Erasmus Mundus Master Programme International Migration and Social Cohesion (MISOCO) University of Osnabrück Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies
Name: Lucia Bonilla Lara Student ID: 961411
Diplomats and Migrants:
Renegotiating Practices within the Ecuadorian Citizen Diplomacy
Thesis Supervisors:
University of Osnabrück: Dr. Christoph Rass University of Amsterdam: Dr. Barak Kalir
University of Deusto: Prof. Concepción Maiztegui
PREFACE
The present project took around one year to be fully completed from its beginning as a mere idea, to the proposal and to now the results. It has been a journey that could only be possible thanks to the guidance and support of many people. I want to first thank the firm but kind guidance of all my supervisors especially of my main adviser Dr. Christoph Rass who believed in this project and helped me push the boundaries of my knowledge, imagination and creativity.
On the other hand I want also extent a special thank you to all my informants. They were open to all my questions and proposed new ones. I have a deep admiration to their practice and struggles and hope that they continue to be shape by their constant contact with the community they work for.
Finally, I want to thank my family for their questions, thanks to them I have learned to love this field in which this practice is a permanent companion. Last but not least, I want to thank my wonderful partner, his encouragement and love that are my motor to continue to believe there is a world out there where change is possible.
Index
INTRODUCTION ... 1
Analytical Lens ... 5
Methodology ... 7
Limitations and exclusions ... 9
Overview of the project ... 10
1. THE CASE STUDY: CONTEXTUALIZING CITIZEN DIPLOMACY... 12
The World of Diplomacy ... 13
Alternative Diplomacies ... 14
Citizen Diplomacy ... 16
Locating the Concept ... 17
Citizens at the Core: Participation ... 19
2. PRACTICE IN THE MAKING OF CITIZENS DIPLOMACY ... 22
2.1 THE RISE OF CITIZEN DIPLOMACY IN ECUADOR ... 24
Ecuadorian Migration History ... 25
Rafael Correa, the Citizen’s Revolution and the Birth of Citizen Diplomacy ... 26
The Ecuadorian- Spanish Case: Why Spain? ... 31
The Work of Ecuadorian Diplomats in Spain ... 34
State and Citizens: The Complex Relationships of Migration Bureaucracies ... 39
2.2 THE CLASH OF EPISTEMES ... 44
2.3 PRACTICES OF STRUCTURATION ... 51
3. RESULTS: CITIZENS DIPLOMACY IN THE MAKING ... 58
4. DEBATE AND CONCLUSIONS ... 66
Political/Diplomatic Field ... 66
Sociological Implications ... 67
Migration Studies Field ... 68
Governance and bureaucracy ... 69
Se abren tiempos de rebelión y de cambio. Hay quienes creen que el destino decansa en las rodillas de los dioses, pero la verdad es que trabaja, como un desafío candente, sobre las conciencias de los hombres.
1
INTRODUCTION
In the middle of a dirty, empty skeleton of a building, the Ambassador of Ecuador in Spain meets an Ecuadorian family that has lost their house because of the 2011 earthquake that devastated this city (The Telegraph, 12/05/2011). On top of the crumbles of their home, the couple takes out the many bills, the many legal claims that the banks have put up against them since they have to continue to pay a mortgage of a destroyed house. Not only that they do not have a house, but they are in debt on a piece of land that is empty, washed out of the hopes, dreams and struggles that the earthquake and the bank shook away. The family is surprised that the Ambassador has entered in what before used to be their house. After a look, he approaches the family and as he had not read a million documents on this case, as in many other cases, he asked what happened.
It is surprising for me, as for this family, to see an Ambassador in the crumbles of their backyard. After this moving episode, we go quickly to a hall. Here the first Ecuadorian Citizen Assembly in Lorca will be held (21/02/2015), in which Ecuadorian migrants get to meet and talk to the Ambassador directly about their issues, questions and proposals. I was informed that the Ambassador has been in more than 70 assemblies in these past months. He has covered almost all the places where Ecuadorians citizens could be. This initiative is part of the new encompassing Foreign policy of Ecuador called Citizen Diplomacy. For some, the assemblies and personal visits are just a mere political scam, a way to get votes, while for others it represents the “renewed state,” a new hope from their Homeland. How can we interpret these actions from a sociological perspective? How do these practices
2 acquire a different meaning? How do they transform both, the practices of diplomats and citizens?
The Citizen Diplomacy policy was launched in 2012 as a concrete mandate of the state to prioritize the interests of Ecuadorian citizens abroad. The policy is based on the premise:
“The Government of the Citizen Revolution, through the Chancellery of Ecuador, has added a new political philosophy based on the notion of “Citizen Diplomacy“, through which it seeks to protect and facilitate the exercise of the
rights of Ecuadorians living abroad through: a dignified, agile and modern care, the answer to the needs of the Ecuadorian population living abroad and expanding the coverage of the services provided in areas where the Ecuadorian population live. [..]” (Chancellery of Ecuador, 2012)
This research project analyzes the concept of Citizen Diplomacy in practice. In this sense, it concretely deals in tracking the transformation of the Ecuadorian migratory policy through the social practices of diplomats and migration bureaucrats in consular representations. The concrete research question is: Can we observe change in the diplomatic practice based on
the idea of Citizen Diplomacy?
It must be noted that this practices that I refer to, are practices in the making, this study is a window of observation, a glimpse of a rare and interesting process of a theoretical/ideological switch of how diplomacy should be managed in relation to migrant communities. Much of these observations represent practices under negotiation and I hope
3 that this analytical perspective becomes a piece of historical memory in a changing time of the migratory policy of Ecuador.
The case study that I chose was based in Spain, where I particularly focussed on the response initiatives for migrants facing the consequences to the economic crisis, that have hit this country since 2012. Under the concept of Citizen Diplomacy I concentrated on projects such as legal assistance for mortgage battles, bank negotiations, unemployment, diplomatic encounters and other aspects related to the unit of Human Mobility that include all the services provided to migrants abroad.
This Master research was inspired by a variety of experiences in the field of Migration Institutions and diplomacy. My first encounter with diplomats was in the Netherlands in 2009, when I conducted my first solo research Project about Ecuadorian migrants in this country. The consul of Ecuador at the time was a charismatic man who had a firm conviction that diplomatic work entails service to the migrant communities that they represent. More than a “desk diplomat” he was an active member of the migrant community and pushed for many initiatives to support their claims. His passion for attending the needs of Ecuadorian migrants was one of the reasons why I started being interested in diplomacy as a tool to support mobile people. However as a social scientist, one is trained to understand both, parameters and outliers. What was it about him? I wonder what made him so different from the rest, or from my own expectations of diplomats. Is it him and the policy acting together? Does he embody the true Ecuadorian mandate? Could a public policy push for this type of diplomats? Indeed, Citizen Diplomacy is a guideline for professionals to be committed to give a good service to their con-nationals. It clearly states:
4 “The Foreign Ministry officials require highly qualified and service oriented theoretical and practical knowledge of the different aspects resulting from human mobility [..]”
(Chancellery of Ecuador, 2012).
Nevertheless, policy and discourse can only count as one segment of the final delivered action. It is individuals that from their own experience interpret, act and react differently to a rule. These actions and complexity behind bureaucracy is what has encouraged me to pursuit this type of research. The questions that I have mentioned are part of my own thinking process and have resulted in a grounding basis for this research. Hence, it is important to note that as a human in contact with other humans I am influenced by these inspirational experiences. However this research project intends to generate a broader look behind policy making. Rather than focusing on a particular individual I want to locate bureaucrat´s thoughts and experiences in a dialectic spectrum, a non-static compound of relationships that derivate into actions which become the policy in practice.
The study of Diplomacy and public policy within the migration field involves a variety of actors and institutions. I have decided to focus on a side that has not been extensively studied: the one of implementation and bureaucracy. Diplomats like the first consul I met, belong to a bureaucratic structure, a political mandate and vision. I am highly interested in telling the story behind the law. How do individuals carry on the implementation phase? How is policy “lived”? As a migration scholar, this case study grants me the possibility to explore and account for an open field within migration studies; to occupy a space that so far has been reserved for the elites: Diplomacy. (Digol, 2012: p. 91)
5
Analytical Lens
This analysis stems from an initial question of how policy making and practice becomes an essential component of what migration process entails, both for migrants and migration bureaucracies. Many scholars within the field of policy analysis have appointed that “the
understanding of implementation needed to be inverted: as experienced
and observed rather than as theorized absent empirical input, policies that were supposed to be being implemented in a-political administrative fashion were actually subject to local interpretation at the hands of street-level bureaucrats (due to particular constraints designed into bureaucratic organizational structures), and through their acts these bureaucrats were understood by clients as themselves making governmental policy.” (Yanow, 2013:p. 7).
This change of analytical perspective is called interpretative policy analysis. This notion has been extremely useful for the present study since “it argues that policies, in general, are not only instrumental rational acts, but are also expressive of human meaning.” In this sense, policies need to be assumed “as expressions of the values, beliefs, and feelings (or sentiments) of [citizens] (including policy-makers) or, as embodied in particular political identities” (ibid, 2013: pp. 7). Thus, interpretative policy analysis is a tool that allows an understanding of not only how a state acts but, of the sociocultural notions engrained into the development of policy.
Another important perspective of the mentioned analytical lens, is the type of questions asked. I take the idea from Carol Bacchi (2010) about the prototypical notion of policy
6 making as a problem-solving tool. She says that this traditional analysis of what policy-making is, needs to be challenged since it paradigmatically “assumes that ‘problems’ are readily identifiable and objective in nature” which is generally not the case (Bacchi, 2010: p. 1). In this sense, I have broadened the perspective of policy implementation and intent to target the question of how problems are conceived. It is my believe that this perspective could be an important advance into how, from the conceptualization of a ‘problem’, alternative policies, such as the Citizen diplomacy, are born. As a result, besides the general hypothesis of studying change through practice from the perspective of diplomats, other guiding questions are generated. How is the problem conceived? Who are the actors? And how does this problem differ from traditional forms of diplomacy? How is Citizen Diplomacy a response to a particular way to conceive the distance and vulnerability that migrant Diasporas have abroad? How have policies such as this one come to be? What do they represent? Which conditions were necessary for this change? And what are some of the empirical examples that can be part of this concept of the ‘problem’?
Throughout the whole piece the reader will find a constant dialogue of related theoretical and empirical examples that are relevant to the subject. It is my hope that through this lens of interpretative analysis and the strong body of literature that it demands, the reader gets compelled by the human experiences within the diplomatic institutions, and the possibility that arises from both, conflict and negotiation.
7
Methodology
Interpretative policy analyses demands a coherent methodological approach. It is guided by the idea that both theory and method are codependent, meaning the theory is also the method and vice versa. As a result this intends to be a multileveled, multi-faced, interdisciplinary study. I used the abductive method of inquiry, which is also known as mixed methods or ‘triangulation’ approach and which balances qualitative and quantitative research methods. This methodology allows that the research questions are not entirely framed a priori or aim to obtain a certain result, based on a set hypothesis. It demands a constant curiosity that stems from the field and a permanent reflection of both the researcher’s and subject of study. More concretely, I used anthropological research methods to obtain most of the information. I carried in-depth interviews with the relevant actors and used active participant observation as a main method of collecting data for a period of 20 days in three Ecuadorian Diplomatic Representations of Spain. I had various encounters throughout these days with several diplomats who I had the chance to observe in their daily routines, including the exceptional opportunity to follow the Ambassador for a weekend to carry out a Citizen Assembly. Besides this, I conducted a small scaled survey with Ecuadorian migrants, users of the services of the Consulates, specifically in the area of Human Mobility (legal assistance, preferential mail service, voluntary return, moving houses, etc.). I also focused on document and discourse analysis from various sources relevant to the subject that included politician’s declarations, project propaganda, photos and media publications promoting the diplomatic services and support to migrants.
8 For privacy reasons and to protect their positions, all my informants will be kept anonymous as much as this is possible. They will be mostly addressed as diplomatic bureaucrats. Within them a division between career diplomats, political positions and migrant diplomats should be noted. In order to protect the anonymity of my informants I would like to clarify that this piece is not intended to be an evaluation of their performance. It is my hope that their position is not affected and that they continue working with the passion and effort that I witnessed. This is merely a lens to see their practice which could allow them to see themselves from another perspective and which could allow policy makers to understand the complexity behind their work.
In order to generate a more detailed analysis of policy that is not based only on individual action, a goal was to portray the practices of diplomats in the greater field of migration bureaucracies. For this matter, locating myself as an observer at the Embassy/Consulate and at the routine interactions of diplomats with migrants and “the state”, was a central method of collecting data. I will use my observations and experiences within this “inside” view to present a sociological understanding of change among bureaucrats. In this sense their opinions and personal perspectives are not perceived as ‘good/bad’ but as an intrinsic part of the bureaucratic, cultural and social life of this new policy.
This project is located in the specific field of practice research. For this endeavour, a body of literature on bureaucracy, practices, organizational behaviour and diplomacy have been used. It is my hope that in the following chapters the reader finds the voices behind this migratory policy that some call ‘one the most liberal in the world’ (Acosta, 2014). Once
9 can see from the eyes of practitioners a changing bureaucracy that proposes a radical alternative view on migration, transnational rights and citizenship.
Limitations and exclusions
There are a variety of limitations to this research. First of all, I am aware that the study of practice demands time which sadly I lacked for this research project. For that reason much of this paper intends to collaborate in exploring and open up debates in the subject of this alternative view of migration management that Ecuador proposes. It is my aim also to donate another look towards some of the practices that I observed and hopefully it will generate self-reflection, more channels of collaboration and companionship to fortify a process that is aiming to support migrant communities in Spain.
The abductive research method demands a constant generation of inquiries that are derived from the field observation, thus I have produced several guiding questions. Although at times, it could be confusing I hope the reader gathers my intention to not generate sociological generalizations of policy making of this program. All the opposite, I intend to generate a situated understanding of the issue, and that the narratives mixed with the theoretical lenses results in a complementary perspective of the policy.
Moreover, I must admit that this subject is close to me in many ways. I have worked with diplomats, I have been a bureaucrat and I come from Ecuador. I have tried to remain impartial and neutral in this process. However, as a researcher and as a person I believe that there is a constant dialogue that is generated. I hope to guide the reader through both, the rational findings and my inner vulnerabilities, thus exposing my own bias, I encourage the reader to be aware and make own perceptions. Nevertheless, I have tried my best to use my
10 past work experience and closeness to this field as an advantage since it has facilitated much of the data collection process as much as the opportunity to be closer to the subjects of my study.
Overview of the project
This research project will be presented in three main chapters. The first one deals with a comprehensive overview of Citizen Diplomacy. This includes a detailed historical account of the context of Ecuador to develop such policy, the current international debate surrounding this concept, in relation to what diplomacy means, and finally an attempt to define the concept itself.
The second chapter contains three different aspects that aim to be three theoretical frameworks to see the Citizen diplomacy in practice:
1) The Rise of Citizen Diplomacy in Ecuador 2) The Clash of Epistemes
3) Practices of Structuration
This chapter will combine a strong body of literature mixed with the empirical findings from the field in the form of concrete essays/debates.
The third chapter tries to answer the guiding questions about change within the bureaucratic practice and what this one means for migrant communities. In this section I include some of the findings from the small survey that I collected from users of the Consulate services.
11 Finally there will be a fourth section that deals with the main conclusions and reflections of the research process, the results and the importance of this case study in the wider spectrum of migration studies.
12
1. THE CASE STUDY: CONTEXTUALIZING CITIZEN DIPLOMACY
A crucial vision within the analytical lens that I am using for this piece is the one of historical memory. The situated knowledge of policy gives us a sense, not only of the momentum that a given political perspective has, but the potential of existing spaces and law frameworks that are already established. Citizen diplomacy cannot be studied yet on its own as an empirical example. Indeed, the idea behind it and the political impulses have existed for only a short period of time. It would be rushed to assume that bureaucratic practices have changed and that this transformation is done and static. This project especially should be considered as a matter in the making where the new rules and relationships are in a constant process of renegotiation. Moreover, it is important to note that Citizen Diplomacy is a policy located in an already existing framework of practice and bureaucratic routine. Thus, this chapter explains “the container” of the policy, the framework that is contested through and by Citizen Diplomacy. In the following lines I present a dialogue between the well-established governing practice of Conventional Diplomacy, in opposition to the ideals behind Citizen Diplomacy, all in relation to migrant communities. It is my hope that this chapter represents a body of knowledge of the structure of Diplomacy and the ground-breaking proposals that Citizen Diplomacy aims to achieve.
13
The World of Diplomacy
The diplomatic world seems hermetically sealed to the voices of common citizens. It is a space assumed to be the highest sphere of negotiation, where only states can play. Throughout history the diplomatic function has appeared to be mechanically engaged with those citizens that supposedly are represented by it. In the context of migration, there are plenty of examples in which citizens have been objectified, as sources of economic gain. However, as people move in new ways and states continue to invest in the securitization of their borders, diplomacy has been generally an overlooked tool to negotiate for migrants’ rights.
Diplomacy has historically been a tool to avoid conflict and search for a balanced negotiation between states. In the context of migration studies, we see especially a great influence of state diplomacy with guest worker programs. The role of diplomats, for example during the Bracero Program in the United States, appeared to be close to the workers and promoted that they work hard for Mexico and their families (Donovan, Emery, 2010). There is also the case of the Netherlands that during the 1960s and 70s strategically sent out diplomats to recruit workers directly in Turkey or Morocco (v.d. Weijde, 2013). Diplomats were in these cases, not only the representatives of the state; they were both, the policy-executers (migration bureaucrats) and immediate advocates for migrants. Despite these interactions, the diplomatic sphere has remained distant to the needs of migrants. Indeed, often diplomats have tried to remain outside common citizens causes.
14
Alternative Diplomacies
There are several authors that have tried to conceptualize the Diplomatic field and practice in a less traditional way. They do so in order to break free, not only of the classist diplomatic work, but also to prove that there are ‘invisible’ practices that use diplomacy to avoid conflict and advocate for basic rights. For example, Milan Jazbec (2013) in his article
The Sociology of Diplomacy argues that diplomacy needs to become a new division from
sociology. Insofar, it functions primarily “as a dynamic social process which, enables foreign policy communication between the subjects of international public law” (p. 88). Moreover, considering its changing nature and adaptability to societal and geopolitical visions of the world in the context of globalization, new topics have been added to the diplomatic agenda, radically changing the diplomatic practice (Neumann in Jazbec, 2013: p. 93). The idea to differentiate the sociology of diplomacy as a unit of analysis “lies in the aim to research diplomacy as a multidimensional social phenomenon with a comprehensive sociological approach.” (Jazbec, 2013: p. 306).
Another alternative construction of diplomacy is seeing it “as a process […]; as an institution of the international community; and thirdly, as an activity reflecting the needs of different territorial levels” (ibid, 2013: p. 230). In this sense the role of diplomats is very significant in defining how the process of diplomacy is carried out, and even more importantly what does it represent. Authors like Neumann have dedicated themselves to research “what diplomats are, where they come from, what conditions their background as well as their work approach and style, what their relation towards bureaucrats is, and how to interpret issues of gender and classes in relation to them” (ibid, 2013: p. 287). Indeed, according to the globalization paradigm and this understanding of the role of diplomats, it
15 will “become increasingly important for diplomats to address the crises that accompany large-scale population movements” (Swing, 2013: p. 21).
Chahine (2011) in his piece Public Diplomacy: A Conceptual Framework evaluates the concept of diplomatic relations in the context of the ‘information era’. Public diplomacy is in essence understood as “government communication with foreign publics” (ibid, 2011: p. iii). At its core we find that public diplomacy is built from the interaction of “public opinion, civil society and the information age” (ibid, 2011: p. iii). This is a useful concept since, much of the new scholarly work on diplomatic work deals with the relationship of the three notions above mentioned. Moreover, it takes away the centrality of diplomats and allows other actors to have crucial roles into the creation of diplomacy. Nye (1990) says “that public diplomacy may […] be […] one of the most multidisciplinary areas in modern scholarship, but this multi facetedness, while inherent in the actual practice, has yet to truly materialize at the theoretical level.” (Gilboa (1998) in Chahine, 2011: p. 5).
On another relevant side public diplomacy is argued to deal “with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies.” (Guillon (1965) in Chahine, 2011: p. 21). It is important to note that diplomacy indeed should be seen “as a tool of power, a means of influence, set against a more idealist view of it as an exchange of ideas, a reciprocal process” (ibid, 2011: p. 23). Above all, a critical point of this study shows that public diplomacy is no longer a uniquely state activity but one where ―”large and small non-state actors, and supranational and subnational players can and do play an important role” (Melissen. (2005) in Chahine, 2011: p. 54). In this sense, the study of diplomacy must be one with a sense of multi-disciplinarity, as a layered process in which many actors take part. In fact, this is a useful vision to see diplomats also as actors with
16 many roles including the one of advocates, citizens, and national bureaucratic representatives.
Citizen Diplomacy
Taking into account the aforementioned, the task of explaining a concept such as Citizen Diplomacy appears challenging. First of all, most of the diplomatic field continues to reproduce a traditional vision of diplomatic relations. There is very little room for alternative practices and ideas. It is within this spectrum that new concepts such as these are unstable in terms of practices (Ibarra, 2006). Thus, it is an intention of this project, to rescue the importance of this particular concept. It is within these contradictory relationships of diplomatic space, state and citizens that Citizen Diplomacy makes sense. Indeed, it is the result of social and political struggles of a particular context that pushes to enter spaces which before were reserved for ‘the state’.
There are several definitions of Citizen Diplomacy that have been contextually and historically defined. It could potentially stem from the work of Montville (1987) who was the first academic to appoint the different tracks that diplomacy can take. Track II Diplomacy would be the most fitted category for a basic understanding of Citizen Diplomacy. Based on this concept, this kind of diplomacy deals with the informal relations between citizens and the state (Servin, 2013). To complement this vision other authors categorize Track II Diplomacy as a new form of Participatory Democracy in which average citizens get to actively engage in the diplomatic field (ibid, 2013). Others talk about the information era and include Citizen Diplomacy as an ‘integral part’ of public diplomacy with “two seemingly disparate ideas: private citizens engaging in individual endeavors
17 […]; and diplomacy, which includes a framework for cooperation between countries. Taken together, [it] refers to an array of actions and activities that individuals can partake in […] to deepening ties between individuals and communities and to advancing the goals of public diplomacy. (Bhandari and Belyavina, 2011:p. 3)
Although all of these definitions are related, there is a strong tension. Some define Citizen Diplomacy as a separate entity from diplomacy which is in fact a gathering of non governmental actors that unite in order to contribute to diplomatic negotiations. This could be understood as a form of parallel diplomacy or citizen oversight/control of the diplomatic field (Servín, 2013). Others according to a more functionalist framework see that it is in fact an intrinsic part of public diplomacy that includes cultural propaganda, technology and adaptation to the information era that use diplomatic tools to spread. (Bhandari and Belyavina, 2011)
Locating the Concept
In this context, I believe it is of much importance to contextualize what type of definition fits more to the model of the Ecuadorian Project. For this matter, it is crucial to define the context in which Citizen Diplomacy appears in the Ecuadorian policy and practice. Here, I explain how one can locate this concept in the context of a changing region in which Ecuador is also a protagonist. Citizen Diplomacy is a concept that has become widely popular in Latin America, a region that lately has become an icon of socio-political transformations with specific development models (Ibarra, 2006).
Nevertheless, these transformations stem from a long lasting history of conflict and disparity that continue to exist in the region. Citizen Diplomacy appears indeed as a way for
18 citizens to respond to conflict and state neglect, through citizen organizations and peaceful diplomatic tools for negotiation (ibid, 2006). One can see several examples of social movements that have worked in this way to influence policy. The influence of these movements has indeed been so extensive that many governments in Latin America invest widely for civil organization. Since recent years it is the public policy in Brazil that much conflict shall be solved with participatory methods including: liberation education, community therapy, participatory mediators, and so on (El Diario, 24/03/2012). In Bolivia, many indigenous organizations have direct vote in the government over the matters that concern them such as water sources, mining and gas exploitation. (Bustamante, 2002)
The majority of countries in Latin America have strong minority parties and associations. The region is known for the influence of their political movements. This context is relevant for the proposal of Citizen Diplomacy since it is a project that potentially validates the process of many social movements struggling for recognition. I refer to recognition because the recognition of difference is at the core of this notion. The ones that do not belong, but pose ‘different needs’ and ‘represent the problem’, are the ones that should potentially influence the answers that the state provides.
As a result, the concept of Citizen Diplomacy responds to a long lasting process in which societies like the Ecuadorian one have searched for alternatives to the state absence. Many authors studying the changes in the region refer to this moment of the political history of many countries in Latin America as the ‘come back’ to the state (Ibarra, 2006). One of these results is a series of guiding principles that rescues much of the social struggles which are contextual to the region.
19
Citizens at the Core: Participation
Having explained the geopolitical background in which Citizen Diplomacy is located, in this section I attempt to provide a definition of Citizen Diplomacy within the Ecuadorian context and in relation to migrant communities’ representation. First, as it has been mentioned before the Ecuadorian constitution provides a legal framework that allows the Citizen Diplomacy notion to have a base. According to art. 40 of the Ecuadorian National Constitution: “People have the right to migrate; no human being will be identified nor considered as illegal because of their migratory status. The State will develop actions for the exercise of the rights of Ecuadorians abroad.” (Constitución del Ecuador, 2008). In this sense, Citizen Diplomacy is a way for the state to accomplish this mandate.
Since the first wave of Ecuadorian international migration (1950s), migrants have become heavily organized. Nowadays, walking through New Jersey or Madrid one finds entire neighbourhoods where only Ecuadorians live, promoting their traditions, building associations, and creating their own business and media outlets1. Despite the community not being general to all diaspora movements, many other migrant communities have created the same type of outcomes. Nevertheless, since the government of Rafael Correa the forgotten Ecuadorian diaspora has occupied a central role in the political discourse and politics. The constitutional change brought unprecedented events: not only the ‘migrant vote’ but also the possibility for migrants to be elected and represent migrants’ interests in the National Parliament. Moreover, during the making of the constitution, assembly members included around fifty-one articles related to human mobility. (Constitución Nacional, 2008)
20 The basis of this political discourse surrounding migrant people is built by human and mobility rights, solidarity and admiration. The Ecuadorians that left are considered an example of perseverance and sacrifice for the country. This positive imaginary although it can be questioned as political manipulation or interest, has been an open door back to their homeland for many migrants.2 Their recognition has also encouraged a considerable return of people under the protection of many state programs3.
Having mentioned how is the political environment in relation to migrants, what Citizen Diplomacy claims to be, appears unrelated in terms of citizen actions to transform state practices. Thus in own words Citizen Diplomacy in the Ecuadorian case could be understood as:
A political tool that gets feedback from migrants needs and demands and uses diplomatic channels to negotiate/ advocate within the Diplomatic arena (states & international organizations) for the rights and interest of their migrant communities. It is aim that eventually migrants are able to access diplomatic spaces through political participation in Participation Counsels or Citizen Oversight of the diplomatic missions in their location, making diplomats and consuls intermediaries of their own causes.
2 See media report section in the Bibliography for further information. 3
Migrant return process could also be encouraged by the 2008 economic crisis both in the Unites States and Europe.
21 In the next diagram, I try to model the Ecuadorian case of Citizen Diplomacy:
In sum, Citizen Diplomacy is a model of political participation; the same that strives for newer and creative forms of inclusion of minority groups, especially of migrants. This participatory model has clear spaces in the political and social lives of institutions. Communication is a crucial element of participation. In the following chapters I present possible theoretical models to understand this dialogue and located within a larger sociological perspective.
Government Practice
CITIZEN DIPOLMACY
Ecuadorian National Constitution
Migrant political participation comunicate
Councils of citizens participation Diplomatic representations
22
2. PRACTICE IN THE MAKING OF CITIZENS DIPLOMACY
As I have exposed in the first chapter, Citizen Diplomacy proposes an alternative meaning of Diplomacy and the connection of the state to its citizens abroad. One of the main goals of the in-depth interviews and participant observation is to add a new lair of complexity to the theoretical rhetoric of Citizen Diplomacy that has been carefully explained in the previous chapter. As a result, in the present chapter I take over three perspectives in which the practice in the making of Citizen Diplomacy can become relevant.
Firstly, I render a vivid account of the interactions of Citizens and the State in the context of Ecuador that permitted the social conditions for this project. In this section the reader will explore also the body of literature that sustained this research in terms of the citizen-state relationship as well as concrete interactions between these two parties through national bureaucracies.
In the second section of this chapter I narrow down the optical lens of observation to the more concrete forms of practices that make up this policy. I expand on the perception of the diplomatic servers by discussing what Citizen Diplomacy is to them and what the variety of concepts reflect in their practice. I also touch upon the diplomatic bureaucrat’s perception of change and the tensions between them. Here, I argue the existence of a Clash of Epistemes (based on Foucault, 1994) which confronts diplomatic bureaucrats, as well as the citizens who are seeking services, with two understandings of the diplomatic practice.
23 The third section combines the two relationships that I have described: Citizen - State and Diplomacy - Citizen Diplomacy. Here, with the help of Giddens structuration theory, I argue that the practices in the making represent a crucial moment in the historical development of migration policy in Ecuador. Moreover, the mentioned practices are crucial units of analysis of both, individual agency and structure. This section aims to arrive to a possible integral spectrum of practice in the making within the project of Citizen Diplomacy.
In all, this chapter, one could argue, is the core of the thesis project. Indeed here I develop an exposé, where Citizen Diplomacy is located within three analytical frames mixed with vivid accounts of the field. Since much of my methodological framework is socio-historical I propose the reader an ordered account of Citizen Diplomacy. In this sense it must be noted that these sections are not intended to be represented as static moments of the policy but a continuous stage of constant clash, negotiation, adaptation, conformity and conflict.
For a more pedagogical aim, I will contextualize Citizen Diplomacy in the bounded and physical space of embassies and consulates. These material spaces could be considered institutions, and as such they respond to a specific organic structure and regulation. As Berger and Luckman (1967) observed: “institutions arise and persist as a result of historical processes of participation in patterns of reciprocal categorizations. Reciprocal categorizations are social categories that become routinely reproduced through text and social action.” 4
The interesting aspect of materializing the theoretical project of Citizen
4 . (in Suddaby, Foster, and Mills, Pp 102).
24 Diplomacy into institutional practices allows me to show how individual actions belong to a specific time and place, hence they respond to a changing structure.
2.1 THE RISE OF CITIZEN DIPLOMACY IN ECUADOR
One of the most interesting parts of the project of Citizen Diplomacy is the changing relationship of citizens to the state. The several accounts of both diplomats (bureaucrats) and citizens attest that since the policy changed, there has been a re-structuring process which now results in better services for the Ecuadorian migrant community. It is my interest to develop a theoretical account that complements the empirical findings in order to generate a clearer understanding of these transformations. There is a strong body of literature on the state and its material representation in bureaucracy that can allow an integral vision on this particular policy and its actors. I begin this section by rendering a full historical account of the Ecuadorian process that permitted the notion of Citizen Diplomacy to be consolidated as a political project. I aim to concretely explain what type of policy/actor-environment had to be possible in order to generate Citizen Diplomacy in Ecuador. On a second instance I explore key elements of existing academic debates that surround the issue of state, its materialization through bureaucracy and practice representations. It is my hope that through the umbrella of literature and a strong historical context the reader is able to recognize the a priori momentum of Citizen Diplomacy. Thus, this piece will be rendering a full account of the complex interactions that are intrinsic to the task of deconstructing a radical proposal such as this one.
25
Ecuadorian Migration History
Throughout history, Ecuadorians have faced, and become familiar to, mobile realities. Due to its colonial past and highly segmented society, movement has been a forming step of Ecuador as a Republic (Sanchez, 2004). The state consolidation process of Ecuador has been highly irregular. In fact since the conformation of what is known a ‘democratic rule’, Ecuador has been famous for its political instability, having around seven presidents in nine years from 1996 until 2006 (Fontaine, 2002).
Socio-political stability means for any country a lack of state reference. In this sense, migration processes happened in the absence of state protection and guarantee. As a result, many authors distinguish two clear moments for Ecuadorian diaspora (Chiriboga, 2006). The first migration “wave” occurred in 50s due to the crisis of the “Panama hat” industry. Records indicate that mostly men coming from the south of the country led this wave and their main destination was the United States. Today according to the American Community Survey around 550.000 Ecuadorians live in this country.
Later on, the banking crisis of 1998 brought a new dimension to the migratory process. Over the period of less than five years more than 15% of the population fled Ecuador in search of a better future (Jokish, 2007). This is known as the second Ecuadorian migrant wave, in this case mostly led by women that chose Spain as a main destination. Nowadays, statistics show that around 469.000 Ecuadorians continue to live in this country (INE, 2013).
26 In 2003, Spain asked the European Union to put Ecuador in the list of countries that require a visa to enter. Despite this restriction, many Ecuadorians continued to have a clear consciousness of moving. Many found new ways of arrival and regularization in Spain and many others moved to other destinations. The unprecedented movement with no clear security, with no clear networks and to further destinations is considered the Third wave or, as Kalir calls it, the “New Migration”. Countries like Israel, the Netherlands or Sweden, which were never part of any migration plan, suddenly were the new destinations of Ecuadorian migrants (Kalir, 2005).
Considering the aforementioned history, one can argue that the culture of migration is engrained in Ecuadorians as a strategy to overcome crisis. Moreover, it is important to know that emigration is not the sole type of migration that Ecuador experiences. In fact, it has been for many years a destination and transit of many other migrants (Chiriboga, 2006). Hence, the changes that Ecuador has experienced in the past 7 years are radical. In this context, it is crucial to note that projects such as Citizen Diplomacy are not only born from political will or power, but also encouraged and promoted by the Ecuadorian migrant community abroad and their historical movement.
Rafael Correa, the Citizen’s Revolution and the Birth of Citizen Diplomacy
In 2006, Ecuador underwent an important political transformation led by the democratically elected president: Ec. Rafael Correa. Only a few days after he took over power, he proposed a reformation of the Ecuadorian constitution. Elections were called to select the members of a parallel Assembly with the sole goal of creating a new constitution. In 2008,
27 63,93% of Ecuadorians voted for the “Yes” to the new Constitutional Mandate (López, 2009). The reformed constitution had unprecedented causes for the country and even for the world. Good living, nature rights and universal citizenship are some of the most novel aspects of the Ecuadorian legal framework (Constitución Nacional del Ecuador, 2008).
In the same year of the constitutional change Ecuador declared an open border policy, becoming one of the few countries in the world that does not require any visa to enter5. Moreover, already during the formation of the Constitutional Assembly the government proposed the creation of the National Secretary of Migrants (SENAMI). This one-of-a-kind government institution was in charge of all the aspects related to human mobility. This included the protection and guarantee of rights of migrants inside and outside the country. The range of projects that SENAMI created was of unprecedented state care for the migrant community.
This transformation of the position of migrants in the political discourse and public awareness radically affected the perception of what human mobility entails. Migrants became a crucial actor in the political life of Ecuador. Moreover, adding to the political interest the new constitution also brought a specific legal framework and demands to the state in relation to the migrant communities abroad.
As a result, SENAMI created the so-called “Ecuadorian Houses” in which Ecuadorian citizens could access basic rights as every other Ecuadorian in their territory (El Mundo, 26/04/2013). These houses facilitated many services that included education, health and legal assistance. Despite of their functioning work process within some years, the Ministry
5
Citizens from China, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Ethiopia , Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia need a visa to enter Ecuador (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ecuador)
28 of Foreign Affairs had to overtake both, SENAMI’s Houses and SENAMI itself under their mandate. Indeed, SENAMI as an institution did not have hierarchical reference or political power to deal with migrant affairs abroad (based on interviews with diplomats).
Since 2012, under the rule of Chancellor Ricardo Patiño, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reformed. This restructuring was done not only by presidential mandate but with the clear guidance of the National Secretary of Planning and Development (SENPLADES) and their institutional mandate ‘The National Plan of Good Living’, and the National Constitution. This graphic shows the organizational structure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs nowadays:
It is crucial to locate the project of Citizen Diplomacy under this structure, since it holds an integral aspect of the duties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It also proves that diplomats are now forming part of this structure6. Thus, unlike conventional diplomacy, diplomats deal with aspects that are directly connected to migrant communities abroad.
6
The actual organizational structure of the Ministry is far more complex. For further details see: http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/organigrama/
Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Vice-Ministery of Human Mobility
Vice-Ministery of Administration Vice-Ministery of
Foreign Relations and Political Integration
29 This transformation in both, the discourse and the structure of an institution such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (now called “Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility”) reassures a new concept of the Ecuadorian Foreign Policy. According to one of the Career Diplomats (who has been part of many administrations) said:
“Ecuador did not have a clear Foreign Policy before. In terms of diplomacy it has been a ‘principalist’. This means that we always followed principles and international agreements. Our participation was low, we were passive diplomats. We did our job, which was limited to the international organisms and conventions. Now it is different. Now we have a clear Foreign Policy with our own instruments, directions and mandates…at the core are the Citizens. They are our priority right now.”
The structural shift has allowed diplomats to have a role that they never had before. They are active actors, with new proposals, they work as mediators between organizations and citizens and they respond to the interest of clear set goals established by both the constitution and the Plan of Good living. The same diplomat mentioned that, before this change, from their position they never had contact with migrants, except from administrative procedures. Here are some of the projects that now show the structural changes:
Third Secretaries (Terceros Secretarios):
This initiative incorporated around 70 new profesionals to the Diplomatic career. This new generation of diplomats has 20 indigenous people, 11 afroecuadorians and 10 montubios, which means that more 60 percent of the new Ecuadorian Diplomatic service belongs to an
30 ethnic minority group (El Telegrafo, 2012). The incorporation of these new diplomats through a public contest had specific priorities of inclusion of marginalized social groups and it had a sounding effect on the perception of diversity that Ecuador has.
Migrant Assembly Representatives:
Since the Constitutional Assembly was created to establish the new constitution of Ecuador, migrants were able to participate politically. They were active members in designing the new migratory policy of Ecuador. Nowadays each continent chooses their representatives and as any other territory in-land and they occupy seats in Parliament.
In sum, the Citizen Diplomacy project is embedded in the particular socio-political history of Ecuadorian society. Insofar that it is the result of many social struggles that have imbalance at its core. The fact that this policy responds to migrant communities should not be taken for granted. Migration is indeed a social drama that as Turner (1974 in Cabbot, 2014: p. 37) says entails the ‘contestation’ and, in many cases, transformation of dominant frameworks of social organization; they are “aharmonic or disharmonic processes, arising in conflict situations.” This analytical framework underscores how “legal processes are often venues for the exposure and contestation of prevalent forms of structural pressure and violence, which often go unacknowledged.” (ibid in Cabot, 2014: pp 6)
Ecuador is marked by a history of desarraigo or unrooting, a devastating symbolic word to describe the sentiment of leavings one’s land. These symbols should not be left outside the construction of the policy, since it is those images that are so deeply rooted in the lives of all citizens of Ecuador that makes this policy even more rare. On a general basis it has been
31 recognized that “it is often difficult for citizens who are not economically successful or wealthy to communicate effectively in the civic sphere and to gain the respect of their institutions and of other citizens” (Alexander 1998 in Müller, 2006: p. 313). This is even more the case when referring to migrant communities such as the Ecuadorian one in Spain, where the majority belongs to a discriminated and invisibilized working class.
Furthermore, one of the greatest dilemmas that migration brings is the lack of belonging. In this context, Taylor (1990) argues “the process of democratic decision-making, cannot take place in society in which the members do not see themselves as members of one society” (Taylor in Müller, 2006: p. 321). As a result, the project of Citizen Diplomacy, despite being embedded in the historical migration process of Ecuador, confronts the great difficulty of lack of participation and apathy towards its institutionality. These barriers are important to recognize and assume when working with migrant communities. Throughout this piece and the many examples, I argue that to a certain extent Citizen Diplomacy tackles these issues by unique initiatives. These initiatives are pushing the boundaries of possibility and include migrants in the political, social and bureaucratic life within the homeland and the international arena.
The Ecuadorian- Spanish Case: Why Spain?
The case of Ecuadorian migrants in Spain is a relevant study within the migration field. The kind and size of population, and their organization and time of residence, enhances a deep analysis projected within a great socio historical component. According to the data, provided by the Unity of Planification of the Embassy of Ecuador in Spain, the Ecuadorian
32 migration process to Spain happened between the years 2000 and 2005. During this period of time the Ecuadorian population went from 22,734 to 505,060 people.
The latest statistics show that the Ecuadorian population in Spain in 2013 contains around 471,407 people and they are mostly concentrated in four autonomous communities: Madrid, Catalonia, Valencia and Murcia (Embajada del Ecuador en España, 2014). According to longitudal statistical studies there is not a return trend among Ecuadorian migrants. (ibid, 2014: p. 3) As a result one can argue that Ecuadorian migrants in Spain “have other preferred destinations for migration, which are not exactly Ecuador (U.S., Canada and third countries of the European Union).” (ibid, 2014: p. 2) Moreover, it is important to note that Ecuadorian migrants represent an older migration. They have undergone important naturalization processes between the years 2006 and 2013 that have allowed 207,909 Ecuadorians to obtain the Spanish nationality. This means that 44% of Ecuadorians who live in Spain have a dual citizenship. (ibid, 2014: p. 2)
Since 2007 Spain has been experiencing a devastating economic crisis. Unemployment together with the bursting of the so-called “the mortgage bubble” has affected migrants deeply. It is calculated that among the Economically Active Population (EAP) of Ecuadorian residents in Spain around 45.32 % are unemployed. (ibid, 2014: p. 2) Furthermore studies show that “the unemployment of the Ecuadorian community resident in Spain is, by almost 9 percentage points, to the unemployment rate of the total number of immigrants in Spain that, according to the EAP 2012, amounts to 36.53 %; and, double the unemployment rate for the Spanish nationals who arrives at the 24.23 %. In April of 2012, barely a 33.05 % of the total unemployed Ecuadorians in Spain received unemployment benefits (49,493 people).” (ibid, 2014: p. 3)
33 Unemployment causes all sorts of obvious consequences which, like a circular effect, influence all areas of the life of people. One of the most critical aspects of this crisis is the mortgages debt payments and eviction process. Being unemployed also meant being unable to pay housing loans. In the concrete case of Ecuadorian migrants the failure to make payments on the mortgages meant also being unable to meet the requirements for access to family reunification, loosing social security benefits and health cards. Moreover, “the aggressive campaign of credit placement which was carried by the several banks and Spanish financial institutions during the second half of 2012 […] launched more than 50,000 foreclosure processes, of these, the 24.47 % have been procedures foreclosure against foreigners; and, 24% of foreclosure procedures initiated against foreigners has been carried out against Ecuador. According to the data offered by the Registrars of the property, the sum of ‘Ecuador’ and ‘rest of South America’ means the 42% of the total commercial mortgages in Spain”. (ibid, 2014: p. 14)
Within the context of the Spanish economic crisis, one can see based on the statistics aforementioned, the deep consequences it had over the Ecuadorian population. There have been several studies done by the Planning Unit of the Embassy that reflect the perspective they are using to collect information and the proposals, which this information generates. One aspect was the consideration for people’s migration project. This vision generates responses based on the position of migrants and their own desires:
“The Ecuadorian community resident in Spain is now located, according to our criterion, in a process of restructuring their migration project. In order to accomplish this, Ecuadorian families must take decisions; evaluate new opportunities and new paths that sustain this
34 new mobility plan to which, according to all studies conducted with the Ecuadorian community, they have not given up. This means that, the return to Ecuador increasingly is constituted as a utopian possibility.” (Vega de la Cuadra, 2014: p. 11)
This analysis based on the careful study of the Ecuadorian migrant population in Spain, which departs form their own perspective, has allowed policy makers to respond from the same position. As a result of this process, and locating at the center a collective readjustment of the Ecuadorian migration plan, the Ecuadorian Embassy “in the past three years has invested in actions, proposals and new support programs that will enable the Ecuadorian migrants in Spain to continue with their proposed migration plan” (ibid, 2014: p. 11).
The Work of Ecuadorian Diplomats in Spain
There are clear examples that encompass this vision of migration management and policy making. First I will go on in further detail about the Spanish mortgage crisis and the respond of the Ecuadorian representation of this case. Later I will also present a radical experience of the Diplomatic service with the inclusion of Migrant Consuls as leaders and direct representatives of Ecuadorian migrants within the Diplomatic field. Finally, I discuss the creation of a Human mobility Unit that deals with all the programs and services for migrants including psychological help, empowering tools and practical facilities.
A study conducted by the Ecuadorian Embassy and Consulates in 2014 in seven different cities (Murcia, Alicante, Valencia, Palma de Mallorca, Malaga, Madrid and Barcelona)
35 about the problems migrants experience in Spain concluded that: “the mortgage problem is perceived by Ecuadorian migrants residing in Spain as the main difficulty they face in their daily lives as effect of the crisis.” (ibid, 2014: 14 )
The eviction cases in Spain have been systematically escalating. According to the Platform of People affected Mortgages (Plataforma de Afectados por Hipotécas) “more than 400,000 evictions have been ordered by the judges in Spain since the beginning of the crisis in 2008”. (ibid, 2014: p. 15) As a matter of fact, according to official figures provided by the General Council of the Judiciary, during 2012 the number of eviction orders by Spanish court set a new record with around 510 procedures of this nature agreed per day. The main affected regions by evictions procedures are Catalonia, the Madrid, Valencia, and Andalusia. (ibid, 2014: p. 15)
In this context the need of legal assistance is primordial to support migrants in the fights for their homes and the aforementioned migration project. Based on Embassy reports and some official interventions of the Ecuadorian Ambassador about the eviction crisis that I was able to witness, diplomatic tools and methods need to apply in order to bring assistance to the Ecuadorian population affected by this issue. Within diplomacy a state cannot intervene in the internal affairs of another country. In the context of the mortgage crisis it was vital to navigate within the lines of permissible but also practical in order to accomplish to implement legal assistance for Ecuadorian migrants in debt. During a radio interview the ambassador mentioned that given a situation of eviction, which he qualified as human catastrophe, the Ecuadorian state through their diplomatic representations is obliged to act. The guiding frameworks of legal/ diplomatic action that grants the power of intervention in
36 a situation such as this one are “the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations of 1961 and 1963; and in compliance with the mandate set forth in article 40 of the Ecuadorian Constitution and in Goal 2 of the National Plan of good living, to assist and protect Ecuadorians abroad”.
These legal premises and citizen’s demands have allowed the Ecuadorian Diplomatic Representation to establish a service of legal advice and free companion for Ecuadorian people residing in Spain having mortgage problems. According to Embassy reports during the past “since 2011, there has been 19,135 assistances in Madrid, Barcelona, Murcia and Valencia; 15,073 of them are individual counselling; 1,420 are accompaniments to Ecuadorians debtors in extrajudicial measures with the financial institutions; and, a significant amount of hours of counselling to collective groups that so far have informed around 3,244 people.” (ibid, 2014: p. 34)
In total it has been calculated up to this year that the Ecuadorian Diplomatic Representation has given around 30.000 assistances. The project started with four lawyers, now it has around 35 in around 17 regional communities of Spain with the expectation to expand to other regions (21) by the end of this year. (Radio interview Ecuadiran Ambassador in Spain, 02/2015) This program has become an icon of support of migrant communities. Indeed, Ecuador is the only country in Spain that provides free legal assistance to their nationals since the Spanish banking crisis and the burst of the mortgage bubble started. One of the migrants that used the services of this unit said:
“There is no other country that has this service, we are now the envy of all Latinamericans.”
37 Moreover, other legal actions have been taken to protect migrants and their property. Ecuador is the first country to have opened up an official demand against the Eviction policy in Spain in the Court of Strasbourg. Also, it has created a property security clause for migrants, allowing them to secure property in Ecuador which the banks intent to take away. (El País, 23/01/2013) President Correa has been one of the main advocates against the eviction policy in Spain. One of his most famous phrases says:
“This is just bad ecomomics, People without houses and houses without people”.
(Conference Technical University of Berlin, 17/04/2013)
It is calculated that only in the past year 7000 evictions have occurred, leaving thousands of people homeless. (Discussion Panel, Universidad de Murcia 23/02/2015) For the government of Ecuador the human consequences of evicting someone from their home correspond to a crisis. (Ambassador of Ecuador in Spain, 2015) This is a unique perspective of a diplomatic representation that has encouraged an advocacy spirit of diplomats in order to respond to Ecuadorian families experiencing this situation. There have been exciting results of this policy with “more than 529 real solutions (recommendations in payment, social rent, peel, cancellations, moratoriums on eviction and/or restructuring) negotiated with the financial institutions for the benefit of Ecuadorians with mortgage problems in Spain”. (Vega de la Cuadra, 2014: p. 41)
On a second note, I focus on the proposal of Migrant Diplomats. The Ecuadorian Diplomatic Representation in Spain became a pioneer in locating migrants as Consuls. This pilot project now has fourteen Consulates directed by migrants. They are the head of the Consulate, while Career Diplomats are Vice-consuls. The consulates deal directly with the
38 people not only in the administrative side with documentation but with the area of human mobility that offers many services to migrant families.
This policy according to a Diplomatic bureaucrat has become a success in terms of efficiency.
“This initiative has worked so well. They know a lot about the people and their realities and they do their best because after they finish they will continue to live in the same place”.
This is again one radical answer from the Ecuadorian state to respond to migrant communities from their won perspective. In the following sections I will expand on their role and on the important turn of powers that the project encourages. Finally, it is important to locate this proposal within the context of a material space and of policy implications. In this sense, it is important to note that the legal assistance to migrants in the case of mortgages or any other issue, and the majority of “migrant” services (not documentation), are located at the Human mobility unit of each consulate. I had the chance to observe the interactions in two main locations. The job of these units is to give information about the services of the state. In a way or another this unit is the core of the policy, because it is the perspective of human mobility, which the Diplomatic representations use when working with migrants communities. This section aspires to have free psychological help and micro-entrepreneurship initiatives to deal with the crisis. A diplomatic representative said: “the Ecuadorian migration to Spain is an old one, meaning that the majority of Ecuadorians have regular migrant status. The greatest problems of our population are: family violence that includes serious cases of gender violence, swindle cases and a young second generation population highly affected by the crisis and unemployment. We need to work much in those areas.”
