First published on 17.02.2008.
George Clooney campaigning for SaveDarfur.org.
We have seen in recent times an enormous extension of the global reach for celebrity activists. The leading lights of this phenomenon seem to be everywhere doing everything. George Clooney, after the announcement of his selection as a United Nations’ Messenger of Peace, embarked on an ambitious tour of UN peacekeeping missions in Darfur, Chad and the Democratic Mission of the Congo. Clooney followed up on this activity with a trip to India where he met Vijay Singh, the Indian Defence Secretary along with UN assistant secretary for Peacekeeping operations Jane Hall Lute. The Oscar winning actor paid special attention to the training of peacekeepers, as witnessed by his visit to the South-Western Army command at Jaipur the home base for the majority of the Indian peacekeeping personnel.
With even more publicity, Angelina Jolie landed in Baghdad in her capacity as a UN goodwill ambassador for the UNHRC. Although this was supposed to be a technical- oriented mission, with a focus on the plight of the 2 million internally displaced Iraqis, the tour was most notable for the manner by which the Hollywood was able to gain ready access at the highest level of the political an military hierarchy. Not only did she gain a bilateral with Gen. David Patraeus, the top US military commander in Iraq, she gained an audience with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as well.
These cases are enough to indicate that celebrity activism is both complementing and challenging traditional forms of statecraft. Old school national diplomats talk about public diplomacy. But they still are most comfortable operating behind closed doors or when they appear in the media with set scripts. Celebrities know by their own career paths – and through the sophisticated experts with which they surround themselves – how to work the media. Even staged as a quintessential form of ‘quiet’ diplomacy Clooney’s tour elicited a huge amount of press attention. And Jolie’s trip to Iraq turned into another media frenzy.
Yet, while significant, Clooney and Jolie remain on the conformist side of celebrity activism. Both have chosen to work though established institutions, an approach exaggerated in the case of Jolie by her appointment to the elite-based Council on Foreign Relations. Both hint at criticisms of state-based foreign policy activity, whether on Darfur or Iraq, but neither makes the jump to outright confrontation either with the US or indeed other national governments, such as the Sudanese regime with its deplorable record. Nor does this type of celebrity diplomat place huge weight on making substantive policy recommendations, never mind taking instrumental actions themselves. The bias is very much on fact finding activities, listening far more than talking or doing.
If there is to be a cutting edge in this activity it will inevitably come from two other components of the larger construct of celebrity activism, also very much in the news. From one side comes the decidedly confrontational face epitomized by Mia Farrow. Unlike George Clooney or Angelina Jolie there is nothing in Mia Farrow’s campaign that smacks of conformity. With a skill that the most canny traditional diplomat can appreciate she has transcended what was originally a marginal position on Darfur into a highly effective campaign. The key ingredient in her repertoire has been the power of linkage. Instead of taking the Sudanese government head on, she has turned the attention onto Khartoum’s main backer, the People’s Republic of China. And she has been able to exploit Beijing’s sensitive spot via its hosting of the 2008 Olympics. Her successful appeal to Steven Spielberg to step down from his role as one of the overseas artistic advisers to the opening and closing ceremonies of those games is just the latest and most visible sign of how this campaign is gaining ground.
Darfur will certainly be a key test of whether celebrity activism has effectiveness on the international stage. But, while not completely unique, it is unlikely that this type of mobilization will be reproduced in every trouble spot in the world. If he humanitarian crisis in Darfur reveals the possibilities of celebrity mobilization on select issues it also reinforces the limits on where this type of action can and should be applied. Pushing on Darfur does not stretch into action on the Middle East of the Korean peninsular.
It is on the structural issues relating to such matters as health governance not the mediatory gap of diplomacy where the other component of celebrity diplomacy has gained considerable traction. The face that stands out here is that of Bono, the U2 lead singer and hyperactive celebrity activist cum diplomat. The risk that Bono has to deal with is not that he is too confrontational but that he has become too much the insider with an unpopular political leader, President George W. Bush. Where other American celebrities (above all Oprah Winfrey) have given strong endorsements to Barack Obama,Bono has displayed a strong loyalty to President Bush on the grounds that he has delivered on his long-term promises to Africa, especially on AIDS treatment. Not content with providing President Bush with a strong verbal endorsement before the start of his so- called legacy tour of Africa this week, there is some speculation that Bono (or alternatively Bono’s partner Bob Geldof) will accompany President Bush for part of the trip.
The buzz that celebrity activism provides certainly cannot be discounted. While traditional statecraft is usually opaque to the uninitiated, celebrities mesh international problem solving with the world of entertainment. But some components of this phenomenon provide not just a different sort of excitement. They offer some prospect of hope that issues too long neglected can be ratcheted up on the global agenda. Sometimes, as Mia Farrow’s efforts on Darfur, this means pushing fast and hard beyond the accepted notions of sovereignty, where governments are found wanting in terms of their responsibilities to protect minorities. Naming and shaming by such a celebrity personalizes this type of crisis in a decisive manner unavailable to different sorts of internationally engaged actors. Other celebrities, above all Bono, confront the credibility (and fatigue) factor by playing a longer game, privileging areas of public goods that fall by the wayside in a state-centric and still hierarchical diplomatic system. The two faces remain, however, dualistic sides of the same phenomenon, trying to add some tangible and selective bite to the generalized buzz factor common across the spectrum from Mia Farrow and Bono to George Clooney and Angelina Jolie.
