If you’d asked people a couple of weeks ago where Panama was located, they would probably say it’s somewhere on the American continent, but not be entirely sure where. They might have heard of the Panama Canal, but just like the one in Suez, we’ve all heard of it, but most can’t really point to it on a map.

But today the story is completely different. If you ask people about Panama, it’s very likely that they have heard of something called the ‘Panama Papers’, not the ‘Mossack Fonseca Papers’, which should be the real name, since this is a multinational firm based in Panama, but which, as the Guardian says ‘runs a worldwide operation.’

The Mossack Fonseca website boasts of a global network with 600 people working in 42 countries. It has franchises around the world, where separately owned affiliates sign up new customers and have exclusive rights to use its brand.”

This is one of those instances in which the news cycle, and media labelling, have had a profound effect on a nation’s brand. When looked at in detail, the activities shown in the Panama Papers deal more with the financial systems of tax havens (many of them British) such as the British Virgin Isles or Jersey, but the country getting most of the negative press is Panama; so much so that the French government reintroduced it into its list of countries failing to comply with anti-money laundering policies.

Now the odd thing is that according to the OCDE’s Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information “no jurisdiction is currently listed as an uncooperative tax haven by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs.” This is funny if you read the Statement from OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría on the “Panama Papers”, where she states that “Panama is the last major holdout that continues to allow funds to be hidden offshore from tax and law enforcement authorities.” In reading the activities of Mossack Fonseca, one can clearly see that there are several countries still involved in “offshore tax evasion”, like Luxembourg, Switzerland and the British Overseas Territories.

One of the most interesting side effects from this scandal is its effect on the reputations of the countries involved. Take a look at Iceland, where the Prime Minister resigned due to popular protests. This sends a message across the world of a functioning democracy, where the people have a say and their voices matter.

In contrast, Russia’s response simply reaffirms the image of a totalitarian regime controlled by the Kremlin, with similar stories from China, Azerbaijan and Iran – hardly a surprise. The undecided factor right now is the United Kingdom, where the people have yet to decide if Prime Minister David Cameron should resign, due to his father’s use of offshore trust funds to evade taxes.

But any way you look at it, the biggest loser here is Panama, so much so that even its internal image is hurt, as can be seen in this mock tourism campaign by Panamanian satirical web TV channel “La Cáscara TV” “#PanamaIsMoreThanPapers”.

Should the Panamanian government be doing more than issuing bland remarks from President Varela about “continued cooperation” with international tax authorities? Remarks that fall short of the mark since Panama is the only big tax haven that has not agreed to implement the “common reporting standard” proposed by the OECD and already agreed to by 96 countries.

Is there a way to turn this sudden interest in the Central American nation into a positive opportunity? It seems unlikely, but you never know.

By Daniel Reyes

Daniel Reyes is former Chief Communications Officer of the Colombia Country Brand Office. He now works as a private consultant in strategic communications, with an emphasis on place brands in the digital sphere. Follow Daniel on Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn.

See more posts by this author

Some places have bad reputations and most tourists avoid them. Although these places can be menacing, they can also be compelling. Even more so when you remember how they used to be.

Perhaps war zones or rugged areas where rebel groups lurk, nations with unfriendly governments, or otherwise unstable locations where conflict has recently ended.

But the places are intriguing because they weren’t always like that. Once upon a time every place had its heyday. Did the outside world perceive these places differently during times of peace and prosperity?

Take Syria and Iraq, now unrecognisable shadows of their former selves, cursed with reputations for war and suffering. Long ago, Baghdad was one of the most magnificent cities in the Islamic world, where the heart of an Empire beat during the golden age of Islam. In those days, Baghdad was known for its scholars, its philosophers, and its innovators.

The Syrian cities of Damascus, Aleppo and Homs are some of the world’s most ancient, where civilisation itself may have begun. Their present suffering is painful to observe.

Somalia, whose capital city Mogadishu was once the pre-eminent city in the Horn of Africa, making a fortune from its role as a major trading port with the Arabian Peninsula and India. For a long time, Somali Muslims and Ethiopian Christians lived peacefully side by side.

During the Middle Ages, Somalia became a prosperous trading nation where Islam gained power and flourished. In the 1940s, Somalia was an Italian colony home to over 22,000 Italians. The standard of living was one of the highest in the region, partly thanks to a well-developed manufacturing industry.

Somalia later passed into the hands of the British, and finally gained its independence in 1960. But a military coup in 1969 and subsequent establishment of a communist state heralded the beginning of Somalia’s slow descent into chaos and failed statehood.

Afghanistan: known in the 1950s and 60s as a progressive nation where innovation was encouraged, where women’s equality was enshrined in law, and where young people went to university to pursue their dreams. All were free to do so unhindered by religious and political fanaticism.

During the final years of the Afghanistan invasion, British Defence Secretary Liam Fox referred to Afghanistan as ‘a broken 13th century country.’ He was totally wrong.

But unfortunately, Fox’s view reflects common perceptions of Afghanistan and its inhabitants, who are often believed to be ungovernable barbarians living in a chaotic land. This dangerously inaccurate view informs much of Western foreign policy towards Afghanistan and countries like it.

In 2010, Afghan-American university president Mohammad Qayoumi, who left Afghanistan in the 1960s, is determined to educate the world about the country he knows and loves, as it used to be.

Qayoumi put together a compelling photo essay, ‘Once Upon a Time in Afghanistan’, full of images of an unrecognisable nation.  The photos of William Podlich reflect Qayoumi’s original theme, this time showing Afghanistan from the perspective of an American family living there in the 60s.

Examining both collections is an uplifting and thought-provoking experience, yet at the same time melancholy. The images show female university students in Kabul wearing skirts without headscarves, studying science alongside their male peers, socialising at cinemas and coffee shops, and shopping at record stores stacked with the latest Afghan and international hits.

Podlich’s pictures show Americans interacting normally with Afghans on the street in a relaxed manner, even one where Podlich’s wife is wearing a sleeveless Western dress.

According to Qayoumi, 1960s Afghanistan had an efficient and organised government, a vibrant economy, and a strong tradition of law and order. Institutions such as the national airline, Ariana Afghan Airlines, were reliable and well regarded internationally. Overall, Afghanistan had a decent reputation.

In fact, Afghanistan of the 1960s had many of the ingredients for success. Its people had every reason to expect a bright future during these halcyon days.

How tragic it is, to see the state of these nations today after decades of war, communism, and religious extremism have taken their toll. These are the most common driving factors of civilisational retrograde and they have caused immense destruction.

There are no excuses or justifications. The wasted potential is immense, both for the countries and for their people. Innovation, freedom of speech, modernity, fair governance, justice, all summed up into a strong, clearly communicated nation image, are necessary for any civilisation wishing to thrive in the 21st century.

Any force that tries to deny them that opportunity is not a force for good. Let us hope that one day these battered civilisations will rise up again on the global playing field of a new century.

“Who knows?” said Qayoumi in a 2010 interview with NPR. “Maybe in 20 years from today, we can look at a very different Afghanistan, where we can look at the pictures of today — and see that same kind of stark contrast that we can see now with the pictures of the 1950s and ’60s.”

As an old Afghan saying goes: “A stream that has seen water before will see water in the future also.”

Perhaps by showing the world a different side of these much-maligned nations, we can help to lay the groundwork for their eventual rebirth and regaining of lost reputations.