Is Nation Branding Significant for Diplomacy?

To me the most important tools in Diplomacy involve the art of listening and negotiation, an engagement or exchange in which all parties feel they have advanced, whether it be government to government, government to people or people to people. Cross border cultural and traditional exchanges alongside active participation in public diplomacy are important soft power tools to raise the credibility and trust with foreign publics. This trust then influences foreign governments and large companies and places nations in comfortable positions on the world political stage and can also provide an economical advantage improving FDI, to ultimately achieve what’s in your best interest.

In recent years Nation Branding has become a popular tool for which nations can measure their popularity overseas. But is nation branding a tool for diplomacy or is it merely an example of fabrication, which cannot be linked to diplomacy? Ultimately I think it is the latter and I will try to explain why. The ways in which nations brand themselves it not overly dissimilar to that of corporations, marketing mechanisms and public relations gurus are bought in to help heighten a nations popularity abroad. Wally Olins, in his book Trading Identities highlights the similarities and shifts that have more recently been taking place with nations becoming more like companies through their methods of selling themselves abroad (1). Branding is a popular way to increase tourism, FDI, exports but ultimately the decision on what to market is fabricated with an aim, to improve a nations popularity.

As I said initially, diplomacy involves engagement and public and cultural diplomacy requires active engagement to influence foreign publics. The tools in nation branding don’t actively involve engagement, they simply are an advertisement of the host nation. I believe the most important tools to influence international opinion stem from nations actions on the international and domestic stage, their foreign and domestic policies. The ‘Nations Brand Index’ is an index derived by Simon Anholt in which public opinion measures national image and reputation abroad for fifty nations. Simon Anholt uses key questions relating to the six dimensions of his competitive identity hexagon.



These indexes are worthy of the recognition for measuring business and tourism but nothing else significant, even Anholt himself has contradicted the idea of nation branding by saying it doesn’t work. Simon Anholt notes that, ‘Countries, cities and regions that are lucky or virtuous enough to have acquired a positive reputation find that everything they or their citizens wish to do on the global stage is easier(2)’ this seems an obvious statement but there is no proof that nation branding through marketing and PR has changed foreign public opinion, improving any countries reputation, and it would seem naïve to assume it could. Although advertisements may raise revenue through tourism and can be a good indicator for countries on where they may need to make improvements, international opinion usually stems far deeper. The Anholt-Roper index report even proves my point, in 2009 America moved to the number one rank from number seven in 2008(3), this would demonstrate that public opinion changed with the change of president as culturally, economically and scenically nothing significantly changed in the United States. Governance is the only index that can really be advantageous to a nations diplomacy. For nations to truly engage in public diplomacy they must demonstrate they are actively engaged with, and acknowledge their domestic public and foreign public through their policies and agendas. Take the example of China, they had the perfect stage to publicly demonstrate their cultural heritage during the Beijing Olympics, which they did, but it didn’t change foreign opinion on their governance and the human rights violations.
I therefore think that whilst nation branding may be relevant to revenue, marketing can in no way paint a good picture for governments who fail to demonstrate they consider public opinion.

(1)Olins, W. (1999) Trading Identities; Why Countries and Companies are Taking on Each Others Roles
(2) Simon Anholt. Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/58106.htm
(3)Anholt GfK Roper Nation Brands Index 2009 Highlights