nation branding
In a couple of recent postings I have tried to elaborate the notion of a nation brand, to identify some of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between public diplomacy and branding, and to illuminate the more subtle distinctions. In this entry, I would like to drill down further into each of these, and several related issues.
Ukraine is still being referred to as a country “between Europe and Russia” not only in ordinary public discourse and media but by top officials and diplomats, those in the US, EU and Russia, first and foremost, but also in Ukraine itself. Why there is such an “in-betweenness”, two decades after the end of the Cold War?
Turkey's recent activism in major regional issues is symbolic of its neo-Ottomanism, which is the essence of its new ideological approach to foreign policy. Turkey has risen to global prominence as a major Muslin state in the Middle East. But there is little evidence so far to suggest that Turkey's influence can spread beyond this sphere.
By now, nearly everyone has heard of the BRICS. Less known are the CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa) and MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey). These acronyms are the product of brilliant branding, but they tell us nothing about why these countries were chosen as the ones best built to last.
Needless to say, the tone and direction of branding a nation emanates from its top executive or CEO. This is the individual who by being the President, King or Prime Minister of a country carries on his shoulders the unique and challenging responsibility of inspiring citizens towards positivism
Angola has already become a representative brand in the various universal exhibitions held so far, which turns it into a country that is open to the world, the national commissioner to the Expo 2012 Yeosu, Albina Assis, considered this Sunday.