Updates
News
| Press Releases |
| Video Feeds |
| e-CIVICUS Newsletters |
| CIVICUS e-Newsletters |
| Desk of the Secretary General |
Membership Lounge Login
 Celebrity Diplomacy Between
Engagement And EntrapmentBy Renate Bloem, CIVICUS UN Representative in Geneva "What role can celebrities play in world politics and how seriously should they be taken in world affairs? Do celebrities' media power and related transparency serve decision-making in global affairs?" These were some of the questions we discussed at the international Conference 'Celebrity Diplomacy, Unconventional Ways of International Politics', held on 30-31 October at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague, The Netherlands. The Clingendael Institute combines a think tank and training institute on International Affairs and is renowned for its international diplomatic training programmes and research in the field of security, diplomacy and global governance. The aim of this conference was to examine the trend of celebrities taking up their role as advocates of public goods and thereby entering into the world of diplomacy and global governance. The organizers gathered an audience of academics, policy makers of international organisations, civil society representatives and journalists who, they felt, were somehow qualified to contribute to the ‘celebrity-diplomat' theme, to discuss more in-depth the opportunities, consequences and challenges of this development. My role as Past President of Conference of NGOs (CONGO) and CIVICUS UN Representative was to be the discussant to the keynote of Professor Andrew Cooper who is the first author having delivered a more substantial publication on this fast evolving phenomenon[i]. Cooper traces celebrities' commitment - encouraged by UN involvement - to humanitarian causes and their action on the world stage from Audrey Hepburn to Angelina Jolie. He mostly concentrates on the ability of personalities such as Bono and Geldorf or business leaders such as Bill Gates, Ted Turner or George Soros to gain access to world leaders, have a significant impact on policy, shaping the agenda on a wide range of global issues. The "buzz" and "bites", Hollywood Glitz and Corporate Tycoon financial bite, he argues, could develop into a considerable challenge to the legitimacy and efficiency of traditional modes of state-centred diplomacy, or at least redefine both the priorities and mechanisms of diplomacy. In my response I did not see celebrities as a contrast but rather as an add-on, complimentary influence, amplifier - when necessary- of the voice of civil society. Although celebrities were until now mostly of Western origin, reflecting Western or even US ways and culture, and could therefore sometimes been seen as patronizing, their joint forces to create more "hype", more attention, more focused and accelerated action through their checks or other philanthropy on the huge problems of our time, particular on hunger, poverty and AIDS, could only be seen as helpful and welcomed. However, in the current context of financial meltdown and multiple other crises, such as the food and energy crisis, leading to a form of what Ban Ki-moon has coined the emergency development, - and with it nevertheless to a welcomed renaissance of state-power - , one has not heard so much from them, also not so much on the necessary change of paradigm for a more inclusive world order with more social justice, a call which global civil society has been trying to hammer down for years. The intense pro and cons discussions moved back and force between
and some of the dangers:
In break out groups we went beyond celebrities and discussed the role of new media and international politics; the international politics of networking; and trans-national advocacy and public diplomacy beyond the state. It was interesting to hear that in the new media: Internet, blogging etc was utilized to debate the issue, rather than to advocate what we should do about it. For example, on Al Gore and his film: ‘An inconvenient truth', bloggers debated if they can believe him, not what to do about climate change. On wartime in Afghanistan: the old media projected a very good image on the role of soldiers, while on Internet one heard the critical voices of the families. Internet also did not follow celebrities' (Mia Farrow or Jeffrey Sachs) call for the Beijing Olympic boycott, 85% in the new media were against it. On trans-national advocacy and public diplomacy beyond the state it was argued that for a number of reasons a trend toward trans-nationalization and supra-nationalization had been triggered in the wake of new global challenges. This trend implies an increase in both the scope and authority of trans-national and supra-national institutions and leads to the politicization of international institutions. This politicization led to increased global awareness of legitimacy problems in international politics and in many cases to societal opposition that might range from criticism to open resistance. Increasingly demands are made for more public involvement in the institutions of global governance. The above academic argument underscored what many NGO/CSOs believe - and not only since this last world crisis - that the international financial and economic system needs a new paradigm. In particular, it needs to be more democratic and less exploitative and has to incorporate more thoroughly the voice of civil and non-institutional stake holders in the shaping of global governance. The Conference concluded that Celebrity diplomacy is only one-but probably a new and certainly a very interesting-form of these dynamics and would clearly merit further research. We all agreed that the current world celebrity number one is Barak Obama, and at the eve of the US election we all wished him plenty of success. [i] Andrew f. Cooper, Celebrity Diplomacy, Boulder, London.: Paradigm Publishers, 2008 |