Canada: We're the other guys (updated).

In Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power Through Public Diplomacy, "University of Ottawa professor, Evan H. Potter, shows how the combined efforts of the federal and provincial governments have helped to create one of the most respected global nation brands. Canada’s unique combination of hard and soft power has created a form of smart power that consistently places Canada at the top of global ranking of nation brands. Potter analyses how the federal government has used the instruments of public diplomacy - cultural programs, international education, international broadcasting, trade, and investment promotion - to exercise Canada’s soft power internationally." Nation Branding Blog, 4 April 2009. See also McGill-Queen's University Press.
     I look forward to reading the book. In the meantime, two competing hypotheses of public diplomacy have emerged. Is it Canada's use of "cultural programs, international education, international broadcasting, trade, and investment promotion" that have resulted in its positive ratings in international opinion polls? David M. Edelstein and Ronald R. Krebs, cited in a previous post, wrote: "The United States' poor image abroad has not been the result of a marketing failure, and, thus, better public diplomacy will not lead to victory in the 'Battle of Ideas.' Anti-Americanism thrives, not because others misunderstand the United States, but because they perceive its aims and tactics all too well. The Bush administration's greatest perceived foreign-policy failures -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, unimpeded global warming -- could not have been overcome with better public diplomacy." Is Canada's successful brand more a result of it not participating in the Iraq coalition, not administering Guantánamo, and not denying global warming? Is Canada popular because it is the North American country that is not the United States?
     Update: "The book rightly argues that the concept of public diplomacy is not new, but it is the changing nature of communication that has made it so much more influential. He says that modern technologies and the connectivity of the entire world means that a country needs to take control of a message, otherwise somebody else will." Mark Iype, Embassy, 27 May 2009. Posted: 28 May 2009 Permalink Print