research we are based on the theoretical methodological
model proposed by Roberto Hernández Sampieri (CFR.- SAMPIERI HERNÁNDEZ:
2000, 58) 74, since We consider that the type of study that characterizes the research
is: exploratory. These exploratory studies are carried out when the objective is to
examine a topic or research problem that has not been studied before or that has not
been addressed before, there is little information and, therefore, their methodology is
broad, flexible and dispersed compared to the types of descriptive study. and
explanatory (CFR.- SAMPIERI HERNÁNDEZ: 2000, 58, 59). In that sense, the topic of
Neodiplomacy conforms to what this author has stated, since the research uses the
construction of this new theoretical identity and borders on topics of gross introspective
reflection that have been centers of disinterest in research. referring to the foreign
relations of the countries in the last sixty years. There is very little information on this
topic, it has not been exhaustively addressed and it has not drawn the attention of the
community of researchers surrounding international issues, much less Venezuela.
EXPLANATORY NOTE: According to modern trends (very widely accepted, and
demanded by the vast majority of institutes of advanced studies worldwide),
economistic and simplistic scientific thinking, this and other authors have become an
obligatory bastion for the structuring of any scientific research. However, its use in this
research does not reflect the agreement of the researcher, which is why his book
expresses it in such a way that its use can be unequivocally understood as an
imposition that is beyond the opinion of the researcher. The reason for the arguments
is that both the institutions of advanced studies and the professionals who graduated
from them, as well as these authors, with their beneficial exceptions, reflect a decided
disinterest in knowing the epistemological norms of research and, much worse, a total
disinterest by the methodological structures of Turabian or the American Psychology
Association or the Modern Language Association, so much so that 90% of the
graduates of the institutions in Latin America do not know what the latter are about and,
to make matters worse, they are not interested. These authors propose some
normative steps for the presentation of scientific research and universities have found
in them the STANDARD that should be imposed on students, without taking into
account that there are hundreds of ways to express the same ideas. It is worth
mentioning the similar example of Emile Durkheim who almost 100 years ago had the
same impression of this relationship of facts and as a protest he presented his doctoral
thesis not in his native French but in Latin. To which the “connoisseurs” had the need
to translate it as they could not support a better argument than that of their student,
who stated that if they did not do so, they would limit sociological science. And indeed,
he was right, because in that document lay one of the most revolutionary investigations
in the history of sociology. Finally, the interest is not to call for reflection on the topic,
but rather to call for hard reading by professionals, who in the researcher's opinion,
have approached mere conformism and with which they characterize themselves
today. Scientific knowledge enjoys freedom, no matter how logically one tries to claim
to achieve it. What is a priority requirement is the rationality of scientific knowledge, an
element that in the social sciences often arrives illogically. In short, the researcher
presents his excuses, because he feels obliged to follow this pattern of analysis.
74

147 3.2.- Type of Design:

Due to the particular nature of the research we are based on the theoretical
methodological model proposed by Carlos Sabino (CFR.- SABINO: 1996) 75, we
consider that the type of design that will characterize the research is: field with
documentary support. Field designs are those that refer to the methods used when the
data of interest are collected directly from reality, through the specific work of the
researcher; These data, obtained directly from empirical experience, are called primary
data. They are first-hand, original data, the product of ongoing research without
intermediation of any kind. When the data have already been collected in other
investigations and are known through the corresponding reports, we refer to secondary
data, because they have been obtained by others and come to us prepared and
processed in accordance with the purposes of those who initially obtained and
manipulated them. As this information always comes from written documents (that is
the way in which scientific reports are issued), we give these designs the name
bibliographic (CFR.- SABINO: 1996), to provide documentary support. All bibliographic
work does not stop referring to empirical experience as much as field designs, because
the data that we take as secondary have been primary data for the initial researcher,
even though they come to us as already analyzed and synthesized experiences. So the
contact with the facts subsists, even if it is an indirect contact.

In that sense, and committed to the postmodern aspect of knowledge, which affirms
that knowledge is acquired through books, our research is field research as we analyze
the interrelation of human relationships limited to the diplomatic agents of the MRE.
Likewise, a large amount of secondary data is used, because these documents have
already covered a large part of the
75

EXPLANATORY NOTE: The researcher presents his excuses.

148 scientific path that we propose to culminate in this research. Secondary data
simplify the research task since gathering new information on the innumerable primary
data would not avoid a great delay in the final presentation of the research and would
not avoid the criticism to which it could be subject because the opinion of the research
has been omitted. excellent scholars in each of the subjects to be developed. The
research, in short, is consequently an immense compilation of works and investigations
that, once harmonized, seek to shape Neodiplomacy and other implications in the
MRE. 3.3.- Unit of Analysis: The diplomatic actors of the MRE. The reasons for this boil
down to the fact that these are the only ones that authoritatively transmit values when
building the country's foreign policy and directly affect the administration of its due
regulatory and political execution. Official organizations that are diplomatic actors have
a set of requirements that automatically define them, such as, for example, a
recognition of legal rank and legal scope, legitimate and whose actions are binding.
Likewise, this scope has not only a national but also an international range and they
occupy administrative spaces fully recognized by dependencies and hierarchies within
the MRE. Their clothing was reflected in the Foreign Service Law of 2001 and since
then they have formed a distinctive and unique body in the Venezuelan political
system.

Now, due to the nature of our research and the presence of several investigations
carried out since 1999 on this singular body of public administration officials, the
sample that we intend to analyze will be carried out on the entire body and not a
subgroup, for example. fear of incurring a blinded vision of reality. Although it may
seem ambitious, it is not. This body is made up of a set

149 reduced actors and research done in relation to our academic interests almost
entirely summarize the research effort. 3.4.- Sources of Information: By default, the
sources of information that support our research come from living sources on the one
hand, and on the other from institutional documentary sources. The living sources are
understood by all those individuals who make up all the diplomatic agents of the MRE
and, especially, by their behaviors and experiences collected over the years. Through
visits and semi-structured interviews with these agents, the information that allowed us
to advance the investigation was collected, analyzed and interpreted. Likewise, with the
use of these data sources, intermediaries (people close to the source, or completely
unrelated to the organization) were added. In addition, countless institutional
documentary sources were summoned (Yellow and White Books of the MRE, treaties
between Venezuela and other international actors, official newspapers of Venezuela,
Venezuelan laws, etc., for example) to support defining guidelines for the actions
undertaken by the diplomatic agents in Venezuela. 3.5.- Data Collection Instruments:
After an arduous analysis, semi-structured interviews were established as a data
collection instrument. Semi-structured interviews are those that consist of open
questions and a predetermined sequence. Specifically, they are a type of interview that
does not follow a sequence of fixed questions, although they do adapt to a general
outline of guidelines. Questions are usually not pre-formulated, but arise from the
conversation. Furthermore, they are open in the sense that the participant can explain
their answers. Semi-structured interviews are a particularly effective means of finding
out the opinions and attitudes of people.

150 people. In the research they were used with the objective of being able to clarify
and better describe the current characteristics of the decision-making process and
have elements to propose a contextualized proposal for the neo-diplomatic scene in
Venezuela. Here, and once again, there is a wide range of scientific works that have
already collected assessments and conclusions of diplomatic agents, for which a
compilation of these is made and they will be contrasted to define a specific and
rational line of reason. Now, it should be mentioned that a brief questionnaire was
designed from which a predetermined sequence was based and it asked the following:

1. In your experience as a diplomatic official, have you noticed any administrative

activities that you consider modern compared to the traditional administrative activities
that you have carried out? 2. Have you noticed in recent years any diplomatic activity
within the international relations scenario of the countries of the world that you consider
innovative and avant-garde? 3. Do you believe that today we can talk about traditional
and modern diplomacy? 3.6.- Strategy for Data Processing:

We have agreed that the best strategy for data processing is content analysis. Content
analysis is a technique for studying and analyzing communication in an objective,
systematic and quantitative manner. It is making valid and reliable inferences from data
with respect to its context. Content analysis can be applied to any form of
communication (television or radio programs, press articles, books, conversations,
speeches, letters, regulations, etc.). Through it you can even know attitudes, concerns,
positions and intentions of

151 people (CFR.- SAMPIERI HERNÁNDEZ: 2000, 295) 76 . Content analysis was
carried out through coding, the process by which the relevant characteristics of the
content of a message are transformed into units that allow their precise description and
analysis. The importance of the message will become something that can be described
and analyzed (CFR.- SAMPIERI HERNÁNDEZ: 2000, 296) 77.

76 77

EXPLANATORY NOTE: The researcher presents his excuses. EXPLANATORY

NOTE: The researcher presents his excuses.

152 CHAPTER IV.- DEVELOPMENT OF OBJECTIVES 4.1.- Aggiornamento Trends

Versus Carpetovetonic Trends in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela:
For Diplomacy to be exercised, Diplomats are needed. These public servants
represent what doctors are to medicine. –Oscar Hernandez

The MRE is the official institutional body through which the Government of Venezuela
directs its international relations. The officials of this institution, for their part, especially
those of the Foreign Service, constitute the clothing of Venezuela (CFR.- CORDERO
CEBALLOS: 1981, 23), since this office is responsible for the image that is maintained
outside the national borders. has of the republic. Now, to meet this objective, the MRE
requires an administrative structure consistent with its tasks, as well as suitable
personnel. Both elements interact with each other and their functions are executed
without disregarding national and international requirements. For this reason, the
management dynamic of this firm is exceptional due to the constant metamorphosis of
the areas that inspire its nature and its practice. Incessantly, the administrative
structure of the MRE adjusts to needs, redefines schemes and revives or creates forms
of action based on the social scene that surrounds it. There seems no doubt that after
the Ministries or Secretariats that manage the technological knowledge of the
countries, the official bodies of foreign affairs are the institutions most sensitive to
national and global changes, in complete contrast to the legal bodies, for example,
whose structures and institutional organizations do not vary except over long periods of
time. The constant presence of national and international social demands and the
crucial level reached by the responses determine that the MRE has a managerial order
(political level) and an organic order (institutional level). ) capable of properly issuing
the appropriate diplomatic responses. However, these two elements that more than
make up the responsive capacity of the MRE are under the influence of various trends
that affect when it comes to acting. The political level must weigh its managerial
activities between the constant traditional tendencies and the

153 modern ones to which it is exposed. On the other hand, the institutional level must
weigh the effectiveness of the organization between the aggiornamento tendencies 78
against the carpetovetonic tendencies 79 present in the organic structure or regulations
of the institution.

The political level of an institution like the MRE is perceived in the area of uncertainty in
which decisions and objectives must be made, how human and financial resources
must be controlled, how information and social demands must be managed. national
and international level and their responses, how policies should be directed towards
the objectives and how to comply with the orders established under the presence of a
set of traditional perceptions that are in full conflict with modern perceptions. The
dynamics of the political level focus on the role of individuals and how their adaptation
to changes means one of the forms of institutional development. From this point of
view, as Oscar Hernández observes, one of the most important concerns of the MRE
as an institution arises: “We see with concern that Diplomatic Missions in general do
not adapt to the new challenges that the international community in its different facets it
demands. A bit harsh statement but true. As in other areas of human endeavor,
modernization is a necessity of these times, not only of the institutions but also of their
main protagonists, be they ambassadors, consuls, officials, etc. Diplomatic Missions,
understood as Embassies, Consulates, Missions to International Organizations, as well
as their members, should not be maintained as isolated entities on the margins of the
accelerated world in which we live, which places the relations between States, the
Corporations, Non-Governmental Organizations and individuals themselves. The
traditional way of doing Diplomacy and representing the interests of States, seems to
be left out of context, if it is not complemented with modern management styles and a
new attitude towards the opportunity to rationally take advantage of available human
resources and access to instruments.
Italian voice that refers to the adaptations or changes that institutions, people, etc. can
make. Spanish voice that says about a person, custom, idea, etc., that is kept in mind
at all costs, especially those that are Spanish, and serve as a flag against all foreign
influence. (CFR.- ROYAL SPANISH ACADEMY: 2001, 312).
79 78

154 logistics that we have in our hands today, such as those of communication”
(HERNÁNDEZ: 1997). On the other hand, the institutional level of an institution like the
MRE emphasizes how the organization or structure and the administrative
dependencies of the institution and its internal regulations are adrift under the
confluence of convictions of aggiornamento and carpetovetónica. This dynamic also
focuses on the institutional structure and how the existence, relevance and agreement
of the dependencies with the demands of the environment that surrounds the institution
means one of the forms of institutional development. From this point of view, as Oscar
Hernández observes, another of the most important concerns of the MRE as an
institution arises:

“The chancelleries have a new generation of human resources that are much more
prepared, updated and qualified compared to previous times. We leave the cold war
behind and approach the new millennium. However, these resources often have to
coexist with an archaic organizational structure, which does not encourage their
maximum use and, on the contrary, frustrates them, by having to survive with a vision
that is maintained in mere traditional formality to the detriment of effectiveness. that
new times demand. Today, more than ever, the Chancelleries have the duty to demand
the best from a Foreign Service, but to do so they have to modernize. In other words,
we must overcome the past to clearly see the future (...) a new vision of the world and
the role of the executors of international relations forces a fundamental organizational
redefinition in the Chancelleries and therefore in the Diplomatic Missions ”
(HERNÁNDEZ: 1997). Another difference at the political and institutional level when
analyzing an institution 80 is that the first focuses on operation (in terms of
materializing decisions in reality, that is, making decisions come to life) and the second
focuses on effectiveness (in terms of the existence of organizations capable of
instrumentalizing and prioritizing decisions). Or on a more realistic level linked to the
MRE, as an example, it can be said that the arrival of the Internet in Venezuela in the
middle of last
80
 It is worth mentioning that an institution can be analyzed from various perspectives
such as: Symbolic Interactionism, Neomarxism, Neofunctionalism, Behaviorism,
Institutionalism, etc...

The 155th decade did not mean a drastic change at the institutional level of the
ministry (since no divisions or deep laws or regulations were created to manage and
supervise the new computer system, although the employees in charge of the technical
areas of communication became even more specialized. and computing), but at the
political level, especially in relation to the structuring of decisions, because the Internet
facilitated diplomatic and administrative functions in that the collection of information
became more expeditious (CFR.- VITERI : 2003).

Next, although modernity and tradition are similar with the ideas of aggiornamento and
carpetovetónica, they are not so from the point of view of the behaviorist approach and
the institutionalist approach. The struggle between modernity and tradition influences
the role of the individual within a social group, on the other hand, the struggle between
modernity and carpetovetonic influences the behavior and organization of the
institution. Specifically, updating trends indicate that when an institution acts with an
exacerbated rigidity in its doctrinal and administrative principles, which make possible
the immutability of its internal structures, even under the pressure of its social
environment, it will probably be incapable in the future. to respond to its usual functions
which, consequently, would lead to its disappearance with the certain arrival of another
institution that can respond modernly to the new social demands that arise, unless I
create in its belly a process of flexibility or adaptation process that understands the
changing situations of their social environment. In this way, it is assumed that the
success of an organization or institution throughout its history will depend on the
degree to which the social changes in its environment are taken into account and
assimilated, therefore, the recurrent reform and permanent empowerment of the
internal structures of the institutions, will be defined as Aggiornamento. For example,
when the ecclesiastical institution, recently in 1992, recognized its error in condemning
Galileo Galilei, it incurred an Aggiornamento that meant greater compatibility between
the holy see and the prevailing social reality. On the other hand, carpetovetonic
tendencies manifest a closed and

156 lover of the usual administrative configuration of an institution; that is, without
accepting the scientific and economic requirements of the changes, clinging to old
ways and avoiding the logical consequences of the chosen theoretical institutional
model. In this sense, Oscar Hernández came to see this trend in the following way:

“Great transformations require a lot of vision for the future. There are always those
who believe that it is better to leave things as they are and settle for so few results.
This means that there are people within organizations betting that things remain the
same. Perhaps to hide their inability to adapt to new challenges” (HERNÁNDEZ: 1997).
As a summary, below we will briefly see the sources of influence of the MRE along with
its main center of influence, the Executive Branch of Venezuela:
National and International Environment

Executive Branch of Venezuela Influences

Tradition Influences Modernity

Political Plan (operability)

Institutional Level (effectiveness)

Update Influences Carpetovetónica

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

In the recent history of the MRE, three recent processes of full updating can be
established 81 . The first can be related to the promulgation of the LAW
It is worth mentioning that the regulations that support the MRE as an institution are
the following: The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (1999), the
Organic Law of Public Administration (2001), the Law of the
81

157 OF FOREIGN SERVICE sanctioned on July 3, 2001 and published in the Official
Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Number 37,254 dated August 6, 2001,
which repealed the Foreign Service Personnel Law sanctioned on December 14, 1961
and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela Number 26,743
dated January 3, 1962. The second can be established in the PARTIAL REFORM OF
THE ORGANIC REGULATIONS OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
sanctioned on December 23, 2004 and published in the Official Gazette of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Number 38,099 dated January 4, 2005 82. The third
can refer to the LAW OF PARTIAL REFORM OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE LAW
sanctioned on July 21, 2005 and published in the Official Gazette of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela Number 38,241 dated August 2, 2005, which reformed the 2001
law. and its purpose was the regulation, organization and operation of the Foreign
Service, as well as the rights and duties of the personnel that comprise it. All these
processes modified the organic structure of the MRE and, to a greater extent, adapted
the administrative bodies of the Ministry to current demands, contravening the
carpetovetonic tendencies that still prevailed, for example, a case of carpetovetonic
tendency occurred in the diplomatic branch 83, where For a long time the ORGANIC
LAW OF THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE was in force, sanctioned on July 3, 1922 and
published in the Official Gazette of the United States of Venezuela Number 15,104
dated October 9, 1923.

The nature or origin of these three processes of aggiornamento does not go beyond
the growing fact that a considerable number of countries consider ministerial reforms
as an essential point for the consolidation of a national project of optimal development.
In many countries, ministerial reforms are carried out
Foreign Service (2005), the Organic Regulations of the MRE (2004), the Internal
Regulations of the MRE and other resolutions of the MRE. 82 This regulation repealed
the organic regulation of December 22, 1999 published in Official Gazette No. 5,415
Extraordinary. 83 It is worth mentioning that the consular branch has its regulations in
the Organic Law of the Consular Service sanctioned on August 3, 1987 and published
in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela Number 3398 dated August 21,
1987.
158 at various rhythms. However, in Venezuela, the restructuring of the chancellery
has a certain importance due to the meaning it has for the State: “In that sense, a large
part of the countries of the world have been perfecting their legislation in this regard,
and the corresponding bodies, by virtue of from which the diplomatic function has been
institutionalized” (MORALES LAMA: 2004-d). Secondly, these updating processes also
respond to the country's new administrative ethics and its commitment to true
operation, apart from adapting the MRE more closely to the foreign policy objectives
enshrined in our constitution: “Article 152. The international relations of the Republic
respond to the purposes of the State based on the exercise of sovereignty and the
interests of the people; They are governed by the principles of independence, equality
among States, free determination and non-intervention in their internal affairs, peaceful
resolution of international conflicts, cooperation, respect for human rights and solidarity
among peoples in the struggle for their emancipation. and the well-being of humanity.
The Republic will maintain the firmest and most determined defense of these principles
and democratic practice in all international organizations and institutions. Article 153.
The Republic will promote and favor Latin American and Caribbean integration, in order
to advance towards the creation of a community of nations, defending the economic,
social, cultural, political and environmental interests of the region. The Republic may
sign international treaties that combine and coordinate efforts to promote the common
development of our nations, and that ensure the well-being of the people and the
collective security of its inhabitants. For these purposes, the Republic may attribute to
supranational organizations, through treaties, the exercise of the necessary powers to
carry out these integration processes. Within the policies of integration and union with
Latin America and the Caribbean, the Republic will privilege relations with Ibero-
America, seeking to make it a common policy for all of our Latin America. The rules
adopted within the framework of the integration agreements will be considered an
integral part of the current legal system and of direct and preferential application to
domestic legislation” (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA: 1999). It is worth
mentioning, in a specific sense, that the MRE has the following objectives:

159 “1º The international performance of the Republic, the conduct of relations with
other States; the representation of the Republic in international organizations,
conferences and any other international events, unless, in the latter case, the President
of the Republic entrusts the representation to another Minister or public official, as
expressly provided for in this Law or determined in function of the treaties signed by the
Republic. In the latter cases, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will ensure coordination
with the foreign policy of the Republic, will be represented when it deems necessary
and will comply with the procedures required by the Constitution and international law.
2º The negotiation, signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, accession,
reservations, extensions, exchange, deposit, execution, suspension, denunciation and
termination of treaties, conventions, protocols, declarations, minutes, pacts,
agreements and other international instruments, except in cases in which this Law
expressly attributes the negotiation to another ministry. In these cases, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs will ensure coordination with the foreign policy of the Republic, will be
represented in the negotiations when it deems necessary and will comply with the
procedures required by the Constitution and international law for its improvement. 3º
The protection of the rights and interests of Venezuelans abroad, in accordance with
International Law. 4º The direction, coordination and centralization of the foreign trade
and integration policy and its statistical information. 5º The representation and defense
of the interests of the Republic in international controversies, except in cases in which
this Law expressly attributes representation to other Ministries. In these cases, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs ensures coordination with the foreign policy of the Republic,
will be represented in the efforts when it deems necessary and will comply with the
procedures required by the Constitution and international law. 6º The notification of the
state of emergency and international war. Issues relating to neutrality and belligerence.
The maintenance of the rights of the Republic in such cases. 7º International relations
with respect to the establishment, delimitation and demarcation of borders and the
supervision of matters that relate to it. 8º The establishment of diplomatic and consular
relations and the creation, organization, direction, modification and suppression of
diplomatic missions and consular offices, delegations and agencies. 9º Relations with
diplomatic missions accredited to the National Government. The legalization of
signatures of foreign officials that must produce effect in the Republic in accordance
with the respective Regulations. 10º The admission of consuls, granting and
cancellation of exequatur to them and the supervision of consular relations. 11º
Diplomatic protocol and ceremonial. 12º The processing for the granting of decorations
and honors to foreign officials and personalities.

160 13º The legalization of signatures of the Ministries of the Office and of senior
officials who act by express delegation thereof, in documents granted in the country
and that must produce effect abroad. 14º The dissemination of reports related to the
promotion of commercial, cultural and any other relations that interest Venezuela. 15º
Collaboration in the Monitoring of matters relating to the rights and duties of foreigners
in the Republic. 16º The international processing of extradition requests, warrants,
commissions, rogatory and requests for the execution of judicial acts and sentences.
17º The others that the laws indicate” (MRE: 2005-c). Thirdly, these updating
processes are based on the international level. According to Manuel Morales Lama, the
evolutionary process of the chancelleries is not a particular element of our
contemporaneity, on the contrary, today there are factors that drive these reforms, for
example:

1. The increasing importance of international affairs in the internal sphere of States

(CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2003). 2. The broad recognition of International Law, and
with it, the implementation of the legal instruments that govern international affairs
today, which inspire notions of security and international stability to States, since, at
least, they seek to regulate excesses and empower the international community to act
within the framework of the duties and rights of States, only with the limitations agreed
upon through international conventions (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2003). 3. Likewise,
the transcendental dynamics of international politics and the evident interdependence
of States have had an influence (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2003). 4. The essential
presence of the foreign ministries in the conclusion of treaties and their fundamental
role as a management center for the establishment and effective maintenance of
diplomatic relations and economic, cultural, technological and scientific ties. And the
vital role of diplomatic relations in obtaining support in cases of candidacy before the
organizations

161 international or when nations require international support for various reasons
(CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2003). 5. Finally, it is evident that in an increasingly
globalized world, the

The current trend is favorable to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the
greatest possible number of countries, which does not require the exchange of
permanent missions between them, since the right of legation (or mission) is optional in
that sense, but it does require to deal with exchange issues in the economic, political,
legal, cultural, scientific and technological fields through the foreign ministries (CFR.-
MORALES LAMA: 2003).

Fourthly, but no less important, is that the true turning point that motivated the MRE's
updating process was the arrival of the 1999 Constitution, which established the reform
and organization of the entire range of institutions that make up the political system.
Venezuelan and the projection that they should have in the world. In that sense, the
MRE was seen as a special case because it would have to decisively recompose all
the administrative guidelines that supported its obligations and functions unless it ran
the risk of becoming dysfunctional to the objectives and interests of the nation.

The changes that the MRE faced for the year 2000 included an organization
appropriate to the new constitutional principles of Participatory Democracy 84 and
international trends. Thus, with the arrival of the Foreign Service Law of 2001, the MRE
was integrally affected in its composition and immediately resulted in a managerial
struggle between those who supported institutional trends.
“Participatory democracy has the following characteristics: 1. It is social, since it is
aimed at balancing individual interests with those of broader groups and their
intertwining with the realization of the purpose of the common good of the State. 2. It is
random since any citizen may eventually be required to exercise public responsibilities.
For example, as a justice of the peace or a witness at polling stations. 3.
Representation is broad, and will be better to the extent that it represents the greatest
number of organized interests. That is why we will consider it multi-representative. It is
the diversity and heterogeneity of interests articulating their purposes in the numerous
agendas that best expresses the broad color in the spectrum of representation. Now,
this does not imply the monopoly or the alienation of the represented with respect to
the elected representative, since the latter is directly responsible to the voter." (CFR.-
RODRÍGUEZL.: 2005).
84

162 traditional and those who supported the modern 85. This managerial struggle
would effectively break out in April 2002 when “Some ambassadors joined the coup,
others attacked the offices and the rest simply remained silent” (PÉREZ: 2004).

Now, if we have to talk specifically about a transcendental change of update in recent

years in the MRE in order to consolidate the international interests of the nation,
without a doubt two events would have to be brought up: 1) the organic restructuring of
the ministry in January 2005 as a result of the Partial Reform of the Organic
Regulations of the MRE of December 2004 and 2) the consolidation of the Public
Opposition Competition for new officials proposed in the Foreign Service Law of 2001,
whose objective, it is worth indicating, was: “... the regulation, organization and
operation of the Foreign Service, as well as the rights and duties of the personnel that
comprise it, in order to guarantee the execution and coordination of a foreign policy
directed by the President of the Republic, framed in the fundamental principles and
universal values contained in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
such as freedom, equality, non-discrimination, respect for the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the States, non-intervention and self-determination of the peoples, the
guarantee of human rights, solidarity and peace, and oriented towards achieving a
global balance between nations and the democratization of international society,
through the promotion of recognition and respect for national individualities, as well as
of peaceful cooperation between countries and the consolidation of Latin American and
Caribbean integration” (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA: 2001). 4.1.1.- The
Organic Restructuring of the Ministry of 2005:

In the 2005 restructuring, five (05) vice ministries were created to decentralize
decision-making that was concentrated in the Advisory Commission, an office that
served as the “right hand” of the Minister's office. This instance was eliminated with the
creation of the Vice Ministry for 1) Africa; 2) America
Several deputies of the Fifth Republic Movement in the National Assembly have said
that the real challenge of the process of change in these times is to uproot the vices of
that representative democracy that disappeared with the 1961 Constitution.
85

163 North; 3) Asia, Middle East and Oceania; 4) Europe; and 5) Latin America and the
Caribbean, as indicated in the following table:

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Previously, the organic composition of the MRE was distributed as follows:

164

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The basis of the organization remained almost intact after this change, but the
elements that constitute the Planning, Formulation, Execution and Coordination and
Harmonization of the MRE were redefined in accordance with what was established by
the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic. Now, the MRE's mission is to plan,
formulate and execute, under the direct leadership of the President of the Republic, the
international policy of the State and the Venezuelan Nation, through the coordination
and harmonization of the actions of the various bodies of the State. , regarding
international relations, in order to promote a strategic position, consistent with the
defense of the National Interest:

165 “PLANNING: Based on the priorities, objectives and goals defined by the
President of the Republic, the MRE is responsible for organizing and developing the
plans required to achieve the Nation's objectives at the international level. It is also
responsible for guiding and coordinating the execution of said plans, for which it must
take into account the constitutional principles that underpin Venezuela's foreign policy
and the actions of the various State entities. FORMULATION: The MRE is in charge of
the conceptual and programmatic formulation of the foreign policy of the Republic, in
accordance with the constitutional principles, the National Interest, the changing
universe of actions that occur in the international arena and the inputs provided by the
various State bodies and the different sectors of civil society that have an interest in the
country's foreign policy. EXECUTION: At the same time, the Foreign Ministry is
responsible, both nationally and internationally, for the planning and execution of
foreign policy, through the headquarters and the representations of the Republic
abroad. COORDINATION AND HARMONIZATION: It is the responsibility of the MRE
to efficiently coordinate and harmonize the needs of other public and private actors
who have a genuine interest in international action, in order to develop a coherent
foreign policy, with clear objectives and goals and with optimal management of the
resources and opportunities available” (MRE: 2005). Based on the 5 regions that make
up the most relevant global geostrategic vision for the interests of Venezuela, the vice
ministries are in charge of administering, in a timely manner, the country's foreign
policy. Its creation seeks to deepen alliances, approaches and cooperation between
the nations of those regions and make them more expeditious, convenient and efficient
and delegate to a collegiate and specialist body the monitoring of agreements already
signed and the approach and management of other matters, such as projection of the
national strategy at the global level (CFR.- RODRÍGUEZ ARAQUE: 2005). The logic
was to optimize the results or the response capacity of the MRE to international
demands, as well as to open channels and possibilities in the search for resources to
be applied in the internal development of the country (CFR.-MÉNDEZ: 2005), because
when decisions were centralized, opportunities were lost to achieve progress at
different levels of interest.

166 “We want to increase relations with other countries and to do so we seek greater
rapprochement. This is the objective of this restructuring, (…) is to serve the different
regions of the world more efficiently and better focus the foreign policy actions of the
national government. (…) this restructuring will make it possible to conveniently
address all the political alliances that are beginning to yield extraordinary results, in
addition to facilitating the coupling to the new schemes of direct and multipolar
diplomacy put into practice by the President of the Republic” (MÉNDEZ: 2005). 4.1.2.-
The Consolidation of the Public Opposition Competition in 2001:

The validity of the organic changes of the MRE would not have had a place without the
imperative need to combine with this process the training of professionals with a high
sense of public service, so that they can hold positions, both inside and outside the
country, transmitting national values 86 in the international scene (CFR.- PÉREZ:
2004), so that what happened in April 2002 does not happen again.

“In short, the Diplomat that is required today requires a series of skills. To master
languages other than your own, especially English, you must handle economics and
political science, you must know computer science and you must be a good public
relations specialist, you must know how to share the resources of a traditional physical
environment of the Missions with the reality of the country. . You must be a specialist in
some discipline necessary in your profession, but at the same time you must be able to
handle different topics and scenarios. Having a command vision will undoubtedly help
you be more efficient in your role as a representative of part of that global system”
(HERNÁNDEZ: 1997). For this reason, Adolfo Salgueiro once considered that the
professionalization of the Foreign Service, at most, would begin if three major
conditions were overcome, sine qua non:

86

LAW OF PARTIAL REFORM OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE LAW. “Article 2: The

actions of foreign service personnel must be framed in the fundamental principles and
universal values established in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, such as freedom, equality, non-discrimination, social justice, respect for the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, non-intervention, self-determination of
peoples, the guarantee of human rights, solidarity and peace, all of them aimed at the
search for a global balance between nations and democratization of international
society, by promoting recognition and respect for national individualities, as well as
peaceful cooperation between countries and the consolidation of Latin American and
Caribbean integration. (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA: 2005).

167 1. Political Will: To face the complex concurrent national and international
circumstances and, at the same time, prepare officials to send the message that
Venezuela intends to project to the world efficiently. 2. Thorough and objective
knowledge of the subject: To avoid a poorly planned or hasty restructuring with a
tendency towards bureaucracy. The idea of the changes had to be based on realities
and not on hypothetical circumstances or situations. 3. Economic resources: Although
the Foreign Ministry has always been the Cinderella of the National Budget because its
allocations barely exceed one percent (1%), the changes should not have a major
impact on its finances (CFR.- SALGUEIRO: 1999) .

Once these conditions were overcome, with the support of the National Assembly that
gave way to the 2001 law, the professionalization of the foreign service became
possible, at least as a State policy within participatory democracy. This idea is reflected
in both the 2001 and 2005 laws by establishing the Public Opposition Competition
process for officials who wish to enter the MRE, which would be observed by a
distinguished Qualifying Jury 87. Once the winners of the Public Opposition
Competition have been chosen, the Pedro Gual Institute of Higher Diplomatic Studies
(IAEDPG) 88, an organ of the MRE, would be in charge of “organizing and teaching the
specialized diplomatic training program, for those who have approved the public
opposition competition for entry to the foreign service career” 89 . Likewise, said
institute “had to coordinate the studies and courses for the training, updating and
specialization of foreign service personnel, considering the professional development
plans and service needs determined by the General Directorate of Human Resources
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” 90 .

The opposition contest was not new within the MRE body, but it was new within the
framework of the 1999 Constitution. 88 The creation of the IAEDPG was, without a
doubt, at least in the academic aspect, a transcendental event in the organic structure
of the MRE. 89 See Article 125 of the Law on Partial Reform of the Foreign Service
Law (2005). 90 See Article 123 of the Law on Partial Reform of the Foreign Service
Law (2005).

87

168 The consolidation of the Public Opposition Competition also meant a concise step
towards the partial non-partisanship of the MRE's workforce, which, for more than 40
years, meant that merits and aptitude, as well as academic preparation, were not
desirable characteristics in the human resources that directly or indirectly managed the
country's international affairs, except for their political and, especially, partisan
preferences and vocations. “The best way to ensure capacity in any non-elective
function is, of course, the competitive examination of merits and aptitudes, which
allows the person who appoints the official to choose the one who shows the greatest
aptitude. When, on the other hand, these appointments are made to satisfy quotas or
political pacts, even when the people called to service are excellent, public opinion and,
in reality, the country, are denied the opportunity to know if they were the best possible.
The idea that the foreign service can be used to satisfy temporary political allies (...)
implies that (...) there is not a very complete knowledge of how the world moves today
nor of the true importance of serious management of foreign relations” (MINISTRY OF
FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF PARAGUAY: 2005). Finally, today the
MRE is experiencing a period of adaptation and is moving towards creating a new type
of diplomat, that is, one who, apart from his usual tasks, is now a multiplying agent of
the profound social changes that Venezuela is experiencing. “…the Venezuelan
Foreign Ministry has proposed to resize Venezuela's foreign policy, in accordance with
the political, legal and power changes that are taking place in the country and in
response to those dictated by a globalized world dynamic. To address these
challenges, a bolder external policy is required, which does not deal only with political
and protocol guidelines, but is attached to a more realistic scheme, which without
ceasing to comply with the nature of these functions, allows Venezuela respond
appropriately to their political and economic interests and secure a more dignified
space in the current international context (…) With this new vision, which seeks greater
effectiveness in foreign policy, the MRE is working rapidly, (…) it has been noted
significant achievements in its agenda, which it develops from several sides (...): the
relaunch of commercial, economic and financial diplomacy; the revitalization of the
regional bloc policy; a bolder policy against hegemonic attitudes; and the
transformation of the internal structure of the Foreign Ministry, essential to make the
proposed changes possible” (MRE: 2005-b).

169 4.2.- Neodiplomacy in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela: In previous pages we had established that Neodiplomacy complements the
General Theory of Diplomacy by making room for new diplomatic processes,
knowledge and more effective technologies. Our modernity, which no longer assumes
sovereignty, formalism and traditional actors as defining elements of foreign relations
between countries; It must be seen with different eyes. Therefore, Neodiplomacy, as a
theoretical approach, could be useful to understand to a greater extent the
multidimensional sphere in which the foreign ministries of the countries operate, and
especially the foreign ministry of Venezuela. And since until now we have specified
some distinctive elements of Neodiplomacy, below we will analyze the presence of
these elements in this organization:

4.2.1.- Unofficial Behaviors: 4.2.1.1.- Paradiplomacy In Venezuela: As such, the

interference of national States in the international scene of Venezuela has its limits in
the Constitution 91. However, States can take a place on the international scene by
taking advantage of those international legal figures that do not commit the nation
through the creation of obligations. In this sense, governorates or mayors can make
use of letters of intent 92, cooperation agreements 93, twinning agreements 94, etc., to

Article 150 of the CRBV mentions the following: “The execution of contracts of national
public interest will require the approval of the National Assembly in the cases
determined by law. No contract of municipal, state or national public interest may be
entered into with States or foreign official entities or with companies not domiciled in
Venezuela, nor transferred to them without the approval of the National Assembly. The
law may require certain conditions of nationality, domicile or other conditions in public
interest contracts, or require special guarantees.” 92 The Letter (or minutes) of Intent is
the document through which a State or Provincial Governor or a Mayor and a foreign
counterpart, indicate the interest in becoming brothers and the mutual desire to join
forces and joint strategies that allow the development of a certain topic. Although the
format is completely free, it is important to include in the communication some
elements that determine the basis of cooperation and the nature of the issue on which
the parties wish to try to do something, but excludes the obligation to do so. This type
of document is seen as “a mother document” from which various agreements are born
(CFR.- PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO: 2005).

91

170 approach an international State or other non-central government. In that sense, it

is worth mentioning that since 1999 some Venezuelan States have had very successful
experiences internationally, but at the same time, the MRE 95 has had to act on other
occasions to reverse some state initiatives for being

unconstitutional 96.

Among the successful experiences we can remember what happened in June 2003.
On that occasion, the governor of the Nueva Esparta State signed several cooperation
agreements with the Republic of Cuba. The agreements dealt with the purchase of low-
cost sports equipment and the assembly of a factory of such equipment. Likewise, in
August 2005, the Mayor's Office of Caracas signed a twinning agreement with the
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to strengthen the ties of friendship and cooperation
between Venezuela and the peoples of West Africa. This agreement had a political and
cooperation nature in which it is planned to share the experiences that the Venezuelan
government has developed in matters of culture, health, education and sports. More
recently, in March 2006, the governor of the Apure State signed a document of intent
between Cuba that guarantees the planting of 15 thousand hectares of sugar cane and
the subsequent installation of an ethanol plant in the Biruaca-Achaguas axis. This act
favors the participation
The primary purpose of a cooperation agreement is to strengthen dialogue and
cooperation between the parties. It is a technical and written legal instrument that will
be signed by the competent authority of an institutional entity with an external, private,
public, national or foreign natural or legal person, through which the parties receive or
grant technical cooperation, help or mutual benefit or declare their interest in doing so.
This agreement does not require unilateral consideration of a service or good for the
benefit of the other contracting party or parties. On the other hand, the Framework
Agreement is an international legal agreement between two or more States in which
general objectives and principles are established, as well as the institutional structure
in charge of developing specific regulations. 94 According to UN Resolution 2861, a
twinning agreement is a cooperation mechanism of exceptional value, because it
brings countries into contact not only with local leaders but also with entire populations
and also highlights that international cooperation of communities Local communities
can play an important role in uniting people, which is why global inter-municipal
cooperation was considered a natural complement to state cooperation. 95 In these
cases, the MRE refers to its Legal Consulting department. 96 The case is remembered
in which a Zulian governor signed an improvised agreement with a Colombian
department establishing the construction of an international bridge between Venezuela
and Colombia that would be capable of allowing the passage of heavier vehicles. Once
the Foreign Ministry found out what happened, it immediately acted to invalidate the
document, since Venezuelan bridges with Colombia are considered “negotiation
valves”, essential for Venezuela.
93

171 of the following Cuban entities for the achievement of the sugar project in
Venezuela: Sugar Cane Research Institute, Cuban Sugar Cane Derivatives Research
Institute, Cuban Sugar Research Institute, Animal Science Institute, Agricultural Health
Center , Cien Fuegos Alcohol Distillery, National Association of Small Farmers and
Ministry of Sugar.

Now, this new characteristic of the structure and dynamics of Venezuelan international
relations arises as a consequence, on the one hand, of the undeniable incorporation of
new, non-political issues in the State's foreign policy agenda, which makes it more
complex and diversified, and on the other, by blurring the separation between
Venezuela's international affairs and its domestic affairs, the internal political agenda of
the country's governorates is also transformed (CFR.LORENZO: 2003).

“In this sense, one of the most significant changes that the internal politics of the States
has undergone is, without a doubt, the decentralization process, which, among other
things, means the transfer of specific powers from the central level of government. at
subnational levels (state and municipalities or localities) through the modification of
their internal legal system, but beyond this it means the possibility of expanding and
diversifying the scope of foreign policy, to the extent that regions and localities practice
a type of external actions that can be subordinate, parallel, dependent, complementary
or autonomous of official foreign relations” (LORENZO: 2003). In 1989, the process of
consolidating decentralization in the country began when a set of laws were approved
that allowed the popular and direct election of the State Governors (who until then were
officials appointed by the President of the Republic) and the Mayors of the
municipalities that did not previously exist, but the presidents of the Municipal Councils
existed. This, in order to make the heavy, interventionist and super bureaucratized
State more efficient. However, by transferring these powers to subnational levels, the
State only delegated responsibility, because the real level of financial autonomy of

172 these were scarce. The Governorships and Mayor's Offices depended mostly on
transfers of national funds and only with the arrival of the 1999 Constitution, a real
change began to be perceived. The scarcity of permanent financial resources to
execute policies around the powers that have been legally transferred, was what meant
that for: “... a few years ago, diplomacy, or a set of external actions at regional levels,
will be observed. and local, understood as all those activities carried out by the levels
of decentralization and that enjoy a certain autonomy, although not established in the
national legal system, outside the borders of their countries (...) In this framework, the
levels of decentralization They carry out a set of activities, in practice, that go beyond
the powers that were transferred to them by law. There is a legal vacuum in this regard
that opens a space of discretion that allows, among other things, states and
municipalities to carry out a type of foreign relations or rather external actions parallel
to the official ones of the State. (…) From the constitutional point of view, in Venezuela
foreign policy is conducted by the Central Government. Decentralized entities do not
have any explicit power to enter into agreements, treaties and conventions with a
foreign entity, nor to carry out public credit operations. It thus follows that the
Governorates and Mayors' Offices have a restricted character in terms of their
international legal status explicitly enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. However, these
types of relationships are not prohibited either because they occur in practice, either
directly or indirectly, directly when the actors (national, subnational or supranational)
relate without intermediaries through their governments, using as legal basis a letter of
intent or an international technical cooperation agreement in which money is
transferred under the figure of donations or technology under the figure of technical
support and/or technical advice. And indirect when the actors involved are related
through an intermediary which can be an international NGO, a private company, both
national and international, or a mixed capital company. It can also occur through
International Technical Cooperation Agencies sponsored by some subnational level
that has sufficient resources to establish this type of relationships. This frequently
occurs in Europe, where the study of foreign actions begins and its concept is
developed” (LORENZO: 2003).

173 These actions carried out by Venezuelan subnational actors could be classified by
their nature into three levels: 1) the relations between the subnational levels and the
Venezuelan State, through the Ministries of Foreign Affairs; 2) the relationships
between the state subnational levels of different countries (homologues); and 3) the
relationships between subnational levels and international or supranational
organizations. On the other hand, the legal form of these three levels, as well as the
financial figure in each case, will depend on the nature and context of the relationship.
That is, each relationship is unique, because along with the economic interest there is
a defining and circumstantial political interest on the part of the local governments that
promote them. And although political leaders normally seek international projection,
competitiveness has reached subnational levels thanks to globalization, which has
definitely opened a complex variety of relationships both between new actors and
between the various levels of traditional ones ( CFR.- LORENZO: 2003).

Finally, since the process of political-territorial decentralization began in Venezuela,

which is one of the main axes of the State reform, multilateral organizations have
participated in the administrative modernization of the States thanks to the incipient
diplomacy of their governors and mayors, responsible bodies at the local level for the
management of decentralized powers. As long as this trend continues, the role of
multilaterals in the reform of the State will continue to increase in the presentation of
major guiding proposals to the communities and in their participation through
“technical” advice for their implementation (CFR.- FUENMAYOR: 2003, 185-210). In
this way it will encourage and help maintain the State reform process, at least in that:

174 “… 1) They can provide valuable technical advice, on what to do and what not to
do; 2) International organizations can provide a rich body of international experience on
a whole range of problems; 3) Financial assistance provided by international
organizations can help (…) endure the difficult initial period of the reform process, until
the benefits begin to occur; and 4) These organizations can offer (...) a mechanism for
reaching external commitments, which would make it more difficult for them to reverse
the path of reform” (FUENMAYOR: 2003, 185-210). 4.2.1.2.- Outside Public
Knowledge: In recent years, a movement has appeared originating in civil society that
supports programmed citizen participation in the processes of construction of the
country's foreign policy 97. With scientific arguments and modern social values, they
have made efforts to open a matrix of favorable public opinion so that citizens have
access to an issue that concerns everyone, that is, foreign policy 98. However, around
the MRE where skepticism reigns on this issue, there are also some followers.

The possibility that a group of “notables” or “experts” or “social representatives” have

the option to participate in the country's international affairs may be seen by some as a
laudable aspiration of civil society 99, but for others the risk that This entails is very
high, because decidedly, and this is evidenced by the countless diplomatic experiences
of the nations of the world, there are issues that the
In the Venezuelan context there are several researchers who support the idea that
public opinion becomes an indisputable force in the country's international affairs. It is
worth knowing the works of Miguel Ángel Latouche Reyes. (CFR.- LATOUCHE
REYES: 2002). 98 Recently, the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs for Africa, Reinaldo
José Bolívar, referred to the fact that a technological platform will soon be created, so
that through a website, Venezuelans can follow up on the international agreements and
treaties signed by the country. , “so that we have diplomacy of the people, so that all
our citizens have access to this information” (CFR.BOLÍVAR: 2005-b). 99 So far, the
only genuine achievement of Civil Society with respect to the MRE is established in
Article 114 of the Partial Reform Law of the Foreign Service Law of 2005. There, a
representative, a member of Venezuelan civil society, with a recognized professional
and academic career in the area of international relations, who has stood out for his
contributions to the study of international issues and for his knowledge of the
Venezuelan foreign service, will be appointed by the National Assembly, may
participate in the Qualifying Jury.
97

175 civil society should not know, know, or imagine 100. Although this makes one
think that the government is not responding to the public and that democracy is not
working well 101.

The protection of citizens is a constitutional principle and political object of the

Venezuelan State, therefore if this protection warrants that civil society does not know
about a certain issue, to maintain peace and governability, it must be so. States
constantly make agreements that in most cases are public knowledge, but sometimes,
and to the surprise of many, and with the same recurrence, secret agreements are
made, the knowledge of which is exclusive to a very small group of citizens. These
agreements are, sometimes, the background, the true reason for the birth of the
treaties and agreements that come to light, and why is this so? Because it is not easy
to negotiate with another State. Each State has its own interests and each seeks to
make the most of the needs of the other. As in a game, diplomacy is born there and
acquires the notable elements that make it the most artistic of public careers.

The underlying reasons that support the agreements are also of great interest to States
that may be indirectly affected. For this reason, if they are not informed or perceive any
situation that involves them, they appeal to clandestine diplomacy or other forms of
action 102, so that the holy saintrum is revealed for analysis. The interests
100

Henry Kissinger, with his book Diplomacy, was the first to open the debate on this
topic when he indicated “clearly that he does not accept public interference in
international affairs” (CFR.- HAINE: 1997, 3). 101 Benjamin J. Page and Jasón
Barabas bring up an analysis of “Deliberative Democracy”, where they defend that the
State should respond to the considered and duly commented opinions of the “public”;
and the policy should reflect the preferences of citizens, who would express
themselves once they receive the available information and have had time to reflect on
it. Now, disagreements or differences between citizens and leaders constitute a
problem in the construction of foreign policy for at least two reasons. One, because it
could entail obligations for the States regarding the duty to inform the population and
two, because the will of the majority is not necessarily in accordance with a reality seen
from the eyes of specialized knowledge. (CFR.- PAGE: 2000, 339-364) 102 Parallel to
unofficial diplomacy, there is espionage and its complex networks of spies, informants,
contacts and secret agents at the service of the State. Espionage is used to expand the
horizon of the State's capabilities for action once the effectiveness of diplomatic
mechanisms has been exhausted. Espionage is costly in financial and human terms,
because it is difficult to find people trained to

176 at stake warrant it and civil society is excluded from the real circumstances in
which international policies are forged. Information at these levels has immeasurable
value. They are state secrets and the diplomatic agent who has the duty to handle
them must exercise maximum professionalism, or better, maximum diplomatic
circumspection to prevent the information from falling into the wrong hands due to
imprudence or theft or, much worse, into public opinion. public 103. This requires a
type of life that, although not private, is at least secret:

“Diplomatic Agents are constantly subjected to situations where they must learn that
vanity is a latent danger. Like the negotiator, pedantry and lack of respect for the
values and opinions of others is the antithesis of whoever exercises this job. Practicing
modesty is much more useful both in your personal attitude in personal conversations
and in a large negotiation since it is extremely serious when you stun and overwhelm
your counterpart (…) Citing (…) the opinions of the author Enrique Bernstein, one
should Also consider prudence, caution and reserve. He himself does not recommend
excessive talkativeness. The greatest skill is not to show that you are intelligent,
cultured, insightful and skilled. The more grounded the Diplomat is on the planet, the
more likely he is to be successful. (…) A bad image is also produced by those
Ambassadors who do not give the sensation of normal permanence in their positions
and that they are nothing more than an aspiration for greater personal triumphs.
Regarding prudence, specifically, it advises "refraining from expressing personal
opinions on international affairs that may not agree with those of your Government,
since they could be misinterpreted." It must be remembered that a Diplomat, he
officially stated, is a representative of the government he represents, his opinions are
therefore not considered strictly personal even when he insists on
perform these functions. Furthermore, creating a solid spy network requires time and
decades of preparation. Curiously, none of the people interviewed in the MRE on this
matter (in the period that this investigation lasted) recognized this type of practices by
Venezuela, although in March 2006, the USA denounced that a Venezuelan
representative attached to the Venezuelan Embassy In Colombia he was a spy. 103 It
is curious, but in terms of security, some diplomats with proven experience have
discarded the use of diaries, notebooks, notebooks, telephone books, electronic
diaries, etc., so as not to compromise the State and then themselves if the incident
occurred. loss of these and their valuable information. Otherwise, diplomats humbly
refer to his memory. Also, some diplomats place telephone numbers on their cell
phones with pseudonyms or aliases, so as not to indicate the real names of their
owners. Likewise, false names are given in messages left on cell phone answering
machines in order to confuse callers. And even security is so important that
Venezuelan diplomats in press conferences largely use the phrases: "I don't know", "I
don't know any information about that fact", "we are not sure", etc., to keep to
themselves. certain information.

177 which is like this. A professor once told us that diplomats did not have a private life,
but we did have a secret one” (HERNÁNDEZ: 1997). Information here is power and, at
the same time, a weapon that sooner or later must be used or instrumentalized. In this
case, private meetings or encounters where information comes to light between parties
are the battlefield for diplomatic agents.

Meetings can occur in controlled, set, programmed, comfortable, discreet, etc. places,
as well as being intimate, remote, hidden and even surprising if it is the Latin American
context 104. These meetings do not at all need the numerous university scientific
compilations that talk about mechanisms for conflict resolution 105, but they do need a
language: “diplomatic language” 106, which for the inexperienced observer would be
like a conversation that is definitely about matters of crucial importance, although
In Latin American diplomatic history, so critical and conjunctural, clandestine meetings
have been held in various places and circumstances: from humble bathrooms to
meetings on desolate docks late at night. It is even worth mentioning that not a few
career diplomats with recognized experience indicate that the best meeting place is a
restaurant: “there is no better persuasive element than a good steak.” 105 Curiously,
clandestine diplomatic meetings are attended on both sides by agents with long
experience and experience. Usually, these characters have known each other for years
and that is why “they no longer have anything to hide” and their conversations are
frank, punctual and very friendly, just like old friends. In that sense, academic studies
that deal with mechanisms for conflict resolution tend to forget this crucial detail, in
addition, that their academic origins come from European and North American
internationalist schools and multilateral schemes. It is also worth mentioning that on
one occasion "someone" questioned the School of International Relations of the
Central University of Venezuela by stating that its researchers and professors were
"frustrated diplomats", to make reference to why they described Venezuelan diplomacy
a lot. in its most superficial and childish aspect, and they failed to discover the
underlying diplomatic reality in which decisions are made. As an argument, he
explained the substantial differences that emerge from the academic research work of
diplomats and the noticeable, not absolute, tendency of students of that career who
look at the diplomatic career as a promising job for “only traveling and "know
countries." Or as Oscar Hernández says in a more general sense: “I have seen more
concern for the individual than for the collective. I have observed the use of Diplomacy
as a springboard for political aspirations, or as a refuge for some politicians in their
failures in the face of their personal aspirations” (HERNÁNDEZ: 1997). 106 Diplomatic
language “is, in essence, a cautious form of expression that gives the opportunity to
stay, to a certain extent, below the exacerbation when this procedure suits the interests
of the State that is represented. Essentially used in certain oral and written
presentations by leaders, foreign ministers, diplomatic agents and other international
actors, the so-called professional language of diplomacy has demonstrated its
indispensable usefulness, as it is the only instrument that allows, through cautious
gradations, to formulate a warning. serious to its counterpart, in accordance with the
rules of international coexistence, that is, with the required propriety and without
necessarily using threatening words (...) Its careless use - or by inexperience - can give
a given situation a seriousness that in reality lacks.” (MORALES LAMA: 2003-b).
104

178 converse in a diffuse, incomplete, incomprehensible way, as is, as a tribute and

well-worthy example of something that has to be seen in perspective and read between
rugged lines. In short, even so, diplomats know how to understand each other, it is their
language.

And at the same time, there is other behavior outside the public knowledge of
diplomatic agents. This is when they, for personal reasons, do not stay away from their
work and participate in “consultation” meetings 107 with their counterparts to facilitate
future discussion and generate innovative ideas to solve problems. The dialogue that
results from consultations is not intended to convince or persuade. On the contrary, it
seeks to delve deeper into the topics, discover new meanings, find new relationships or
exchange opinions about the particular circumstances that motivate the meeting. The
degree of political influence that each diplomatic agent participating in these
“consultations” has will determine the opportunity for these ideas to also be included in
the official conflict resolution process 108.

4.2.1.3.- Unofficial Communications: The technological advance of the media

worldwide has so effectively simplified the traditional activities of the MRE that, even, a
palpable dependence on these media is already perceived due to the countless
benefits they represent. when making decisions 109 and the ability to

107

In previous pages we described how James Notter had reflected on this type of
behavior and had referred it to Track Two Diplomacy (CFR.- NOTTER: 1996).
However, we have taken ideas from his approach to describe a reality very typical of
Venezuela and Latin America. The reason is that Notter describes this behavior with
the assumption that they are a novelty, but in Latin America they have always existed.
Perhaps this is due to the fact that Latin America has more than 150 years without
bloody wars, which has favored an atmosphere of peace and rapprochement between
countries that has kept intangible certain primitive forms of diplomacy that are now
being rediscovered in Europe, North America or Asia. 108 In the diplomatic corps of the
MRE, until 2005, every certain Tuesday of each month a party was held, as a meeting,
in a nightclub, where all diplomatic agents from the embassies accredited in the
country were invited and international reporters to share a pleasant moment. These
meetings were attended by “younger” diplomats and reporters, however, various topics
of interest were discussed there. To all of these, logically, the entrance to the meetings
had great exclusivity. 109 In fact, there has been a reduction in diplomatic trips abroad.
Thanks to the development of the Internet, many activities can now be carried out from
home without the need to endorse a trip abroad.

179 contribute to knowledge by making available “a wide network of institutions and

instruments that facilitate the task of taking advantage of the new and incessant
knowledge that is generated in the world” (ÁLVAREZ: 1998). However, this has
resulted in “an excessive rapprochement” between international actors and diplomatic
agents. The distances are over; international contact has been closer; the feedback of
information is dizzying; the mediate has disappeared for the immediate; But the most
crucial thing is that the privacy of nations and their institutions is already more difficult
to control and supervise due to the massification of the branches and methods of
diplomatic interaction. The proximity is so close that the diplomatic agents of the MRE
themselves can have access to various information without major efforts 110, however,
to achieve this they must adapt their work behavior to levels of very high dynamism,
because they cannot be left behind unless they wish to fail to comply. the obligatory
maximum that the chancellery demands of them: stay informed. This dynamism also
leads diplomatic agents to prefer technologies that simplify their work lives, for this
reason, they increasingly focus their attention on channeling the issuance or exchange
of all their reports, letters or documents for purposes, through of these media.
However, this critical dynamic has had an impact on the sacrifice of certain formalisms.
For example, now it is easier to see how the diplomatic agents of the MRE
communicate with other foreign ministries, embassies or other international actors,
through e-mail, which indicates the disappearance of the official letters or documents
that constitute the archive. history of the ministry. Communication via e-mail, simpler,
expeditious and cheaper, also does not require the existence of the distinctive seal and
signature of originality of the communication, so e-mail communications are endorsed
by electronic mechanisms that are not reliable 111, they are not safe, they are
impersonal and they detract from official status, that is, they do not give

110

It is worth mentioning that the value of information that should not have public access
has become more invaluable, which is why a new type of espionage has appeared,
electronic espionage. 111 Other risks of communication via e-mail were already
collected in Wendy Viteri's research “THE INTERNET IN VENEZUELA AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF DIPLOMACY”. (VITERI: 2003). Likewise, it is recommended to see
the work of Mariela González, exceptional research on the Internet and security in the
case of Venezuela (CFR.- GONZÁLEZ M.: 2002).

180 possibilities to verify the legitimacy or trustworthiness of the sender of the

communication because it could have been drafted by other hands and with other
intentions than those desired by the MRE or another international actor. This violates
the principles of institutional security, contributes to creating an atmosphere of anxiety
when making a decision and makes it difficult to distribute administrative
responsibilities when sanctions are applied. Although one could speak of
overconfidence, communication via e-mail is still only typical of unimportant
communications, because in matters of eloquent importance for the MRE, official
communication, with a distinctive seal and signature, is established as a ceremonial
requirement. and protocol essential for the different divisions of the organization.

The truth about the MRE's failure to comply with this type of administrative behavior is
the undeclared acceptance that there are administrative practices that inevitably no
longer represent the same value that they once had and that, furthermore, are brief
evidence that modernity and aggiornamento have found shelter and tolerance in the
eyes of the highest managers, who are surely aware of the need to adapt to new times.
If this trend continues, probably in the not too distant future these practices will be as
recurrent and common as the figure of the pendolist once was 112, and only time will
tell if they will be replaced by other more profitable or economical practices.

4.2.1.4.- Non-Official Foreign Ambassadors: It is a well-known fact that the President of

the Republic Hugo Chávez has had a daily work agenda packed with errands since
1999. The administration of national affairs, so multifaceted and multidimensional,
requires total dedication to
112

The figure of the pendolist was a distinctive feature of chancelleries worldwide until the
middle of the last century. Their work of adorning official letters between the leaders of
countries with classic and elegant writing was replaced by modern printing presses.
Today there are only remnants of this goldsmith of writing in some national universities
that urge their new professionals to go to a pendolist to have their names signed on
their university degrees.

181 their work from early in the morning until late at night throughout the 365 days of
the year. And since the president's work routine is not enough, it implies a concise
discrimination of the events, meetings, activities and others in which he must
participate by the secretariat of his office. Thus, the most priority activities have a clear
preference when it comes to being included in their work agenda; in the absence of
those activities that, although important, may remain in the second or third plane to be
attended to. In that sense, one can speak of delay, however, practice has shown that
sooner or later the presidential representative attends to all the matters required of him
by the constitution, the laws of the republic and, especially, the needs of the people.

However, with respect to the diplomatic sphere, a certain degree of discomfort has
been perceived on the part of foreign ambassadors recently accredited to the country
by their respective States or international organizations, because they must wait days,
weeks or months to present their credentials. to the president, since he has not had the
opportunity to attend to them or include them in his work agenda. In that period of time,
the ambassadors present their style letters to the MRE, but this is not enough if it is a
question of granting these most excellent officials the due degree of legitimacy, legality
and officiality that they deserve to act at the national level. 113. In effect, as long as
they do not comply with the protocol act of delivering credentials to the president, they
will be de facto ambassadors, but not de jure in the institutional eyes of Venezuela.
This leaves them with a very valuable field of action and although it does not
“completely” 114 achieve the objectives for the
113

Article 13 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) mentions: “1. The
head of mission will be considered to have assumed his functions in the receiving State
from the moment he has presented his credentials or when he has communicated his
arrival and presented a style copy of his credentials to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or
to the Ministry which has been agreed, according to the practice in force in the
receiving State, to be applied uniformly. 2. The order of presentation of the credential
letters or their style copy will be determined by the date and time of arrival of the head
of mission. 114 Until an ambassador presents his credentials to the president of a
country (style copies to the MRE are not enough), he will not be able to “speak officially
on behalf of his country.” For these purposes, the Chargé d'Affaires of the Embassy will
officially represent his State and will be the one who signs the communications,
however, the ambassador will be the one who effectively commands, informally, within
the embassy. Also, the

182 who were appointed in the country, begin to carry out their work beyond the
minimum, necessary and desirable range of officialdom, that is, they act unofficially
within the Venezuelan political system. In addition to this, even the ambassadors who
have been able to present their credentials to the president do not have much access
to him to discuss bilateral issues, for which the vice presidency has replaced, at most,
those attention needs.

“The way President Chávez's government relates to the diplomatic corps has been
very -sui generis-, to describe it in some way. In fact, Ambassadors are received
infrequently, and in special circumstances, it took many months to present their style
letters to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and therefore to the President of the Republic
(...) which of course generates discomfort among the representatives. foreigners, all
respectful of diplomatic formulas and uses. The Vatican is of course no exception, but
in its case things have been even more difficult because the representative of the Pope
has a dual character as a state official and a member of the church, an institution with
which President Chávez has a confrontation." . (BETANCOURT: 2002, 60).
Furthermore, this type of communications breaks with the traditional “diplomatic way
and style”, in the sense that the set of forms and terms used in oral and written
presentations of that nature are not met, in accordance with established norms that
govern With due precision in its use, the designated, but not recognized, ambassador
will be able to hold and participate in meetings in a discreet, informal, reserved manner
and in his own or personal capacity with his counterparts to advance the usual
diplomatic approaches while the presentation of the letters arrives. credentials. Even
the meetings that this ambassador may hold with representatives of the Latin American
Group (GRULA) will be seen as an approach more of a personal nature than of
national interest by the State that the ambassador is representing. 115 It is
recommended to see.- MORALES LAMA: 2003-b., who develops the idea of the
“diplomatic style.” 3 4.2.2.- Informal Behaviors: 4.2.2.1.- The Initiatives of the Deputies
of the National Assembly: The powers granted by the Constitution of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela to the National Assembly (AN) allow it, in one In a more informal
way (not unofficial), spontaneous and with less public exposure, bilateral and
multilateral links and relationships are established with various international actors
through the Agreements presented and approved by the plenary (CFR.- REPUBLIC OF
ARGENTINA: 2006). Sometimes these actions have even been more effective due to
their modalities and characteristics, which prioritize the search for consensus aimed at
achieving the expected results, than the actions carried out through compliance with
MRE protocol rules or the initiative of government officials. for communicating their
opinions. And perhaps it is because of the less political pressure and public
commitment that the AN has with respect to the MRE in the immeasurable international
scenario that has made it easier for the agreements not to have been obtained
otherwise. For example, it is worth remembering the: “Joint declaration between
presidents Haddad Adel, president of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of the Islamic
Republic of Iran and Nicolás Maduro Moros, president of the National Assembly of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela” signed on February 16 2006; the “Agreement to
reject the statements issued by the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Baldwin
Spencer; the Foreign Minister of Dominica, Charles Savarin; and the Director General
of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Len Ismael, on November 8,
regarding Venezuelan sovereignty in the Isla de Aves" signed on November 15, 2005;
the “Agreement rejecting the interference of the US Government in the internal affairs
of the Syrian Arab Republic” signed on November 2, 2005; and the “Agreement of
solidarity and condolences with the people of the United States, as well as for the local
authorities and inhabitants of the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina” signed on
September 6, 2005.

184 On the other hand, on the American continent, Parliaments manage their
international relations autonomously thanks to the democratic criterion based on the
division of powers 116. This autonomy leads the AN to give these activities a style and
rhythm that correspond to its pluralistic composition and its primary functions, that is, to
legislate, supervise government action, take into consideration issues of public interest
and represent the population. In addition to autonomy, the second principle that bases
the international action of Parliaments and gives them their specificity is respect for
political pluralism. Indeed, the international relations of the AN take into consideration
the interests and political sensitivities of the various parties represented in said
Parliaments. Specifically, this principle translates into the constitution of pluralist
delegations for participation in interparliamentary activities, thus guaranteeing their
non-partisan nature.

The participation of the National Assembly in multi-lateral interparliamentary

organizations and the bilateral relations it maintains with foreign Parliaments are
articulated around four main axes: a) maintenance and strengthening of the efficiency
of the parliamentary institution and of the elected representatives in their functions of
legislation, oversight of government action, taking into consideration matters of public
interest, representation and participation; b) active participation of the National
Assembly in the building of a world community based on participatory democracy,
peace, justice and prosperity; c) improvement of the international positioning of the
National Assembly on the international scene, by

Miguel Ángel Orozco Deza, offers a general overview of the practice known in the field
of current international relations as parliamentary diplomacy. Establishes the
differences between it and classical diplomacy and presents some examples, results
and benefits of interparliamentary relations. He emphasizes that the main objective of
parliamentary diplomacy, which he designates as a new phenomenon in the world, is to
create links between all congresses and parliaments with the purpose of exchanging
legislative information on issues of fundamental interest, including security and
economic relations between states. Likewise, he points out that parliamentary
diplomacy is a product of the globalization process and the separation of powers
observed in political systems. (CFR.- OROZCO DAZA).

116

185 as well as increasing the projection of Venezuelan society; d) institutional

projection of the National Assembly within the interparliamentary networks 117.

In this sense, the interparliamentary and international relations of the National

Assembly can be grouped into three broad categories: multilateral activities, bilateral
relations and interparliamentary cooperation. These relations are in charge of nine
sections or delegations, four for multilateral activities and five for bilateral relations.
Interparliamentary cooperation activities, for their part, are under the direct
responsibility of the President of the National Assembly. “International
interparliamentary relations have taken important development in recent times. Its
progressive importance in the international relations of States among themselves, as
well as between communities of States, has allowed the historical processes of cultural
or economic relations to add great prominence today to political relations, in which
contacts and parliamentary cooperation They have a growing prominence. One of the
instruments that facilitate the development of political relations is the so-called . It
should be especially taken into account that Parliaments generally represent the
diverse political forces or currents with the greatest popular representation, which adds
greater depth to the political commitment to cooperation that is expressed through the
traditional relationship between governments. Thus, Parliaments from different
countries in the world develop an aggressive policy of interparliamentary relations and
cooperation between Parliaments and in this activity the diversity of the national
political arc represented in the Legislative Branch acts. This occurs with European,
American, Asian, African parliamentary institutions, in short, from different cultures,
proving that the most important countries in the world work in this direction, giving great
importance to these actions for which they reserve an important space in their politics.
exterior” (EASTERN REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY: 2004).

117

These ideas can be compared with the position of the National Assembly of Québec
regarding the management of its international relations.

186 Currently, the cooperation objectives present in the AN focus on bilateral

interparliamentary meetings with Cuba, and on multilateral meetings with African, Latin
American and Caribbean countries 118. Furthermore, in the future it is thought

concretize the South American Interparliamentary Union that will deal with the
common problems of three hundred and sixty million people.

4.2.2.2.- The Informal Diplomacy of NGOs: Indeed, NGOs have been acquiring an
increasingly important role on the international stage to the extent that some
governments openly consider them as influence multipliers. But unlike the North
American case, where some NGOs are financed in order to be used as indirect
diplomatic mechanisms of the government to interfere in the internal affairs of other
nations of the world (CFR.- PÉROUSE DE MONTCLOS: 2005), Venezuela has
assumed an attitude less manipulative with these organizations and, on the contrary, it
is one of the countries that is the object of attack by several international NGOs that
defend North American interests. The favorable image of NGOs around the world is
based on the element of solidarity, which they use as the main motive to justify their
actions 119. With ideas linked to a society without iniquities, they sometimes have to
oppose the abuses or indifference of the States, using their ability to convene and
influence civil society, so that in most circumstances NGOs act as entities supervisors
and harsh critics of government management (CFR.- JUAN
Internal and Debating Regulations of the National Assembly of October 2005,
mentions in its Article 178: “The National Assembly is part of the following international
forums: Interparliamentary Union, Amazonian Parliament and Indigenous Parliament of
America; To this end, it will accredit its representatives before said organizations in
accordance with the respective statutes. Likewise, the National Assembly may join
other international forums.” And Article 177 mentions: “The Venezuelan deputies
elected to integrate the Andean Parliament and the Latin American Parliament…”. 119
According to Julie Fischer, NGOs are, in part, the product of the system they now
oppose. The inability of governments to begin to face the growing challenges of
sustainable development has enormously widened the gap that separates reality from
what the people believe is possible and this encourages NGOs to appear and
participate to contribute to that effort (CFR. - FISCHER: 1998).
AGUILAR & ASOCIADOS S. C: 2004). However, NGOs do not escape being
organizations that act without any control and for their own benefit (or that of others)
and to do so they use smear campaigns through the mass media, weakening their
image in the eyes of their donors. and its beneficiaries.

For example, the government of Venezuela has harshly accused the NGO called
SUMATE. This NGO is accused before the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of
conspiring against the democratic system of Venezuela by receiving funds of 31
thousand dollars from the National Foundation for Democracy 120 between 2004 and
2005 that served to mount a national and international smear campaign against the
country and destabilizing movements against the national government 121. Quite apart
from deepening democracy in Venezuela, as indicated by the objectives of this NGO, it
has been accused of acting on behalf of North American interests to unbalance the
regime of President Hugo Chávez. The evidence goes back to the fact that its highest
representatives supported the attempted coup d'état of April 2002 and signed the
"Carmona Decree" during the period of the president's "absence", not to mention that in
mid-2005 they met with the American President George Bush to denounce the violation
of democratic principles in Venezuela 122. For the government, this NGO favors
conspiracy and the “intervention of a foreign organization” (ORTEGA DÍAZ: 2006) in
the country's affairs and therefore, the MRE has had the duty to combat the discredit
campaign that this organization has mounted. against Venezuela. The work of the MRE
has been arduous, and it is no wonder,
National Endowment for Democracy (official name in English) is an independent entity
that receives contributions from the US Congress to support democratic movements
around the world. 121 In February 2006, the Public Ministry asked the court to arrest
the directors of SÚMATE, Alejandro Plaz, María Corina, Ricardo Estévez and Luís
Enrique Palacios Machado. However, the procedural delay that has characterized this
case is due, according to groups opposed to the Chávez government, to the fact that
the government does not wish to pass the sentence for fear of making it illegal to
receive donations from abroad, which would make it possible for President Chávez A
trial is initiated against him for receiving 2 million dollars from Spain to finance an
electoral campaign. 122 In fact, SUMATE, PROVEA and other NGOs affirm that in
Venezuela there is a constant violation of human and democratic rights. To do this,
they handle a series of specific complaints that, accompanied by the “evident”
conspiracy of the media against the government of President Hugo Chávez, have been
able to penetrate national and international public opinion. The Venezuelan State, for
its part, has tried to make the national and international community see that there is
another reality, not just one, and to this end the MRE has made an information effort
worldwide to provide evidence to whoever wishes. see them.
120
 188 because if due clarifications are not made on this matter, confidence in the
country could decline and, in the worst case, foreign investors would no longer see
Venezuela as a good financial and commercial party.

On the other hand, Venezuela has gathered countless beneficial experiences working
alongside new actors. The government and the chancellery are not unaware of the
innate and legitimate concern of these modern figures on various matters of the State
and pay their attention to them 123, especially when it comes to trade and the violation
of human rights, while “the protection network of international human rights seeks to
redefine what is a matter of exclusive domestic jurisdiction of States” (SIKKINK: 1993,
413) 124. It is worth remembering, for example, the role played by the MRE when on
December 23, 2005 the Venezuelan Prison Observatory (OVP), an NGO dedicated to
the defense of prisoners in Venezuela, requested the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights to raise their voice before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(IACHR) in the case about the irregularities that occurred in the Oriente Penitentiary
Center, located in the State of Monagas. The IACHR, based in San José, Costa Rica,
decided to agree on protection measures for prisoners based on Article 63.2 of the
American Convention on Human Rights so that the Venezuelan State “protects life and
personal integrity.” of persons deprived of their liberty in the Monagas Judicial
Confinement Center” 125 . In the IACHR resolution, it was also agreed that the NGO
should work together with the State
123

In the last decade it was common to see how several NGOs requested the MRE to
publicly disseminate the annual reports that Venezuela had to submit to the UN
Committees in charge of monitoring the obligations enshrined in six (6) international
human rights treaties. These reports were public in nature and had to be widely
discussed in the countries of origin. However, the Multilateral Affairs Directorate of the
MRE was reluctant to give a copy of these reports to the NGOs that requested them for
analysis. But the changes in this regard began in 1999, when with the arrival of the new
constitution the Venezuelan State began to act in compliance with the spirit that
inspires the UN control mechanisms and recognized the obligations arising from the
respective treaties of human rights (CFR.- PROVEA: 1999). Nowadays, NGOs
cooperate with the MRE bodies and the institution is aware that “Internal stability is a
source of external credibility because it allows international actors to accompany the
development of their peers' policies, being able to build positive expectations and
beliefs.” in relation to it, while allowing the actors to do what they are expected to do
within the international agreement” (DUARTE VILLA: 2004, 28-29). 124 See also.-
PIOVESAN: 2004. 125 Resolution of January 13, 2006 of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights.

189 to monitor the agreed protection. The MRE provided support to the representative
of the Venezuelan State before the IACHR, the Director of Custody and Rehabilitation
of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice and, equally, to the representatives of the
OVP to establish an agreed agenda. Furthermore, the MRE favored the official position
of Venezuela throughout all the embassies abroad over the harmful image that the
country had received before the international community by groups opposed to the
government that tried to take advantage of what happened with the penitentiary in favor
of their own. interests.
Finally, it should be noted that in most Central and South American countries, NGO
oversight standards have been implemented (CFR.- JUAN AGUILAR & ASOCIADOS
S. C.: 2004), however, in Venezuela there is no modern law 126 or specific institution
that controls the area or supervises the information provided by NGOs regarding their
activities or the donations they receive 127. The MRE has come to fill part of this void
together with the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, but if the State does not act in a
timely manner, it collaborates in increasing the threat of interference by NGOs in
political power 128, when They should adequately strengthen the governance of the
State and social capital 129.

126 127

The International Cooperation Law, for example, dates from January 8, 1958, Official
Gazette No. 25,554. Indeed, NGOs in Venezuela strengthened qualitatively and
quantitatively in the 1990s by parasitizing public budgets and participating in projects
financed with funds from multilateral organizations, without any control by the
Comptroller's Office of the Republic, the body responsible for ensuring proper use. of
public funds. It is worth remembering, for example, the case of the “civil associations”,
figures that received donations from the governorates and that were dismantled in the
last cauldron government. 128 “In Latin America it is already public knowledge that
NGOs in Venezuela collaborated with the failed coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002.”
(PELAEZ: 2005). 129 Social capital is a concept that has resurfaced as a response to
the failures of economic development ideas, highlighting the need to include and re-
hierarchize in this process, values such as interpersonal trust, associativity, civic
awareness, ethics and predominant values in the culture of a society, in order to
formulate public policies, with the objectives of achieving a self-sustained, participatory
and equitable development strategy. Social capital contributes to strengthening social
actors and networks (civil society), therefore it facilitates a transparent and efficient
system in public management at all levels of government and makes the fight against
poverty and social exclusion more efficient, since it In the new approach to social
policies, the poor are no longer seen as a problem and become leading actors in the
search for a better destiny. (CFR.- METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY: 2006).

190 For now, the space of NGOs in Venezuela is guaranteed, as long as they know
how to join, without mediating their participation to partisan or foreign interests, a
national development project 130. But, within this broad spectrum, we can consider
that the development of the NGO field is still incipient in our country 131 if we compare
it with the experiences that other Latin American countries have had, even with less
tradition of popular participation and civil societies. less structured 132, at least in the
eyes of the theory of participatory democracy.

4.2.3.- Nationalization of International Agendas: In previous pages we had already

suggested the idea that contemporaneity, as a notorious fact, has resulted in the
international agendas 133 of States being overwhelmed by diverse topics that include
issues such as environmental; the rights of women, gays and lesbians; indigenous
rights; drug trafficking; international trade; human and food security; The terrorism;
among others. However, although this is a defining element in this regard, we could
say in the background that, apart from the fact that these issues have appeared in the
last 50 years, there is a tendency of some governments, such as that of Venezuela, to
nationalize the international agendas 134, that is, that they become once again a
complete, not partial, object of national interest.

Today, the Venezuelan State is seriously considering two political initiatives regarding
NGOs through the National Assembly. The first is that any NGO that intends to work in
the country be approved by the National Assembly, and the second is that a
mechanism is created to supervise the external financing of NGOs in Venezuela
(CFR.- BERTONI: 2005). 131 To see something about the history of NGOs in
Venezuela, it is recommended to see: (LÓPEZ C.: 2004). 132 See the case of NGOs in
Peru. 133 Structured set of steps and stages that are established between States and
other international actors to assume a position on some issue on the international
scene and in whose creation various actors (official and not) participate in a concerted
manner. 134 The idea of “nationalization of international agendas” assumes that now,
for the first time, States will have a true national agenda; However, the term in our
opinion should be “renationalization of international agendas”, since it is more precise
in the sense that it suggests the reconquest of a privilege that States lost in the mid-
20th century as the forms of political imperialism were accentuated. in the world.

130

191 The diversity of issues addressed by the international community has been the
cause of the problem. The multifaceted nature of international agendas has facilitated a
struggle between States to try to impose on the agendas of international political
organizations such as the UN and the OAS the issues that are most pertinent to their
national interests. This struggle, which is not new, describes the confrontation between
the hegemonic power of the world powers and the weaker countries, who desire true
international equity in the analysis of problems.

“…the problem of the distribution of power continues to be fundamental. On the one

hand, international regimes are intergovernmental coordination strategies that
distribute power to and from states. And on the other hand, international regimes do
not regulate all dimensions or all geographical regions of international politics,
especially in matters related to the use of force. Hard power thus continues to be the
primary and final form of power on which the international system continues to be
ordered” (ROBLEDO: 2001). The most powerful States do not leave aside their
declared will to give priority to thematic points vital to their interests and in doing so,
they impose on the rest of the countries their particular way of seeing the world,
although there are some that are inhibited (CFR.- TUSSIE , Diana: 2003). The most
powerful states take advantage of their advantageous status and refer to the “convoy
effect” to achieve their goal. This effect indicates that the advances in the matters that
the powers propose are superior to any proposal made by another country and must
therefore be assumed by even the most reluctant country (CFR.- BOTTO: 2003, 2).
Diplomatic pressures reach such a pitch that if any country in the world considers
within an international political organization, for example, that its border problem or the
fight against poverty is more important than the discussions that try to combat terrorism
by USA, its position will surely be criticized by the associated members of the
organization and, especially, by the allies of that power, which would not bring
retaliation, but a loss of influence in the alliance scene, which is already a lot. .
Logically, this country will have to follow the rules of the game and wait for the powerful
to resolve the issues.
 192 most priority topics for the organization or for the USA, as is the case. Likewise,
that “weak” country will have to participate and sign declarations whose interests do not
resemble its own, in order to subsequently discuss its poverty or border issue
successfully.

This political dynamic is not new either, but it is when a country adopts and agrees to
act on international issues that are not related to its sovereign interests. Disadvantaged
countries 135, demanded by the international environment, include in their international
agendas issues that are not important to them and are forced to defend them to
achieve subsequent acceptance or benefit among the countries of a certain region.

This has been seen more after September 11, 2001. Since that date, the international
agenda has been irrevocably marked by the issues of terrorism 136, the possession of
weapons of mass destruction by States or groups outside international legality, and
preventive action sustained (as legitimate) by those who today lead the coalition of
countries that have entered the Tigris and Euphrates Mesopotamia (CFR.- ROMERO:
2003). Gone was the trend of international agendas that championed the social
dimension as a top priority and entered a world that forgets more important issues:

135

According to Mercedes Botto, there may be many factors that can contribute to
explaining the decision “of governments to internalize an external agenda” (BOTTO:
2003, 3). 136 François Heisbourg stated: “September 11 marked a double rupture. On
the one hand, the transition to hyperterrorism, that is, the conjunction of mass
destruction, possible thanks to current technologies, and the apocalyptic nature of their
organizers, and on the other, the brutal end of the Post-Cold War” ( HEISBOURG:
2002). On the other hand, J. Nye maintains that terrorism: “It has nothing to do with the
terrorism of the 70s, of the IRA, ETA or the Red Brigades. Not one but many societies
are vulnerable to it” (NYE, Joseph S.: 2003). Remember that in the middle of the 20th
century, organizations of this nature usually had somewhat tangible political objectives,
that is, relatively well defined, to which mass destruction could do a disservice. So
many of these received support from certain governments and these covertly controlled
them (CFR.- MORALES LAMA: 2005).

193 “Thus, the international agenda has witnessed the rise of measures applied in
different magnitudes by countries to counter the terrorist threat. This, although
understandable, occurs at the expense of attention to various issues that are also
important. The sacrifice of certain topics on the international agenda – for example
those that have to do with so-called human security – in favor of the fight against
terrorism –i. and. to strengthen State security - entails risks. The fact that development
financing receives less attention than the fight against terrorist financing; that the main
commitment of the Group of Eight is to confront the terrorist threat; that the most
important statement issued on the occasion of the meeting held in the city of Los
Cabos by the 21 economies that belong to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Forum (APEC) was about cooperating in the crusade against terrorism, they report of
how difficult it is to address other issues, even those that, as in the case of the UN and
APEC, are - typical of their agendas -, for example, promoting the development of
countries, the fight against poverty, the facilitation of commerce, etc.” (ROSAS 2003).
Now, the nationalization of the international agenda creates other risks than losing
allies. The international agenda becomes more complicated as time progresses and
the traditional instruments of analysis and action are no longer as effective as before,
which creates an intricate procedure and increasing bureaucratization of relations
between States and international organizations (CFR.- SANINT: 2006). The causes
can be found in various proposals, but, irreducibly, the main characteristic is the
acceleration in the changes and codes of conduct that occur worldwide, which, in the
eyes of Álvaro Gabriel Zopatti, requires a change in the way of thinking. reality:

“Fair or unfair, today's world is one. The relationships that develop in it do so through a
certain logic, highly competitive indeed. It is necessary for each state to be as adapted
as possible to the new challenges and changes that occur in international relations, as
well as to elucidate the relationships between the power groups of each one. For this
reason, it is necessary to expand the visual field of thought and imagine alternatives
outside the conventional parameters in which only political options are found. Thus, the
greatest challenge is a change in the way of thinking about reality, which will generate
at least new responses to these global phenomena, whose main characteristic is the
acceleration of changes and codes of conduct. At the same time, the priority topics on
the agendas multiply in number and complexity, which requires

194 an increasingly professionalized preparation of political and planning work”

(ZOPATTI: 2005). So, how can we nationalize an agenda if the debate around so-
called hemispheric security is of the greatest importance in an increasingly bellicose
international environment and in which the fight against terrorism has been elevated,
thanks to resolution 1373 (2001) of the UN Security Council, to the category of “top”
priority for international security? Should we turn our backs on the UN and the OAS in
the case of Venezuela? Should the problems of inequality and poverty in Venezuela
remain in the background under the interests of the USA and the international
organizations that sometimes function as the same national mysteries of that country?
Is Venezuela the only country with this way of thinking about reality? In that sense,
Venezuela, through its MRE, has reacted by approaching new allies and concentrating
on its own international agenda, an attitude almost against global inertia.

The Foreign Ministry has “promoted efforts to achieve the strengthening of national
sovereignty, both bilaterally and multilaterally, through the implementation and
monitoring of policies that guarantee the well-being of the Venezuelan people based on
an endogenous development model, through the search for new international allies and
in this way, contribute to economic growth. We maintain the human being and the
principles of social justice, peace, and development as a central focus; within a
perspective of multipolarity” (MRE: 2005-c). In that sense, the position of the Foreign
Ministry is framed within the National Annual Operational Plan 2001 - 2007, which
states the five guidelines towards where Venezuela is headed at the international level
and details the bases for a nationalized agenda of the nation that only seeks
“strengthen national sovereignty and promote a multipolar world”:

195 “1) Promote intense global energy cooperation, in defense of oil prices. 2)
Promote Venezuelan participation in global political dialogue. 3) Promote the
development of our borders. 4) Formation and articulation of cooperation systems and
networks. 5) Diffusion, expansion and development of information technologies”
(POAN: 2001). With these actions, the MRE responds to the asymmetries and partiality
of international agendas, which avoid talking about issues of national interest such as
resources to alleviate the “distributive tensions” generated by globalization both within
and between nations. There is, in short, a chasm between global problems and political
norms limited to national and “increasingly” local spheres of action (CFR.- FUENTES:
2006), therefore, it is easy to understand why many scholars believe they know the true
diplomatic action of President Hugo Chávez Frías:

“…the diplomatic action in his administration has attempted to show how a small
international actor would be capable of having a relatively autonomous foreign policy.
This last objective is the main source of conflict between the Chávez administration
and Washington at the levels of bilateral and multilateral relations” (DUARTE VILLA:
2004, 28-29). Until 2001, the international agenda was defined around the United
Nations Millennium Declaration, through the following objectives: 1) Peace, security
and disarmament; 2) Development and poverty eradication; 3) Protection of our
common environment; 4) Human rights, democracy and good governance; 5) Attention
to the special needs of Africa; 6) Strengthening the United Nations; 7) Protection of
vulnerable people; 8) The fight against HIV-AIDS; 9) Free trade; 10) Economic
integration; 11) organized crime; 12) energy; 13) terrorism; and 11) Migration. But then,
the US brings security-related issues to the foreground 137:

137

Before 1999, the debate on international agendas focused on the massification of the
issues that comprised it. See: HERNÁNDEZ: 1997.

196 “The use of military force by the North American Government against international
terrorism violates the security of states and creates a new security agenda that could
affect national sovereignties, especially Latin American ones, through the imposition of
external forces, through the violence or the threat, with the aim of maintaining its
hegemony.” This US imposition has diverted attention from issues such as, for
example, oil. Even in 2002, international oil prices broke historical highs due to greater
demand and fear that there were not enough reserves to cover it. Especially after the
interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, where important oil pipelines were damaged.
And although this was already an issue on the international agenda, its heightened
combat was not considered a serious problem for the national security of some
countries.

“The priority for the States, starting with the Bush policy, was to respond to new
challenges that guaranteed national and regional security. Open exchange of
information, the cooperation of police groups and the detection of money networks
supposedly linked to terrorism” (SUBDERE: 2005). These circumstances caused the
relations between Europe and Latin America to become tense due to the series of
changes in the priorities of the international agenda, because issues such as financing
for development or economic association processes and security were downplayed
138. and instead favored schemes related to the construction of a social agenda, that
is,

“… Governing and planning social policy requires forming agendas that have as
reference a decentralized, participatory and results-oriented government model, the
latter understood as substantial increases in access and enjoyment of constitutionally
established rights. It is in this context where the Social Agenda acquires, in addition to
its meaning as an instrument of government and planning, the character of a space for
the articulation of commitments, efforts and
138

“We will not find a leader in the hemisphere today who does not include within his
foreign policy agenda the achievement of integration with his neighbors as a duty and a
permanent pursuit. But within this coincident perspective, we will find varied points of
view, which together place us in at least three or four points of view” (HERNÁNDEZ:
1997).

197 wills between different actors; That is, the space where participatory processes of
government and planning are staged. (…) The Social Agenda is the product, under
constant review, of a reflection process between various actors and social subjects
(governmental and non-governmental) that systematizes a set of shared management
priorities, defined in terms of purposes (objectives) and means (policies), which
express the collective intention to face problems or satisfy social needs assimilated to
rights, in a given social space. Social agendas are government agendas (...) they are
political agendas (...) they are trans-sectoral agendas (...) they are inter-organizational
agendas (...) they systematize objectives associated with the access or enjoyment of
social rights” (CARUCCI T: 2005, 39). For Venezuela, it is not justifiable that the
international agenda is reduced only to practically dealing with terrorism and, recently,
it has advocated for a more social international agenda, or better, a social agenda for
the world. During the year 2003, the position assumed by Venezuela in various
international forums was oriented towards the promotion of the social agenda, as a key
element of our foreign policy, which has been placing a relevant emphasis on the
search for justice. social. This was reflected both at the subregional level, during the
XIV Andean Presidential Summit, and at the hemispheric level, within the framework of
the High Level Meeting on Poverty, Equity and Social Exclusion held in Margarita in
October of last year 2003, to cite two examples. recent. In both cases the issue was
proposed by Venezuela as a sign of commitment in this matter.

Finally, this new approach highlights the need to assume integration agreements as an
instrument of development, which must give top priority to social issues, specifically
with regard to overcoming poverty and social exclusion.

198 4.2.4.- Reconquering Lost Sovereignty: By 1999 it was evident that if a profound
process of changes was desired in the country, the Venezuelan political system could
not afford to give in to the dizzying global wave of globalization that had taken place.
taken away from countries part of their sovereignty. But how to do it? How can we deny
the growing loss of state power at the international level and the internal questioning
that states suffer, which gives rise to new forms of definition of sovereignty that lead us
to think that this is not an absolute attribute, but on the contrary it has been
transformed into a relative attribute that can be achieved in different dimensions?
Should Venezuela have ignored the obligations that had been acquired during the IV
Republic 139? The situation was complex, the lost sovereignty had to be regained.
However, at least in some political groups 140 there was the assumption that to do
something about it, it was first necessary to establish how much sovereignty Venezuela
still had, that is, determine what had been inherited, what was left of the notion legal,
political and operational of Venezuelan sovereignty (CFR.- TOKATLIAN: 2002);
because we had to “recover sovereignty over our affairs. Otherwise, our countries will
cease to be such, becoming poor masses, without State or society” (ROJAS
HERNÁNDEZ: 2002, 221).

For example, several spokespersons for the MRE oppose Venezuela signing or
ratifying certain international treaties put into the spotlight today, and question some
that have already been ratified. However, there have been greater initiatives so that
Venezuela does not comply with the obligations linked to the payment of the External
Debt. It is worth mentioning that the deputy Elías Mata proposed an audit plan in March
2005, on the occasion of the visit of José Luís Zapatero, to analyze the “legality” of the
Venezuelan external debt based on an exhaustive study of the commitments acquired
during the partisan political system that ended with the arrival of the 1999 constitution
(…) “When asked what would be the procedure that would be carried out to carry out
an investigation of this type, he said that first of all a multidisciplinary commission must
be formed that have a very serious technical team that analyzes, among other things,
all the papers and documents that exist on the so-called external debt and that rest in
the Ministry of Finance. He stated that after this analysis and having obtained the first
results and estimates, a bridge of communication and renegotiation must be
established with all those banks and international organizations with which economic
commitments were made (...) (PRESS DEPARTMENT OF THE VICE PRESIDENCY
OF THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA: 2005). 140 The interventions of
the constituents in the National Constituent Assembly of 1999 give a clear idea of the
political vocation of that year. In particular, we can mention the interventions of Hernán
Escarrá, Blancanieve Portocarrero, Luís Vallenilla, Gastón Parra, among many others.

139

199 Firstly, it was known that Venezuela's sovereign capacity in its legal notion was
still intact. This notion was understood as the right that the State acquired to be
recognized as such by international society, which made it have the capacity to control
its territory where it is the guarantor of security and empowered it to enjoy the same.
rights and powers than the rest of the other States and be subject to international law
(CFR.- ROJO: 2002). Secondly, regarding the political notion, which refers to its
capacity to guarantee minimum well-being to its inhabitants in terms of quality of life,
development conditions and political participation, beyond military security, it was
known that it was very committed (CFR.- ROJO: 2002). And in the same way, in third
place, the operational notion, which refers to the ability to guide and coordinate
economic transactions that are used to achieve a higher degree of development in
economic terms, was not compromised, much worse, it was mortgaged. (CFR.-
CHÁVEZ: 2006).

The political and operational notion of Venezuelan sovereignty was very weakened.
Compared to the international system, Venezuela occupied an unfavorable position as
a reminder of the representative democracy scheme that reigned in the country for
more than thirty years. Outside, the most powerful States 141 (which hold the three
notions of sovereignty), were followed on the scale by the countries 142 that had their
operational sovereignty limited by the preferences and power of other States with
greater margins of maneuver at the international level. Venezuela was further behind
among the rest of the sovereign countries in legal terms, but which did not have
sufficient capabilities to guarantee the well-being and security of its citizens; nor does it
have sufficient capacity for international transaction and negotiation to impose its
preferences both on other States and on the private economic sectors that operate on
a global level.

141 142

United States of America, the countries that make up the European Union and China,
for example. Canada, Germany, Japan and India, for example.

200 And although the situation was not pleasant, it began to decline when it became
evident and irrefutable that Venezuela based its legal sovereignty (which was shared
with the international legal system and with internal coherence thanks to the signed
treaties) on principles that could restrict its capacity for political, social and economic
maneuver both internally and externally, despite the fact that it provided a stable and
predictable framework for investments and, in addition, that it univocally guarantees the
interpretation of the rules, democratic values, defense to human rights, among others
143. The country was on its way to deepening its condition of dependence and political
subordination in the face of various national and foreign actors, but actions to change
this circumstance were not long in coming. Otherwise, how can we explain Judgment
1942 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 15, 2003?
or Venezuela's reluctance to sign the Québec Democratic Charter in 2001? And his
opposition to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and his leftist response to
consolidate the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA)?

The TSJ ruling, in a political context, was the first official message to the world that
Venezuela was determined to regain its sovereignty, or at least, its legal sovereignty:
“1) The ruling maintains that above the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice, and for
the purposes of Domestic Law, there is no supranational, transnational or international
Court. Consequently, rulings from these Courts that contradict the Venezuelan
Constitution are not executed in Venezuela, and only in matters of Latin American and
Caribbean integration (Article 153 of the Constitution) are powers transferred from the
Venezuelan Courts to supranational bodies. 2) That any decision of supranational,
transnational or international jurisdictional bodies that violate the Constitution, or that
have not exhausted the process of domestic law, in Venezuela has no application in
the country.

143

For Angelos Pagkratis these are the characteristics that determine the trust of the
European Union when it comes to how South American countries integrate their
national legal systems with international ones (See.PAGKRATIS: 2005).

201 3) That the recommendations of international organizations, in particular the Inter-

American Commission on Human Rights, have a different character from the rulings of
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and are not mandatory, being - as the word
itself says - recommendations, non-binding” (TSJ: 2003). For some, the ruling contains
arguments that constitute contempt for the doctrine of the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and
the American Convention on Human Rights of San José, Costa Rica of November 22,
1969, ratified by Venezuela in accordance with the Approving Law published in the
Official Gazette No. 31,256 of June 14, 1977 (CFR.- AYALA CORAO: 2003) 144.
However, this decision counteracts the fear of international interference and leaves the
door open for Venezuela to reaffirm its legal sovereignty now with the authority to
ignore the decisions of international courts and organizations unless the Constitution
and the Law so indicate 145. This decision at no time created an international incident,
but in context it gave greater development to the basic intention of the government on
the foreign plane since 1999, which according to Carlos Escarrá: “…is to recover the
lost sovereignty of the Nation that had been lost through of a process of handing over
the country (…) and now we seek to recover those taxes for the well-being of the
population” (ESCARRÁ: 2006).

On the other hand, at the OAS Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec in 2001,
Venezuela was the only American country to place a “Reservation” to the Inter-
American Democratic Charter. The reservation was made because of what the
declaration “did not say,” since in the paragraph that affirms the commitment and that
adopts a Plan of

144

According to Judith Useche “It is unacceptable that the Constitutional Chamber of the
Supreme Court of Justice maintains that it is this Chamber that determines which norm
on human rights of the treaties, pacts and agreements signed by the Republic, prevail
in the internal order; (…) interpreting that the State-parties of the Treaty, when
consulting international organizations about the interpretation of the rights referred to in
the Convention or Covenant, would be faced with a form of constitutional amendment,
transferring said competence to multinational or transnational entities.” (USECHE:
2003). 145 It is worth mentioning that the Venezuelan government seeks to recover
energy, food, oil, monetary, military, etc. sovereignty. “…we have arrived to recover
sovereignty and we have a plan in motion” (CHÁVEZ: 2005).

202 Action to strengthen representative democracy throughout the continent, the

qualification of “Participatory Democracy” 146 was not included, which is provided for
by the Bolivarian Constitution (CFR.- RIVERO LOZADA: 2001) 147 .

“The divergences of perspectives between the Venezuelan government and the OAS
had appeared for the first time before the overthrow of Ecuadorian President Jamil
Mahuad, when the government of Hugo Chávez launched its conception of democracy
in a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry on January 21, 2000. , in which he gave
his support; statement that contrasts with the traditional rejection of Venezuelan
democratic governments against any attempt to violate the constitutional order, as well
as with support for the Constitutional Government of the Republic of Ecuador and
support for the efforts of the new president Gustavo Noboa Bejarano for stability
democracy of his country, in an arbitrary interpretation of the regulations granted at the
extraordinary meeting of the Permanent Council of the OAS held on January 26, 2000”
(CFR.- GAMUS: 2003, 5-6). From that moment on, the MRE has tried to make clear
the political system that Venezuela has and has done so in subsequent OAS meetings,
although for some this does not have much importance (CFR.- HERRAN
ROSEMBERG: 2006, 12 ). However, the objective of Venezuelan diplomacy was to
prevent,

“…in perspective, the very principle of representative democracy would be

institutionalized in the diplomatic subsystem of the OAS as a neo-interventionist
instrument in the internal affairs of the Venezuelan State or other states – a possibility
that had already arisen in the case of the Peruvian elections. 2000, when after the first
round that gave Alberto Fujimori the winner by some margin over the opposition, the
USA pressured the governments of the region so that the electoral process was
considered illegitimate. As one observer acknowledges: