7. Explain the meaning of 'image of the country'.

In the past decade, many countries have used methods borrowed from the corporate advertising world to change the way foreign publics see them. The methods include image building and rebranding.

Examples:

• In 1997–98 the United Kingdom tried to enhance its tourism appeal under the rubric “Cool Britannia”—a country that was not staid but appealed to the youth and to the trendy. Many regard that campaign as successful. Spain made a similar effort.

• In 2003 Germany tried to re-brand itself, led by private advertising agencies, supported by the government; it adopted the slogan “Land of Ideas.” In 2004, after the falling out with the United States over the Iraq War, France tried to refashion its appeal to US corporate decision-makers, to attract investments.

• In 2004 Poland hired the noted British brand manager Wally Olins, to improve its image. Pakistan has attempted a similar exercise in 2005 to project a “softer” political image, in the face of criticism over its connections with terrorism.

• In 2008 a Kenya Brand Board was established as an official agency. It is to work with private agencies, including the tourism industry and the wildlife authorities—the latter so important in Kenya’s tourism USP22—but they are not working as a public-private partnership, as yet.

• Columbia is trying to rebrand itself, after its recent political and economic success, and attempting to put its violent past behind it; its tourism slogan affirms: “The only risk is wanting to stay.”

How effective is such branding effort? First, a simple message works, for example, Malaysia’s tourism slogan “Truly Asia” or Kerala’s tongue-in-cheek “God’s own country.” Second, complex messages get out of control or do not produce the desired impact, like the German effort, as noted above. Third, public-private partnerships work best, since the country brand is a composite of multiple actions, many beyond governmental control.

8. Identify the main reasons for the changes in mfAs for the last two decades

One consequence of globalization: many people feel that their lives are shaped by external events that are outside their control. Crisis has many faces. Take the global recession of 2008, producing economic insecurity, loss of jobs, decline in incomes, and slowdown in production, virtually in every country. Terrorism is another pervasive concern, with subterranean roots in foreign lands. Climate change affects all of us, threatening the very existence of small low-lying island states. Other dangers are more insidious, such as the influx of foreign cultural influence, viewed with alarm by those that struggle to conserve their own heritage. Migration is another interconnected issue, of the “home-external” kind, both for countries from where the migrants originate and for the destination states. Each of these is a new kind of security threat, a consequence of interdependence among states and peoples. These are products of relentless globalization.

Why globalized diplomacy? About two generations ago, politics was in command and was the prime focus of foreign ministry work; the best diplomats specialized in this fi eld. Then, commencing around the 1970s, economic diplomacy began to emerge as a major component of external relations, in some ways overshadowing political diplomacy; export promotion and foreign direct investment (FDI) mobilization became the priority activities of the diplomatic system. More recently we have seen the rise of culture, media and communications, education, science and technology and even consular work as some new priorities in diplomacy. Taken together, this third tranche is seen as a manifestation of soft power and as “public diplomacy”. Paradoxically, after the end of the Cold War, political diplomacy has also regained salience, becoming more open and complex. The techniques of relationship building and conflict resolution have also become more sophisticated and require measured but rapid responses. Overall, diplomacy has become multifaceted, pluri-directional, volatile, and intensive. Diplomacy has globalized in other ways. For one thing, with a breakdown in Cold War blocs, there exists no predetermined matrix of relationships. The West and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are now the dominant groups, but their former adversaries are also their networked partners, even while rivalries subsist. These are “normal” situations of contestation, driven by self-interest, as expressed through a search for resources and energy, and markets, to name only a few of the drivers; ideology is no longer an issue. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has been hollowed out, and remains as a loose coalition of have-not states; its ritualistic biennial summits persist, but NAM members are much more preoccupied with smaller, issue-based groupings. In essence, every country finds value in working with networks that stretch into far regions, in pursuit of common or shared objectives. Often, economic opportunity provides the driving force, and this too is subject to globalized concerns.

We should consider another change element. Some large and economically successful countries are seen as today’s “emerging powers,” joining the high table of the world’s major and near major powers. One such small group is known by its acronym IBSA, that is, India, Brazil and South Africa; none of these states is quite a major power, but seems to offer the potential of reaching this rank. Another putative group is BRICS, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and now South Africa; two of the five are permanent members of the UN Security Council, but only one is a member of G-8. Both IBSA and BRICS have emerged on the international stage as groups that pursue mutual cooperation at multiple levels, ranging from summit meetings among their leaders to functional collaboration among researchers and business groups, along mutually beneficial trajectories. Behind these small clusters are other states, such as Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria that aspire to recognition as emerging powers. Each seeks through its external policy to reshape the international environment in consonance with its own interests. Since 2008, G-20, which began as a gathering of finance ministers, is now a major politico economic forum. The international process is more kinetic and more volatile than ever before, resembling a large, multi-arm mobile, constantly in motion, continually reshaping interrelations among its composing elements, large and small.