President Lee Myung-bak said Friday that he would make the country more respected abroad by improving the national image and reputation.
The President was referring to the low value of the country's nation brand, which falls far short of its economic power and pulls down Korea's overall competitiveness, a comment both timely and to the point.
However, Lee also announced a presidential committee to drastically lift the country's brand power over his term.
Considering a nation's image and reputation are formed over a long time and the inherent limitations to artificially changing them over a short period, however, President Lee's ``bulldozer-like" administrative style might fail in this area, resulting in more trial and error.
Korea's low nation brand is problematic indeed. According to the Anholt-GfK Roper nation brand index, Korea's nation brand was worth $351 billion, about 37 percent of GDP. The ratio was 224 percent for Japan, 143 percent for the United States and 145 percent for the Netherlands. Korea's index ranking has also kept falling from 25th place in 2005 to 27th in 2006 and 32nd last year.
Six factors are considered in computing the nation brand index ― people, governance, investment and immigration, culture and heritage, tourism and exports. Koreans will easily see which categories are their strong and weak points.
While talking about the nation brand issue, President Lee said street protests and labor strikes are two scenes that come to the minds of foreigners when they hear this country's name.
President Lee is partially right. Korean labor militancy is well known all over the world and candlelight protests have continued almost as long as he has been in office. But he needs to see not only the ostensible phenomenon but also the underlying cause. If his ``brand Korea" is just aimed at toughening crackdowns on civil protests, it is just another confusion of essence with its outward appearance.
Of the six criteria, Korea's exports are strong enough, and probably its only strong point, along with traditional culture and heritage, though their development and preservation leave much to be desired. The problems lie with the other four.
Korea's overseas investment, especially in humanitarian and official development aid, is the lowest in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Participation in international peacekeeping operations remains in a nascent stage. Discrimination against immigrant workers is also a major negative.
The governance section is probably the most problematic part, as this country is often called a ``republic of corruption," due mainly to collusion among politicians, bureaucrats and big business.
Lingering xenophobia will be of no help to improve foreigners' perception of Koreans, either.
It is certain that a new presidential committee for brand Korea will focus on governmental or national PR abroad, while improving domestic tourism infrastructure and other short-term policy tasks.
The government's perspective in this regard, however, should be longer and more fundamental. The focus should be on removing corruption and taking the lead in upgrading observance of rule of law and public norms as well as educating the younger generation to become open-minded global citizens.
A policy oriented toward quick results will come nowhere near to achieving this long-term task.