I used to find the notion of nation-branding repugnant. I have now come to the conclusion that, for trade and investment purposes, there is tremendous value in developing a ‘national’ brand. I want to see Canada succeed economically, socially and environmentally, and I believe it has the capacity to export that success to other countries that can benefit from our knowledge and expertise. So brand away, Canada.

But in the realm of political or cultural activity, branding can be a dangerous oversimplification. We all know that brands are shortcuts that allow people to make choices based not on careful consideration, but on the comfort that comes from recognition. Like seeing a familiar face in a crowd of strangers.

And while your country may seem like a familiar face, especially when you’ve been away from it for a while, it’s a far more complicated phenomenon than, say, a can of beans. Or a car. Or even a piece of advanced, complex technology. Hence it tends to resist the handy labels that we commonly associate with brands.

Because they are a form of consumer shorthand, brands demand simplification. Ad gurus Jack Trout and Al Ries have said it for over 20 years: you can only own one idea in people’s minds. Find the right one and stick to it and you’ve got a chance at beating the competition.

We have also been told for decades that there are too many brands out there, too much choice. It’s a stress-inducing situation, having all this choice. So it’s even more important to keep it simple – and different. Reduce stress, eliminate the need to think, and help create an instantaneous emotional response.

Such are the exigencies of commerce, but what of politics? With the commencement of America’s invasion of Iraq, we are in a very similar situation. War is the ultimate stress producer. Except at the highest strategic levels, it does not invite careful consideration, but swift, decisive action. And it requires unflinching emotional support. Thus its supporters employ the black-and-white simplicity of good vs. evil, God vs. heathen, us vs. them. Or, ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us.’

It’s this last statement that demonstrates the dangers of oversimplification, and of making nations into brands. Canada has officially disagreed with America on the necessity for war in Iraq. And already, we have business leaders and journalists warning us that there will be negative economic repercussions for Canada because of this decision. They are most probably right. With over 85% of our trade happening south of the border, we are in a vulnerable position.

Many American politicians have wrapped themselves in the flag when they feel economically threatened by other countries. Conversely, they have also been known to use their economic power as a political weapon. Look at Cuba for the last 44 years.

While it may be absurd to think of Ottawa as the next Havana, it is not so extreme to suggest, as ‘Report on Business’ columnist Eric Reguly did on day one of Desert Bowl II, that the branch-plant economy called Canada is bound to wither somewhat in the aftermath of this war. Because we said we’re not ‘with’ them.

This is where the simplification hurts, because the complex reality is that we actually have ships in the Gulf, and troops on the ground in Afghanistan. But because of the official policy of the Liberal government on Iraq, the perception of brand Canada may be that it has turned against its best friend. How soon they forget.

It is ironic because the big, simple idea behind brand America has always been liberty. But what has this really meant? Has it meant that she respects the liberty of her allies to say ‘no’ when they believe that America is making the wrong choice? Or has it meant the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you agree with her?

Conversely, can we say that, based on Canada’s decision, the big idea behind our national brand is peace? I’m not so sure. Many historians say that brand Canada came of age on the battlefields of Ypres and Vimy Ridge. Hardly peaceful imagery. We have not shied away from violence, either domestically or internationally. No, I don’t believe we can wrap our nation in the flag of peace.

Branding nations for the purposes of trade and investment makes sense. But branding them for the purposes of wielding military power is never a good idea. The former builds prosperity. The latter destroys lives, before, during and after the conflict. Is that simple enough?

Will Novosedlik is a Toronto-based brand strategist. He can be reached at novosedlik@hotmail.com.