As I mentioned before, I am working on two projects. The first is about global politics. In the previous post, I wrote about the changes in the international system that we are experiencing today. It included some incredible works that I found that make it easier to comprehend these transformations.
 
The second assignment is about public diplomacy and country branding. So, today I am going to write about the latter.
 
I prefer using the term country branding, as it seems more encompassing than nation branding because most states are multination countries, so that a few groups might feel excluded. Other expressions such as place branding, location, and even reputation management are now used as an alternative to nation branding.
 
In one of the blog´s first posts, “Influence and reputation in international affairs: Soft Power and Nation Branding,” I wrote about the differences between public diplomacy, nation brand, and soft power. For me, it was an excellent exercise because there is still much confusion about the three concepts. Even in a textbook focused on public diplomacy, such as the Routledge Handbook on Public Diplomacy (2nd edition), there are a few articles about nation branding, which I really enjoyed, by the way.
 
A lot has happened since Simon Anholt coined the term Nation Brand in 1996. While the first decade of the new millennium seemed to be all about trying to promote a country`s reputation via flashy logos, catchy slogans, expensive spreads in magazines like The Economist, things have seemed to evolve in recent years.
 
I bet that many governments worldwide finally realized that while the country’s image abroad is one of the greatest assets, it cannot be changed using marketing and advertising techniques or spending vast amounts of money on its promotion.
 
In the article “Country Branding: A Practitioner Perspective,”[i] Florian Kaefer, Founder of The Place Brand Observer, details the transformation of place branding from its early heydays to a mature discipline. He just published the book An Insider´s Guide to Place Branding: Shaping the Identity and Reputation of Cities, Regions and Countries, which I hope to read soon because it seems fascinating as it is based on interviews of a significant number of place branding practitioners.
 
The digital world has also changed country branding, including the development of the Digital Country Index of online searches to the creation of the concept of “Selfie Diplomacy.”
 
The Digital Country Index is intriguing as the people search proactively about a country; therefore, there is an assumption of specific interest in a particular nation, which is a measurement of its online attractiveness. However, people worldwide may be searching for a specific country for the wrong reasons from a country branding perspective. Natural or man-made disasters, bad COVID-19 management, or some bad news might not be what the branding manager wants the public to know about the country. For example, just a few days ago, the world focused on Tonga, a Pacific Ocean nation, because of a devastating volcano eruption. So, the online searches index, while usefully, most be treated carefully. 
 
As previously mentioned, another example of the changes that place branding experiences in cyberspace is the appealing idea of “Selfie Diplomacy” created by Ilan Manor and Elad Segev. It is defined as “an MFA´s use of social media channels to author a national self-portrait or brand… [and] is thus a form of nation branding conducted via digital platforms”[ii]. It is a country´s digital identity used to broadcast the image that it wants to project in the digital realm.

The concept is very intriguing, as everybody now does Selfies. This is just the country´s selfies in the digital realm. 
 
Two countries that have stand out in nation branding are Estonia and Costa Rica. Both share the fact that an independent organism coordinates the branding efforts: Enterprise Estonia and Essential Costa Rica. The Baltic national focused on digitalization, including its E-Residency program, while Costa Rica has become a green powerhouse, both activities being at the core of their branding programs. [iii]
 
Something that has not changed is the obsession with indexes. Now, there are so many that it is impossible to keep up with them or even understand the methodology used to rank countries. 
 
Here is a brief recompilation of some of them:

• Elcano Global Presence Index
• FutureBrand Country Index
• Brand Finance Nation Brand
• Bloom Consulting Trade and Tourism Country Index
• Ipsos Nation Brand Index
• The Good Country Index
• Digital Country Index
• The Soft Power 30
• Brand Finance Global Soft Power Index

 
For those interested in place branding, there is the International Place Branding Association that offers courses and organizes an annual meeting. It is led by Robert Govers, author of the book Imaginative Communities: Admired cities, regions, and countries. Membership is free, you just have to enroll in their newsletter. Talk about openness!

If you are interested in Mexico´s country brand, read the blog post Broken funhouse mirror: Mexico´s image and reputation abroad. 

[i] Kaefer, Florian. (2019). Country Branding: A Practitioner Perspective. Routledge Handbook on Public Diplomacy (2nd edition) Nancy Snow and Nicholas J. Cull (eds.), pp 129-136. Routledge
[ii] Manor, Ilan. (2019). The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan, p. 263. See also, Manor Ilan and Segev, Elad. (2015). America´s selfie: How the US portrays itself on its social media accounts. In C Bjola & M Holmes (eds.) Digital diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Routledge. Available at https://digdipblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/americas-selfie.pdf
[iii] City/Nation/Place (2020) Two countries that prove nation branding works, 10 January.  Available at https://www.citynationplace.com/two-countries-that-prove-nation-branding-works [accessed 26 December 2021]

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.

 
I am currently working on two new projects. One focuses on world politics, which has been quite interesting because it has allowed me to read and rethink issues that directly impact our planet today.

The world order has moved from the stability of the Cold War to the unipolar moment into a process of complex readjustment due to the digital revolution, the rising of new powers, globalization, and the changing features of today`s global power.

For most persons, it is hard to visualize these changes, as most international institutions created after World War 2 still exist today, based on the Liberal World Order. Some scholars, like Amitav Acharya, indicate that we are starting to live in a Post-Western World Order based on its predecessor, but significantly different.[1]

However, for most Westerners, particularly the United States, it is not a rosy picture, as they stand to lose some of the grips on world politics. As Mark Leonard indicates, the post-cold war ended “with the abrupt and chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan.”[2] But, will this new emerging world order will be better for all the people of the world rather than a lucky few? Only time will tell, but let´s hope for the best.

To better understand this new world, first, I read The World: A Brief Introduction by Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations. I like it because it covers most of the pressing world issues, from war to the environment, while summarizing the situation of the different regions. The book can help the reader better understand the recent changes of the international system, even if it is a birds-eye view. However, as most International Relations and Politics studies, it is too US-centric. Therefore, there is a need to broaden the different perspectives of what is going around the globe. Maybe this is one of the problems of the chaotic Liberal World Order; it is too dependent on the US.

An amazing finding was Rita Giacalone´s book titled Política Internacional a principios del Siglo XXI: Poder, cooperación y conflicto. It is hard to find an easy-to-read book that includes a theoretical framework of geopolitics with specific cases written from a Latin American perspective. This book hits all the right marks. Besides, the research helps comprehend current world affairs, following a simple yet comprehensive analysis of processes, actors, and consequences. It is a true gem and is in Spanish.

I have also read the 8th edition of the remarkable textbook The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, which contains an understandable yet thought-provoking explanation of world politics. It covers a wide variety of issues, including gender and race in international affairs, theoretical perspectives, and even a little bit of history. The authors made an extraordinary effort in presenting dissenting views, including a less Western-centric focus, which is really refreshing.

Finally, I discovered by chance the excellent project titled The Power Atlas: Seven battlegrounds of a networked world coordinated by Mark Leonard of the European Council on Foreign Relations. In it, he explains that
“In an era in which states use their interdependence against one another, power is no longer defined by control of land or oceans, or even the normative influence of “soft power”. It is now defined by control over flows of people, goods, money, and data, and via the connections they establish. As states compete to control such connections and the dependencies they create, these flows cut across overlapping spheres of influence – shaping the new map of geopolitical power.” [3]

This new map covers seven terrains of power, where great powers fight to gain or maintain power while the rest of the world does not have many options.

The new perspective on power and the different battlefields where it is fought is eye-opening. It moves away from a traditional outlook to a multilevel chess game where everything is at play at once, from technology to health, in an interconnected and interdependent world.

In the essay about culture as one of the battlefields of a networked world, the authors indicate the end of Soft Power due to the lack of attraction of universal ideas and countries' pushback of attempts by others to impose those.[4] This was one of the foundational premises of the Liberal World Order and the view of the “end of history.” Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that autocratic regimes and illiberal ideas could be attractive in a sustained way for a long-time for many people. But with the recent re-emergence of nationalist and populist movements and the support of narrow majorities, even in the US, I wonder if I am too optimistic, or plainly wrong. Time will tell.  
 
Sadly, all these works paint a less bright future of the world. From growing inequality to climate change, humanity faces issues that might result in a return to the “normal” geopolitical fighting, as Leonard says. [5] As the pandemic has clearly demonstrated, humans and countries are not ready to break their geopolitical chains to solve global problems.

Simon Anholt explains that there is a need for a dual mandate that includes policies and activities to benefit the country's people and the entire humanity.[6] He demonstrates this idea with his Good Country Index, where top-ranking nations are not the biggest or the most powerful, but the ones that give more to the world than they receive. No wonder countries like Cyprus, Uruguay, Costa Rica, and others are near the top, versus the typical great powers or popular destinations.

A final thought:
If an alien arrived today and saw the protests in Western countries against vaccine mandates, after more than 5.5 million Covid deaths, and the extreme rise of the SARS-COV-19´s Omicron variant in recent weeks, and negligible levels of vaccinations in many countries, would wonder why humans behave “irrationally,” which has been one of the cornerstones of IR and Foreign Policy Analysis.
 

[1] McGrew, Anthony. Globalization and global politics”. In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 8th edition, Baylis, John, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds), 2020. p. 28-31.
[2] Leonard, Mark. “Introduction.” The Power Atlas: Seven battlegrounds of a networked world. European Council on Foreign Relations. 2021.
[3] Leonard, Mark. “Introduction.” The Power Atlas: Seven battlegrounds of a networked world. European Council on Foreign Relations. 2021.
[4] Krastev, Ivan and Leonard, Mark. “Culture.” The Power Atlas: Seven battlegrounds of a networked world. European Council on Foreign Relations. 2021.
[5] Leonard, Mark. “Introduction.” 2021.
[6] The Dual Mandate. The Good Country Index.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company.

 
The following essay was one of the Public Diplomacy online course requirements offered by the DiploFoundation that I took in the Spring of 2013.
 
I only made some editing for clarity and grammatical accuracy.
 
 
Introduction
 
Mexico has had a long tradition of cultural diplomacy, and more recently, tourism and investment promotion; however, it has not developed a comprehensive approach to Public Diplomacy (PD) in a sustained way.
 
Besides certain times in its history, such as in the late 1890s, during the 1930s, and the negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in early 1990s, the Government of Mexico has not tried to influence foreign publics as part of its foreign policy beyond conveying a positive image overseas.
 
There are three reasons why: a) its foreign policy is based on the principle of non-intervention in other countries' affairs,[1] b) its foreign policy has mostly focused on Latin America, and c) its relationship with the United States.[2] Nonetheless, in recent years, as a result of the security crisis and the lack of significant progress in the domestic arena, the Government of Mexico is trying to implement a PD strategy to improve its image abroad and continue to be an influential member of the international community.
 
This paper will briefly analyze Mexico's attempts to instrument certain aspects of Public Diplomacy, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. In addition, there are some recommendations on how Mexico could finally instrument a comprehensive long-term PD.
 
Early efforts: investment promotion and cultural diplomacy.
 
After decades of civil unrest and financial difficulties, Mexico experienced economic development in the last quarter of the 19th Century. As part of its foreign policy, the Government actively participated in World Fairs to convey a positive image abroad to attract investment and immigrants from Europe and Asia.[3] This period ended abruptly with the Mexican revolution in 1910, which hurt its economy and image abroad.
 
After the revolution, in the late 1920s and 1930s, as part of Mexico's political realignment, the Government established significant cultural institutions and sponsored great works of art, including murals and other art forms, to legitimize the country's new regime. It engage in a forceful cultural diplomacy effort in South America.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Mexico had a film bonanza, later followed by TV programs and music,[4] spreading Mexican culture all over Latin America, thus gaining international standing in those countries.
 
In these two eras, Mexico had a concerted effort to gain international reputation and recognition to fulfill some of its foreign policy goals; however, these Public Diplomacy efforts were not sustained, except for an active but underfunded cultural diplomacy.
 
The Cold War: inward-looking development and lack of promotion abroad.
 
For most of the Cold War, Mexico had a reactive foreign policy, trying to avoid conflicts with the US and concentrating its diplomatic efforts in Latin America. However, in the 1960s and later, it became isolated as military dictatorships overtook democratic governments in the region, which were aligned with the US in the fight against communism. Nonetheless, Mexico continued to promote its cultural expressions abroad,[5] encouraged educational exchanges, and engaged in international cooperation as a donor.
 
At the same time, the US media and entertainment industries became dominant in most of the world, which presented a distorted image of Mexico around the globe, even though the country was a success story in terms of economic development.[6] In an analysis of Mexico's image abroad, Simon Anholt indicated that the country had deeper problems than the current violence crisis. He mentioned that the country's image overseas had primarily been defined negatively, except in Latin America, by the US media and entertainment industries.[7]
 
Post-Cold War: changes and missed opportunities
 
With the end of the Cold War, Mexico's foreign policy experienced significant changes, being the most important one the negotiation of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Canada. It was one of the rare occasions when the Government of Mexico consciously tried to influence US public opinion. Through a series of activities, including major cultural exhibitions[8] in the US, including hiring professional lobbyists, it engaged directly with US businesses, labor unions, and environmental groups, with the support of their Mexican counterparts, in a coordinated effort to successfully approve the agreement.[9]
 
As in the past, there was no continuity of these activities afterward. Moreover, when the economic crisis affected Mexico in 1995 (and the US offered a rescue package), there was no effort to mitigate the country's bad publicity and loss of reputation amongst the US and international public opinion.
 
In 2000, when Mexico successfully had a democratic transition, the country regained international status; notwithstanding, the so-called "democratic bonus" was not cashed out because there were no major internal reforms. The country's brand stagnated versus the rapidly changing positions of nations such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.
 
In 2006 a new administration took over and stepped up the combat against drug traffickers in Mexico. As a result, there was a considerable increase in violence, which became one of the few topics that the international media reported about the country, negatively impacting its image abroad.[10] According to the 2011 EastWest Global Index 200, Mexico occupied 192th place out of 200 nations, just above countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Libya.[11]
 
Recognizing that the country had an international image problem was an important step taken by President Calderon, even though it was long overdue. As a result, the Government created the "Marca País, Imagen de México" project[12] to show Mexico in a more balanced way and contextualize the violence stories. However, there were some problems with the project. It was coordinated by the Ministry of Tourism; therefore, its focus was mainly on tourism promotion rather than an overall Public Diplomacy strategy. In addition, it seldom coordinated its activities with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA).
 
A new administration, a new opportunity
 
Thanks to the arrival of a new administration in December 2012, a slight reduction in violent acts in 2012, and the approval of significant reforms, the dynamic of Mexico's image abroad is changing;[13] therefore, it is an excellent opportunity to be seized by the new Government.
 
Currently (2013), the Office of the Presidency, the MFA, the Ministries of Tourism and Trade, and ProMexico[14] hold bi-monthly meetings as part of an effort to improve Mexico's brand overseas. However, this interagency process is not a formal Public Diplomacy board that includes other actors, such as state and local authorities, businesses, universities, think tanks, and non-governmental organizations. In addition, it seems that the efforts of coordinating activities abroad are not incorporated in their respective actions and policies, thus limiting its implementation.
 
Policy Recommendations.
 
Considering that it seems there is confusion between Tourism Promotion/Cultural Diplomacy and PD, and there is a real need to try to engage foreign publics in order to counterbalance the bad image that is conveyed abroad, here are a few recommendations to instrument a genuine Public Diplomacy:
 
a) Establish a formal Public Diplomacy Board, such as the one in France or the United Kingdom, that will be responsible for evaluating Mexico's current situation and propose a course of action with definite goals and activities to accomplish them. The Board should incorporate important non-state actors and local and state authorities. Inside the MFA, a Public Diplomacy office should be established to coordinate and instrument the decisions made by the Board.
 
b) It would be wise to create a Public Diplomacy Handbook, such as the Australian one,[15] that not only explains what PD activities should be undertaken but provides advice in planning PD programs and showcases best practices. The publication of the handbook should be part of a training program for all government officials that deal with international activities.
 
c) Teaching Spanish is a great tool to promote the country's culture and values and a deeper understanding of its idiosyncrasy. The new Government has proposed the creation of "Institutos Mexico"[16] as a way to promote the nation's culture and teach Spanish overseas. The establishment of Confucius centers by China worldwide in partnership with local universities could be used as a model.[17]
 
d) Mexico's PD efforts should focus on specific countries that involve a comprehensive strategy that includes tourism and investment promotion, cultural exhibitions, people-to-people contacts, and educational exchanges. The effort should be made in the host country's language, so Mexico can "talk" directly to them, diminishing the use of English media and reaching a wider audience. The chosen countries should be regional leaders, such as the BRICS, Turkey, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, the UK, Spain, and Germany.
 
e) The Government should take full advantage of Information Technologies to engage with foreign publics directly. Mexico should study the US embassy's experience in Indonesia, which had a very successful online presence, through the engagement of Indonesian bloggers and linking real-life events (such as President Obama's visit), with its online activities.[18]
 
d) Mexico's MFA should fully incorporate to its PD strategy the activities of the Liaison Office with Civil Society Organizations,[19] the Institute of Mexicans Abroad,[20] and the Mexican Agency for International Development Cooperation.[21] These offices manage essential programs that have not been utilized to their full potential in the country's overall Public Diplomacy efforts.
 
e) The Government should establish a research program focused on Public Diplomacy to further promote knowledge about this issue, emphasizing Mexico's circumstances. The "Observatorio Marca España" project at the Spanish Elcano Institute[22] is a good example that should be considered.
 
Conclusions
 
Even though Mexico had substantial experience in cultural diplomacy and, more recently, tourism and trade promotion, it has only engaged in Public Diplomacy in rare instances due to its foreign policy principles.
 
The attention to the country's violence and its negative image abroad has renewed an effort to instrument a comprehensive Public Diplomacy strategy. In order to be successful, the Government has to have a long-term view, needs to improve its domestic situation, and requires investing sufficient funds in this endeavor. A key component for success is coordinating PD activities, collaborating with Non-State Actors, and better utilizing social media and information technology.
 
Rodrigo Marquez Lartigue
Public Diplomacy
March 26th, 2013.


[1] Luz Elena Banos Rivas, “Reflexiones sobre la diplomacia pública en México. Una mirada prospectiva” Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, No. 85, November 2008-February 2009, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. p. 154
[2] Pamela K. Starr, “Mexican Public Diplomacy: Hobbled by History, Interdependence, and Asymmetric Power” Public Diplomacy Magazine, University of Southern California Issue 2, Summer 2009 pp. 49-53. Available at http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/summer_2009.pdf [accessed March 15, 2013]
[3] Roberta Lajous Vargas, Las relaciones exteriores de México (1821-2000), El Colegio de México, 2012, pp 128-129.
[4] Andrés Ordoñez, “Diplomacia y cultura: Contenidos básicos para un reflexión pertinente”, Este País, June 3rd, 2012. Available at http://estepais.com/site/?p=38890  [accessed on March 24th, 2013]
[5] This is the time that Mexico started to organized important exhibitions abroad, and created the office of cultural exchanges at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Rafael Tovar y de Teresa, p. 192.
[6] For example, it was the first developing nation to hold the Olympic Games in 1968, and two years later was the host of the World Cup.
[7] Simon Anholt “Mito y realidad: la imagen internacional de México”, Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, No. 96, October 2012, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. p. 124
[8] Tovar y de Teresa, p. 188.
[9] Starr, p. 51.
[10] For a brief analysis of México’s media coverage in US newspapers see Guillermo Maynez Gil, “El Espejo roto: percepciones de México entre los extranjeros” Este País, No. 261, January 2013, pp. 8-12
[11] East West Communications, 2011 EastWest Global Index 200, Available at http://www.eastwestcoms.com/global.htm [accessed March 21st, 2013].
[12] To learn more about the project see Jaime Díaz and Mónica Pérez, “Marca México: una estrategia para reducir la brecha entre la percepción y la realidad”, Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, No. 96, October 2012, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. pp. 169-186.
[13] Recently, there have been important reports about Mexico’s economic achievements in mayor news outlets such as the Financial Times, the New York Times and the Economist.
[14] Mexico´s Export and Investment Promotion Agency.
[15] Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Public diplomacy and advocacy handbook, August 2011. Available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/public-diplomacy-handbook/ [accessed 18 March 2013]
[16] Mexico currently has 10 cultural centers: 4 in the USA (Miami, New York, San Antonio and Washington), 4 in Latin America (Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Guatemala) and 2 in Europe (Spain and France). Cesar Guerrero, “La cultura en la imagen de México” Este País, January 2013, p. 21.
[17] Zhe Ren, The Confucius Institutes and China´s Soft Power, Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO, March 2012. Available at http://ir.ide.go.jp/dspace/bitstream/2344/1119/1/ARRIDE_Discussion_No.330_ren.pdf [accessed March 19, 2013]
[18] Matthew Wallin, The Challenges of the Internet and Social Media in Public Diplomacy, American Security Project. February 2013. Pp. 9-10. Available at http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2013/the-challenges-of-the-internet-and-social-media-in-public-diplomacy/ [accessed March 20, 2012].
[19] The Liaison Office with Civil Society Organizations was created on January 8, 2009. For more information about the office in English see http://participacionsocial.sre.gob.mx/docs/dgvosc/brochure_sre_dgvosc.pdf  
[20] The Institute of Mexicans Abroad was created in 2003. For more information see http://www.ime.gob.mx/
[21] The Agency was created in 2011. For more information see http://amexcid.gob.mx/
[22] For more information visit http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3jjYB8fnxBnR19TE2e_kECjACdDAwjQ9_PIz03VL8h2VAQAidTU0Q!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfM1RER1FLRzEwT1BVMTBJUjQ3TjJVUzBDVjI!/ [accessed March 23, 2013]

​DISCLAIMER: All views expressed on this blog are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of any other authority, agency, organization, employer or company