Canada, Nation Branding and Domestic Politics

Richard Nimijean, David Carment

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429631924
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: 21st Century History
• Index: History

After his Liberal Party's surprise victory in the 2015 federal Canadian election, Justin Trudeau declared that "Canada was back" on the world stage. This comprehensive volume highlights issues in the relationship between articulated visions of Canada as a global actor, nation branding and domestic politics, noting the dangers of the politicization of the branding of Canada. It also provides the political context for thinking about 'Brand Canada' in the Trudeau era.

The authors explore the Trudeau government's embrace of political branding and how it plays out in key areas central to the brand, including: Canada's relations with Indigenous peoples; social media and digital diplomacy; and the importance of the Arctic region for Canada's brand, even though it is often ignored by politicians and policymakers. The book asks whether the Trudeau government has lived up to its claim that Canada is back, and highlights the challenges that emerge when governments provide optimistic visions for meaningful transformation, but then do not end up leading meaningful change.

This book will be of great interest to students and scholars of political science, particularly those with a focus on Canada. It was originally published as a special issue of Canadian Foreign Policy Journal.

1
Introduction

Is Canada back? Brand Canada in a turbulent world

Richard Nimijean

ABSTRACT

The Liberal Party’s surprise win in the 2015 federal election was partly due to an articulation of liberal internationalism that contrasted with Prime Minister Harper’s foreign policy vision. “Canada’s back” and “sunny ways” have been key themes for the Trudeau government’s branding of Canada, but rhetoric–reality gaps threaten to tarnish the brand. This article highlights issues in the relationship between articulated visions of Canada as a global actor, nation branding and domestic politics, noting the dangers of the politicization of the branding of Canada. It identifies key issues for evaluating the claim that Canada is back and introduces the articles in the special issue.

RÉSUMÉ

La victoire surprise du Parti Libéral lors des élections fédérales de 2015 a été due en partie à une formulation de l’internationalisme libéral qui contredisait la vision politique du Premier Ministre Stephen Harper. « Le Canada est de retour » et « la voie ensoleillée » ont été des thèmes clés de la labellisation du Canada par le gouvernement Trudeau, mais les écarts entre rhétorique et réalité menacent de ternir ce label. Cet article met l’accent sur le rapport entre les visions, telles que formulées, du Canada en tant qu’acteur mondial, la labellisation nationale et la politique domestique, en soulignant les dangers d’une politisation de la labellisation du Canada. Par ailleurs, il identifie les questions clés à aborder dans une évaluation de la revendication selon laquelle le Canada est de retour, et il introduit les autres articles de cette édition spéciale.

Competing visions of Canada as a global actor were on display in the 2015 Canadian federal election. In the lead-up to the election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper portrayed the major opposition parties as soft on terrorists and not able to deal with complex global problems. Conservative Party ads mocked Liberal leader Justin Trudeau as an inexperienced leader, albeit with “nice hair,” who was “just not ready.”

The Conservatives ensured that foreign policy would be central to the election, emphasizing Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s strong leadership in turbulent and unsafe times, with a campaign slogan on their tour bus stating “Proven Leadership. Safer Canada. Stronger Economy” (Furey 2015). They agreed to an historic leaders’ debate on foreign policy, presumably believing these differences would be made clear and to their advantage.

However, the evolving Syrian refugee crisis, and notably the Canadian connection with the unfortunate death of a three-year-old child whose family was seeking to come to Canada, disrupted these plans. Instead of Harper’s strong stance on security and antiterrorism setting the tone, we witnessed a debate about the values Canada stood for in the world and a questioning of whether Canada in the Harper years lived up to so-called “Canadian values.” Earlier that year, Trudeau forcefully outlined his belief in the institutions that promote and protect Canadian liberties, especially the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in a speech at McGill University (transcript available from Wherry 2015). Trudeau argued that they required ongoing support and leadership, given attacks on liberties in the Harper years. His argument that “Canadian liberty is all about inclusion” was followed by his July statement that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” Interestingly, during the election campaign, the Conservatives leaked audio of Trudeau saying this, seeing it as a weakness (CTV News 2015), yet Trudeau used this line against Harper with success during the foreign policy debate.

Trudeau’s articulation of liberal internationalism, carefully developed under the tutorship of Roland Paris (Coulon 2018, pp. 53–56), would inform Canada’s behavior as a good international citizen under a Liberal government; this, along with an economic platform seen as left of center, overshadowed Harper’s narrative. The Liberals also drew on New Democratic Party supporters who were critical of leader Thomas Mulcair’s mainstream economic platform and fearful of vote-splitting that could allow Harper to win again. Thus, the Liberals leapfrogged past the other two parties to become the surprise winners of the election (Nimijean 2015, 2017).

Trudeau, in his election night victory speech, spoke of “sunny ways,” suggesting that his government would offer a positive, constructive and even nostalgic vision of Canada. Not surprisingly, Canadians – and indeed much of the world – applauded when Trudeau stated the day after the election that “Many of you have worried that Canada has lost its compassionate and constructive voice in the world over the past 10 years.… Well, I have a simple message for you: on behalf of 35 million Canadians, we’re back” (cited in Bronskill 2015).

Trudeau’s optimism, idealism and personal style signaled a break with Harper’s efforts to transform Canadian foreign policy, hinting at a return to the role of helpful fixer that many Canadians identified with. Initial pronouncements on the environment, diversity and gender generated overwhelmingly positive political and media responses, such as Trudeau’s retort, “Because it’s 2015,” when asked why he had gender parity in his cabinet. His messages also provided an opportunity to revamp Brand Canada. “Canada’s back” and “sunny ways” became the markers by which the Trudeau government wanted the world to see Canada. The idea of nation branding took the world by storm two decades ago as a strategy for improving a country’s economic prospects. Peter van Ham popularized the concept in foreign policy circles with an influential article in Foreign Policy, noting that “Smart states are building their brands around reputations and attitudes in the same way smart companies do” (van Ham 2001b, p. 4). He even suggested (van Ham 2001a) that state branding was a form of “playful” nationalism. The subsequent plethora of national and subnational branding strategies pointed to the concept’s salience as places sought to revitalize economically and increase their clout politically in an era of globalization and neoliberalism.

However, critics argued that nation branding was often devoid of policy substance and could deepen voter cynicism by failing to engage citizens in thoughtful deliberation (Rose 2010). Thus, it could be understood in terms of an ongoing privatization of foreign policy (Curry Jansen 2008) and the state (Rose 2010). Far from being a playful manipulation of symbols in a new form of nationalism, an emphasis on restoring the neoliberal national and strengthening it with symbols in an era of growing ethnonationalism has ominous overtones. As Curry Jansen (2008, p. 134) writes, “Nation branding is a monologic, hierarchical, reductive form of communication that is intended to privilege one message, require all voices of authority to speak in unison, and marginalize and silence dissenting voices.”

Canada in the Chrétien years implemented branding and public diplomacy strategies, including the well-publicized Team Canada trade missions, though its efforts were uneven, and analyses pointed to challenges and opportunities for enhancing these strategies (Nadeau 2004, Potter 2009). These ideas seemed to disappear during the Harper years, apart from occasional references about transforming Canada into a clean-energy super-power (Hester 2007, Way 2011), though this idea never took hold, given widespread criticism of Harper’s positions on the environment. The Harper government terminated one of Canada’s major public diplomacy programs, “Understanding Canada,” in 2012. However, the Trudeau government, circling back to the Chrétien years, revived the idea of an investment promotion strategy, “Investing in Canada,” with the minister even saying that he was “Canada’s chief marketing officer” (Blanchfield 2018).¹

Nimijean (2006) pointed to a connection between nation branding, the external projection of national identity, and domestic politics, arguing that constructions of Canada for external audiences increasingly informed domestic politics and, in the case of the Chrétien government, allowed for the selling of neoliberalism under the guise of “progressive” Canadian values. Other critical examinations of this connection have looked at multiculturalism and immigration (Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2002) and gender (Rankin 2012). Numerous foreign policy scholars (among others, see Nossal 2003, Stairs 2003, Howell 2005, Michaud 2007, Paris 2014) have explored the connection between national identity and/or values on the one hand, and foreign policy on the other. This brings us back to the link between Trudeau’s personal brand in the world, the values that underlie Brand Canada, the promotion of Brand Canada, and how Canada engages with the world.

Simon Anholt reminds us that nations must earn a good reputation; they cannot simply say that they have or deserve one. In other words, countries must act first. Anholt (2009, p. 90) offers a particular warning for countries like Canada:

When we’re talking about the middle powers, the issue is very often one of relevance; most people don’t care very much about most other countries, especially if they don’t possess a great deal of economic, military, political or cultural clout. Rather than asking themselves “what can we say to make ourselves more famous?” the governments of such countries should be asking “what can we do to make ourselves more relevant?”

In other words, relevance, supported by concrete action, is key to enhancing a nation brand, for values emerge out of action (Nimijean 2005b). Therefore, if Canada is to be back, as Trudeau vowed, what will need to be done post-Harper to reach this state? (Toope 2016). Does Trudeau’s celebrity and sustained rhetoric of liberal internationalism mean that Canada is back, or is it simply empty political messaging?

The Trudeau government envisions Canada as a country that promotes gender equality and development, migration and diversity, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, peacekeeping, and solutions to climate change that involve a balance between energy and the environment. The campaign to win a seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council reinforces a multilateralist vision of Canada, reflecting commonly held external perceptions of Canada as a helpful fixer in foreign affairs.

However, the Trudeau government appears to be perpetuating the “paradoxical nature of the Canadian identity,” resorting to articulating national distinctiveness by promoting values that emerged through past action; as public policy becomes less distinct, the exhortation of distinctive values is ratcheted up (Nimijean 2005b). Echoing Curry Jansen’s depiction of nation branding as a construct that marginalizes dissenting views, Trudeau’s “Canada’s back” statement hints at a political Achilles’ heel of the Liberals, namely arrogance, in arguing that its values are effectively one and the same as Canadian values, as the Globe and Mail (2016) editorialized. How did the millions of Canadians who supported the Conservatives feel when Trudeau declared Canada to be back, this despite his belief in the power of positive politics? As former Conservative cabinet Minister Peter MacKay asked, “Where in God’s name does this prime minister think we’ve been?” (cited in Akin 2016).

MacKay’s response points to an important question: beyond declaring that Canada was back, what actions would demonstrate this to be the case? As the value of brands is ultimately determined by audiences and markets, Trudeau’s rhetoric reshaped perceptions of Brand Canada. However, when actions or experiences do not live up to the brand promise, brands suffer. This is increasingly true of the Trudeau brand, due to rhetoric–reality gaps in several key files:

• On the environment, little progress has been made on achieving emissions targets, as noted in a major audit conducted by the federal Environment Commissioner, the federal auditor general, and nine provincial auditors general (Rabson 2018), and Trudeau is being challenged to defend his view that pipelines and improved environmental performance can coexist.
• Global Affairs Canada (2017) proclaims that “Promoting respect for human rights is at the heart of Canada’s international engagement,” and Trudeau speaks eloquently of his feminist foreign policy, yet the Trudeau government continues to defend the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia despite allegations of human rights abuses that contravene Canadian regulations and an ongoing crackdown on Saudi feminists (Morris 2018). In a 2016 interview, Trudeau stated, “Now, what goes into the brand of a country? Well, obviously it’s not just environmental sustainability and good health care for our workers. It’s also human rights and respect for individuals. So it’s part of Canada’s identity that we stand up for human rights” (cited in Wells 2016). Yet in the same interview, he suggested that Canada would look like a “banana republic” if it canceled the contract and would get a bad name in international circles – in other words, it would hurt the brand.
• Despite a longstanding pledge to return to active peacekeeping, it took the Trudeau government two years to finally decide to support the UN mission in Mali, though it appears to be far less than what was promised, and the government has not yet determined benchmarks for success (Naumetz 2018).
• Perhaps most significantly, Trudeau’s welcoming of Syrian refugees – “you are home”– informed the idea that Canada was back, as seen in David Parkin’s November 2015 editorial cartoon that graces our cover. This idea created a sharp contrast between Canada and the United States following Donald Trump’s election in 2016. After President Trump announced a controversial migration ban in January 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau tweeted, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” While this cemented the fusion of Trudeau’s and Canada’s brand, the growing number of refugee claimants arriving at non-official border crossings since Trudeau’s tweet led to a large increase in inquiries from abroad that the government and diplomats abroad had difficulties addressing (Smith 2018). The influx of refugees since the tweet overwhelmed the system to the point that the government developed a new communications strategy seeking to discourage some people from coming to Canada. Thus, while social media have the potential to enhance public diplomacy and branding efforts, as discussed in two of our articles, it remains that once a tweet is made, the messenger can lose control of its meaning and interpretation. Political use of social media can therefore also negatively affe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• 1 Introduction: Is Canada back? Brand Canada in a turbulent world
• 2 The brand image of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in international context
• 3 All about that base? Branding and the domestic politics of Canadian foreign aid
• 4 Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy: to whom is Canada back?
• 5 Friend or faux? Trudeau, Indigenous issues and Canada’s brand
• 6 Predicting the North: sovereignty and the Canadian brand in the Arctic
• 7 Canada’s foreign policy and bureaucratic (un)responsiveness: public diplomacy in the digital domain
• 8 The evolving complementarity of nation-branding and public diplomacy: projecting the Canada brand through “weibo diplomacy” in China
• 9 Où donc le Canada est-il de retour dans le monde?
• 10 “Canada’s back” – can the Trudeau government resuscitate Canadian diplomacy?
• 11 Conclusion: Don’t look back: they might be gaining on you
• Index