Talk:International relations of Wales

Discussion about this article at WikiProject Wales

Please note there is a lengthy discussion about the future of this article which can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wales#Notification_of_a_draft_which_has_since_been_published_Foreign_relations_of_Wales ...Sionk (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

(Now happy for this to be discussed as draft since at least half of the editors agreed to draftify.) Titus Gold (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Title and coverage

So, to set the ball rolling. I really don’t think there is any dispute that the Welsh Government and associated bodies engage in extensive overseas activity. Their 21 offices abroad are clear evidence of this. This is common for any large economic unit. London does it, so does Manchester; so, I am sure, does Texas, or Bavaria. But, for me, to describe this as “Foreign relations of Wales” is misleading. As User:Sionk, and others, have pointed out, Foreign relations of Fooland (at least in Wikiworld) refers to the foreign policies of sovereign states. Wales isn’t a sovereign state and does not, and cannot, conduct its own foreign policy, any more than England can. Assuming others agree, we could either rename the draft as something else, External relations of Wales / International relations of Wales / X of Wales; or we have a separate section on the topic in a related article; if we followed the Scottish approach, we could have a section in the First Minister of Wales article; or we take the useful content and place it in appropriate related articles, e.g. Wales, Economy of Wales, etc. Personally, I’m open to any of these approaches. I think my preference would be for a section in the First Minister article, as Wales’ overseas relations are part of their portfolio, but can certainly be persuaded that another option would be better. As an aside, the relevant post within the FMO is titled Director of International relations and trade, and has a clearly economic focus, [1]. KJP1 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Although I think the current title is acceptable as long as the lead is clear about the devolution settlement, "External relations of Wales / International relations of Wales / X of Wales" are reasonable suggestions and ones I could get on board with. Thank you for a bringing a reasonable approach in this opening paragraph, @KJP1. I don't think that fitting this into another article such as Politics of Wales or Economy of Wales would be appropriate since there's too much interesting and notable content to squeeze it in.

I think I will make a comment or edit on Wikipedia:WikiProject needing more clear criteria could be beneficial for the "Foreign relations of..." format of article. Perhaps a specific criteria along with a different title could used for non-sovereign entities? Titus Gold (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think Foreign relations of Wales is an appropriate title, based on abundant examples of Wikipedia precedent. But I'm willing to believe there is scope for a standalone article - Wales briefly had an International relations minister, the Welsh Government has an International strategy (though I'd want to see reliable secondary sources about that)I also added an article recently by Prof Laura McAllister which argues Wales should assert itself internationally. Maybe a tweek of name to International relations of Wales would help to differentiate it from the other Wikipedia articles about formal diplomatic policy. In my view, the article would need to be laser-focused on government strategy and not become a list article of every minor overseas project involving a Welsh person. Sionk (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Maybe we should suggest "International relations of..." as a precedent for non-sovereign semi-autonomous/autonomous nations/countries/dependents. I don't think being laser focused on government policy is essential, but having it as the clear main focus I would agree with. Titus Gold (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The article in its current state seems to be a mix of various things that just happen to involve an external actor and Wales, from visits, to offices, to programmes, to think tanks, to region-region agreements and a tropical forest programme. All the trade section would make better sense at Economy of Wales, while the endless listing of visits are really not notable, did they do anything? Rest of the content can be at First Minister of Wales, Welsh Government, Education in Wales or Politics of Wales (where details on the US currently is).

If the article stays, then support a name change at minimal. It was mentioned above, that the minister was removed, so cannot be that, nor does Wales have a relevant ministry. Not sure if the director or Trade and Invest Wales are notable but if they are, it could house some content from here. External/International relations sometimes do serve as redirects to Foreign relations or the main subject (i.e. Wales), External is solely used by the crown dependencies for some reason, but I believe Jersey uses it for its department. International is used for the Slovakian capital Bratislava, while technically setting a precedent for Cardiff, could work for Wales although that article seems potentially non-notable too. But international relations are too without precedent, but if deemed this article should stay then I guess the more acceptable one. (Plus what is going to happen to the London one). DankJae 19:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

So to summarise:

1. I've moved to Draft:International relations of Wales
2. Need to maintain a strong focus on governmental international strategy
3. Need to reduce general text on international visits and focus more on any agreements or schemes started etc.
4. (More secondary sources are needed for general improvement)

I agree that the Trade section would go well in Economy of Wales, but I don't think it would be wise to remove all mention of international trade from here.

On the whole, does this sound agreeable to the majority or is there anything else major that is needed? Titus Gold (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Really the article should rewritten a core of high-quality sources, and reflect what they say. I provided two papers in the other discussion, which I found very easily. There are many others, especially if more time were spent looking, but I'm not seeing anything in the current article better than news reports. CMD (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the article could do with more high-quality sources. I will have a look at the two papers you provided. Titus Gold (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Coverage

A few thoughts on coverage. I think this could work as a basis either for a standalone, or for a section in another article, e.g. First Minister.

• Context - devolution settlement / foreign policy as reserved power;
• Objectives;[2]

• Raise profile of Wales;
• Support Welsh economy (but main trade coverage in Economy of Wales);
• Position Wales as globally responsible nation;

• FM as lead / paradiplomacy[3] / overseas offices / foreign visits;
• Education programme;
• Senedd, promotion of Wales/Welsh democracy [4].

KJP1 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this international relations of Wales or of the Welsh Government? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A good point although, to a degree, are they interchangeable? The WG acts on behalf of Wales, and represents the country’s interests in its international affairs. KJP1 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll see how much this article focuses on the Welsh Government, and whether other information is suited here or in other articles. If it is mainly on the Welsh Government, and nothing about any relevant UK Government policy if it applies or other non-government aspects, then probably "Welsh Government" in the title, kinda inline with the London one (if this article is published under int. should the London one move too?, just for consistency) The existence of the London one under Mayor could also justify Welsh Government if meeting the conditions above.

Considering the Bratislava one focuses on town twinning, should there be a small section on that here? Ofc, not including a list, that's for List of twin towns and sister cities in Wales. So if that's added it should be "Wales", as they're council actions? DankJae 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It is probably best to focus on the Welsh government, which is a coherent topic. Introducing the actions of other governments, or other organizations, muddles whatever information is here. CMD (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Title

Some editors have suggested International relations of Wales. I have raised the topic of title and precedent at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations, after which an editor has replied suggest Foreign relations of Wales as per precedent for non-sovereign countries "unless there is reason not to". Just thought I'd make editors on this page aware. (I don't have a particular preference on the title at the moment but consistency should be considered I suppose.) Titus Gold (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And there is good reason not to, and that reason is that terms like "country" are easily equivocated on, or at east the term does not completely capture the rich range of difference in arrangements between each. Of the other places that editor mentions, Denmark administers Faroe and Greenland in a different manner from the UK, and significantly allows them to conduct foreign relations to make international treaties on areas that lie within the powers of their governments. They thus have treaties and FTAs and some diplomatic representation. Hong Kong and Macau are separate customs territories that again require treaties and play a role in the WTO etc. Niue acts as an independent state in foreign policy despite having a shared head of State with New Zealand and being New Zealand citizens etc. The UK is a unitary state that has devolved government with reserved powers. It is quasi federal but not federal, being very much wedded to the unitary state model. Wales cannot make international treaties, nor create diplomatic missions. What it does have is an international strategy, which is primarily about trade, tourism and raising the profile of Wales on the world stage. This is not foreign policy. And why are you asking the question there, rather than simply inviting interested editors to join the discussion here? Forking the discussion never ends well. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I was attempting to draw editors to this page who are experienced with these types of articles. I also wanted to raise the topic of article title precedence. I'm happy with your reasoning. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Further improvements or changes

Please note any requests for further improvements or changes here. Thank you! Note: Use following as suggested by @KJP1; Wales and Brexit and Further detail on soft power and diplomacy policy Titus Gold (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Language section

@Sirfurboy:, is there a reason you removed the language header? It's a topic there is genuine sources on, eg. CMD (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The section was empty and I was not clear as to what we would say regarding International Relations of Wales and language. If you have sources and a subject to discuss, I have no objection to it going back in. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I brought the source up in the previous discussion as the sort of high quality source the draft lacked. While the sources didn't make it in before publishing, I was hoping the empty section would stimulate addition. CMD (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

While the sources didn't make it in before publishing - yes, I was surprised by the sudden unannounced publication too. Sorry for missing the source in the previous discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)