A brand to remember

One of the first assignments I undertook in my new role as Reports and Policy Specialist with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Partnerships Bureau was to lead a revamping of the UNDP Partner Survey. It's an appraisal of the opinions and perceptions of what the organization does in the eyes of our donor countries, programme countries and beneficiaries. Admittedly, I am a writer, editor and I would even go so far as to say human resources practitioner -- survey expert or perception guru I am not.

But I can spot an opportunity when it arises. Over the last several years, what has become obvious is that UNDP has lost the plot regarding its brand. We're surveying people, but the results have shown continued muddiness around what the organization does because, well, it doesn't actually understand itself. With the arrival of former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark as the new UNDP Administrator, the time is right for a rebranding exercise, which will re-invigorate a sense of purpose among staff members.

It occurred to me immediately that Canada is also in desperate need of brand re-invigoration.

One could argue that Canada had begun establishing its 'brand' as early as World War I, but it was in the mid-50s, when Lester Pearson spearheaded efforts to diffuse the Suez Crisis through a United Nations emergency force, that our nation began to forge a very distinct brand attribute: neutral peace broker. The world recognized this, and Pearson was awarded the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize. He was unwavering in his conviction:

"The stark and inescapable fact is that today we cannot defend our society by war since total war is total destruction, and if war is used as an instrument of policy, eventually we will have total war. Therefore, the best defense of peace is not power, but the removal of the causes of war, and international agreements which will put peace on a stronger foundation than the terror of destruction."

These words still ring true. Unfortunately for Canada, in the post-911 world and in the hands of bigoted ideologues (our government) and the mindless patriots of the Nintendo generation (certainly the young people supporting our government), terrorism is as good as any 'cause of war' deserving removal. Insanity? Yes, but also a different blog post.

More importantly, intellectuals, community leaders and politicians across Canada had the good sense to take Pearson's 'neutral peace broker' and build upon it. They added progressive, safe, clean, peaceful, orderly and stable. And they solidified these new brand attributes by ensuring their actions were consistent with each, helping define (our sometimes staid) national character. But give me staid and progressive over disorderly, underhanded, power hungry and ideological any day of the week -- in fact, last week would have been a good time to start.

I was mortified that outspoken British MP George Galloway was refused entry into Canada. Mr. Galloway, regardless of how the federal government sees him, has a legitimate and dissenting opinion that Canadians deserve to hear. The excuse for denied entry given by government officials was support he provided to Hamas, which despite being on a Canadian terror organization blacklist, was democratically elected in 2006. William Ayers, a University of Illinois professor who was to speak at a Toronto conference last January, was also kept out of Canada. Thanks for your censorship, Mr. Harper.

And now, as reported by CBC online, a Canadian stuck in Sudan, Abousfian Abdelrazik, was denied a replacement passport "on the basis of national security," according to Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. Hang on, wasn't he screened BEFORE getting a Canadian passport? Sudan is no picnic -- leaving a Canadian citizen there, even with some misgivings on his or her past, is not only irresponsible, it sends the wrong message on the stability, respect and value of a Canadian passport. If Abdelrazik is a national security threat, he at least deserves a fair hearing by a Canadian judiciary and in full view of his Canadian peers. Bring him home, give him the level of security needed, allow him fair and due process, and then make a transparent and accountable decision on his future. Leaving him stranded not only creates resentment by a man and his community in Canada, it sends the wrong message about our country.

I suppose, in light of the last sentence and the action we've seen from Stephen Harper's government, this is exactly the kind of country Canada is and these are exactly the kind of Canadian attributes they're pushing. And, as each month slips by, another important, true Canadian brand attribute that has taken years to hone and perfect, is undermined or slips off the table entirely. Sorry to say it, we Canadians have also lost the plot. The image of our country is being remade right before our eyes, but whether or not that image is one most of us want to be associated with, and whether we're willing to do something about it, are entirely different questions.