Celebrity's, Are They Worth It? (Week 13)

I went into this week's discussion convinced of the futility of celebrity's choosing a cause and making it their public crusade; however based on the interaction in class I am now less sure. I believed that celebrities were largely amateurs doing professional's work and distracting the public with 'feel good' causes which largely caused us in the mass citizenry to avoid confronting the hard problems because we had already helped with Bono, Bon Jovi, or Ben Affleck. I saw Katherine's point that some more significant celebrities such as the pope, may be able to motivate large populations to do good; however I still questioned the long term impact of those efforts.

I walked away last night with the feeling that I had been missing something all along. I believe now that as was mentioned, with great power comes great responsibility; so then, these people with the access to the media, money and a fan base, should use that to maximize the good of all humans. While these celebrities likely do detract from other 'more significant' causes, or only cause short term spikes in interest; the fact of the matter is they are actually doing some good. And at the end of the day, some good is better than no good. We cannot prove that the people who 'felt good' after helping some actor/singer would have done anything at all if left to their own devices, so then I should be more careful about saying that celebrities are not good for anything in the realm of aid and diplomacy.

I do still have concerns about amateurs doing professional's work. More needs to be done to educate those who latch onto a cause, and we should demand that true experts be given access to decision makers such as Congress if there is a celebrity being invited. We should encourage these celebrities to act as the face of a movement, not the leader of it; they should leave that to people who are trained and experienced in the field.

The Celebrity of Religion (Week 13)

I'm greatly looking forward to our next class as we'll discuss the role of celebrities in international relations. During the last class I had briefly brought up the perspective of viewing religious leaders as celebrities and I'd like to preemptively reflect upon that idea.

Both readings on celebrity diplomacy questioned how seriously we should take celebrity diplomats as well as examined their legitimacy and lack of accountability to a trusted measure. These diplomats seem to embody a public phenomenon that has great capacity to affect change but lacking a perfect solution to the problems they confront. In addition, they lack personal credibility as they are self-appointed, not elected and often lead very different lives in the spotlight and out of it.

Religious leaders have the same capacity as celebrity diplomats as well as the same shortcomings when compared to political diplomats. Lets look at the most famous religious leader as an example: The Catholic Pope.

Pope Francis is the current leader of the Roman Catholic Church which is the largest christian church in the world with over 1Billion adherents. Catholics are expected to be represented in every country on every continent of the world crossing over all living generations, age groups and genders. One could easily argue the same for Bono and his U2 fans but not necessarily the same of a diplomat such as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The Pope resides in Vatican City which holds a population of less than 1000 people yet receives millions of dollars on a weekly basis from adherents around the world. Such an income measures Vatican City as the richest state in the world. This money is spent in support of churches and their members throughout the world as well as the Pope's doctrines, usually expressed in the form of encyclicals. In May 2015 for example, Pope Francis published an encyclical 'On Care for our Common Home' which addressed issues of climate change the the moral obligation catholics and non-catholics alike should feel towards protecting our planet. Such a profound document, received and revered by a network of 1Billion plus "followers" around the world was a huge catalyst for the eventual support of the November 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. Other similar systems of influence played a large part in the normalization of relations between the US and Cuba. These are just a few of the international causes one Catholic Pope has touched upon during his lifetime. However, Popes have been involved in international affairs since the birth of the church in the 1st century.

Of course, not everybody believes what a Catholic Pope says is truth. Many believe their words are mislead and utterly false. The Pope is claimed to be the highest figure on a strict hierarchy to God within the Catholic tradition. This means that he is really only accountable to God and no earthly being. In addition, it is by the same unaccountable grace of God that legitimizes every Papal election through the votes of fellow Cardinals. In addition, the very doctrine of the Christian tradition is that one must have faith it its truth because that truth cannot be proved to a human. As a result, the world has a completely accepted system whereas a single man leads over a billion people and the wealthiest state in the world while basing his claim on an unprovable idea. How can so many people support the legitimacy of a man through mere faith? Does it matter if what he teaches leads to a diplomatic nightmare if such a significant part of the world's population believe he is held accountable to higher power that only reveals itself to the Pope? They have the capacity but do they always have a solution that everybody would agree upon? I don't think so.

This is just one example that we can parallel with the criticism and praise of a celebrity diplomat such as Bono. There are many more including the birth of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the rise of ISIS, etc. In class I had specifically mentioned the Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch's participation in the Euromaidan revolution in 2013. If anybody is interested in reading more about the social influences of the Orthodox Churches throughout the history of Ukraine, here is a great article: http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/03/23/the-church-in-the-bloodlands/#arvlbdata

Celebrity Activists

The class discussion about a global civil society was interesting, however, I wish we would have had more time to discuss NGOs and their work during class. Andrew made some good points that not every NGO is the same and that in order to analyze how effective they are, several questions have to be raised.

I am really looking forward to next week’s class and the discussion about celebrity activists, and the Dieter and Kumar and Cooper readings. While I understand Dieter and Kumar’s point, I cannot fully agree with them. They criticize Bono and Jeffrey Sachs and their ideas to increase the amount aid to the developing countries. They believe that aid should actually be reduced (2008, 261). However, cutting off aid to the developing world is not the right answer, either. Instead of just giving the developing countries the aid money and let them do with it what they want, the aid money should be used to help the people in the developing world so that they can learn how to help themselves. Money should be invested in programs that, for example, train the locals how to build water wells. Dieter and Kumar do not explain in their criticism if Bono and Jeffrey Sachs just want to increase aid money regardless of what the money is used for, or if they actually want to increase aid money because they believe that the aid money should be invested in programs so that these countries can learn how to help themselves.

Celebrities like Bono are often criticized for using their celebrity status to raise awareness about issues and misdirecting global activism (Andrew F. Cooper 2007, 129). However, because they are celebrities they can reach a lot more people and make them aware of issues. When U2 wrote the song about Aung San Suu Kyi in 2000, for example, they wanted to make more people aware of what’s going on in Myanmar and that a woman fighting for democracy was put into house arrest by the military government. After the song was released a lot more people knew about Aung San Suu Kyi’s fate. The government in Myanmar even banned the album with the song because it had such a powerful message.

References

Cooper, Andrew F. 2007. “Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom: Celebrity Diplomacy.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 8, no. 2 (Summer): 125-132. Accessed November 21, 2016. https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Cooper+-+Beyond+Hollywood+%26+the+Boardroom.pdf

Dieter, Heribert and Rajiv Kumar. 2008. “The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development.” Global Governance 14, no. 3 (July-September): 259-264. Accessed November 21, 2016. https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Dieter+%26+Kumar+-+The+Downside+of+Celebrity+Diplomacy.pdf

The inclusive internet & NGO effectiveness (Week 12)

I'd like to elaborate on two points that wove in and out of our conversation during the week 12 live session. First, the inclusive nature of the internet and second, what makes an NGO effective. I believe these two topics are connected in very interesting ways.

First, I was greatly disturbed in class by our ability to discuss the the influence of the internet on international relations and how it supports a more globalized world. Many of us pointed out that we can all be connected via the internet and very intimately connected using social media, skype, and e-messaging systems. I cannot deny that such an interconnectedness, ease of communication and idea sharing brings us an abundance of opportunities and I am wholeheartedly supportive of free education for all people. However, it was disturbing that we praised these new opportunities without acknowledging the danger and falsehoods that comes with them. As spider-man teaches us, with great power comes great responsibility, and I believe that our conversations around the internet should focus more on how to effectively use it rather that the great abilities it presents us. What are the ethics of using the internet and how can we use it both responsibly and effectively to benefit the entire world? For example, social media enabled masses of Egyptians to unite and gather effectively enough to topple their government during the Arab Spring of 2011. Similar means were used to galvanize the diverse and tolerant young democratic American citizens to get out and vote for the US's first black president in 2008 and then again for the most inexperienced president in the history of the US in 2016. In addition, ISIS was able to spread its message to recruit young to it's radical islamic sect via youtube videos across the world despite their lack of funds and small original population. While the benefits of the internet is abundantly clear, widely accepted as commonplace and deeply integrated into our plans for the future, it is not clear how to interact with such a delicate inclusive nature knowing that it can be used for bad just as easily as good.

Second, the last question that was posed to class was very interesting to me and really touched upon a lot of the controversial issues we've discussed over the semester. The professor asked, how are NGOs effective? Such a question dives deeply into our previous conversation on legitimacy, authority and sovereignty. My immediate thought was very practical: if the NGO isn't operating in the red and there is a demand for its product, it is successful. I stand by this answer and think what the professor truly wanted to ask the class was, how can we judge an NGO's mission? This type of question begs a response regarding the benefits and criticisms of an NGO's mission, not just its business plan. Invisible Children Inc., is a great example to discuss in this light. Invisible Children Inc., produced a documentary called Kony 2012 that galvanized an appetite for bipartisan collaboration, desire to save the world and surf a wave of celebrity diplomacy. The film earned millions of dollars of revenue, so much online support that platforms couldn't handle the interest, and convinced both the US and AU to send troops to confront the films evil protagonist, Joseph Kony. By many measures of success, these results embody a successful NGO. However, in later years as the story developed and spread across the globe, inconsistencies arose in the facts, inspirations for more violence were found and Joseph Kony achieved a celebrity status. Most notably, all the efforts put forth to vilify and educate the world on the atrocities committed by Kony did not lead to his capture. Is this the result of an effective NGO?

As we continue to think about NGO effectiveness this week, the public sphere, celebrities and the internet, I think it is crucial to discuss these more controversial points on how all these elements interact like the examples I've raised in this blog rather than reiterate their banal characteristics.

Week 12 - Readings +International Relations and Celebrities

I enjoyed our class discussion this week on the global public society and am looking forward to discussing further about celebrities and their influence this week.  I think the discussion of celebrities and internet would be interesting - would the celebrities have as big of a reach without social media and the internet? I enjoyed the Dieter and Kumar article as it points out some questions regarding competence when it come to celebrities involved in international relations. I think they also raise a good point about aid money needing to be combined with strategy, not just money because looking historically that has not been as successful in the long term.

I agree with Cooper however who does raise questions about celebrities as diplomats, but does not completely write them off like Dieter and Kumar. They make a good point about celebrity diplomats being able to engage with the masses and state officials, something that officials generally have a harder time doing.  At my last job at an NGO working with refugees, our focus was on empowering a vulnerable population, which often required educating volunteers to what it meant to “empower” as they often wanted to provide aid instead of teaching and making a bigger impact in the long-term. I think this is the same with celebrities who lack education on how best to assist, with accountability and strategy with the goal of long-term independence from outside assistance. I look forward to further discussing this in class this week.

The Celebrity Humanitarian- Week 12 Blog

I’ve been looking forward to these class readings since Professor Shirk mentioned that we’d be talking about Bono and celebrity diplomacy at some point in the course. As mentioned in the Cooper and Dieter & Kumar readings, celebrities often show up in my line of work, aid and development. A coworker of mine has a famous (in his circle of friends) story of Matt Dillon showing up at his office in South Sudan one day and my coworker having no idea who he was for the first 20 minutes of the encounter. According to Cooper, celebrity diplomats are likely here to stay. Celebrity diplomats/aid workers/ambassadors/humanitarians seem to be popping up all over the place. My question is the same as Dieter and Kumar: is this a good thing?

Dieter and Kumar hit the nail on the head early for me when they talk about reality being more complex than the black/white, good/bad narrative delivered by celebrity ambassadors to a media that seeks easy answers. Aid is hard, development is hard. Responding to complex disasters is, well, complex. It requires real professional skills to do well and requires more than just running around saving babies. When you lose the nuance and complexity of the work, the public thinks this are easy to fix and is outraged when every Haitian isn’t in a well-organized camp 4 weeks after the earthquake. (Aid workers were busy driving around Sean Penn, just sayin')

Dedication and commitment (Angelina, Bono, Clooney, Affleck) don’t make expertise. It’s not professional snobbery to say that the work is hard and complex and requires professional skills, it’s taking seriously work that effects real people’s lives and wanting to do it as well as possible. To have good intentions doesn’t make you qualified to do the work.

I think this gets to a deeper point about aid work/development/international relations. The way we talk about the world and global issues matters. It matters if we say that a whole continent is poor and we could solve their issues quickly. It matters if we say that money can cure everything and don’t talk about nuance of history and ethnicity and inequality and gender roles. It makes it seem like the billions of people in the world living in poverty are just too silly or backwards minded to do it themselves.

While there are many challenges with the celebrity diplomat/humanitarian, I think there are opportunities to use them well. And I say use them well intentionally. They have a place of power and a platform, and they can allow this platform to be used by the voiceless. If a celebrity is willing to come and see the suffering of others, to witness, listen, be humble in their learning, and then share what they have seen, I don’t think that’s a terrible idea. It’s human and can be good and gets a message out. But to say that they are professionals or qualified to recommend aid policies when meeting with heads of state is a bit of a stretch.

Facebook -- The Bane of a Global Public Sphere

Thinking through whether there is or is not a global public sphere I am reminded of this election, and how sometimes it seems like we don’t even have a national public sphere because everything has become so fragmented that there is almost nothing in common between a Trump supporter and a Clinton one, much less Johnson holdouts or Stein advocates. If national public spheres are disappearing, or at least shrinking, is it then possible to have a global public sphere?

From Facebook to the spread of personalized news, and a desire to avoid being around people who are not exactly like us, people in the U.S. are ceasing to have common ground with their neighbors and associates. If one is not exactly like us then we don’t seem to have a use for them, and often view them with hostility. This is magnified when dealing with foreigners, those not a part of our countries almost seem to need the exact same interests as us in order to be accepted. So then, while we may have more opportunities to create global common ground, having anything coherently resembling a global public sphere seems even more distant than before. 

Week 10- Impermeability and Privatization

One of the things we talked about this week in class was the privatization and outsourcing of traditional state activities. We asked whether this undermines the state and whether all things can be privatized? I think we generally concluded that privatization, to some extent, undermines the state, particularly when it comes to privatizing use of force and the loss of control of critical economic actors. We disagreed on whether this could lead to the total collapse of the state and sovereignty as we know it, but generally agreed that to an extent it undermines the state.

As we were talking about this, Andrew made a comment about impermeability and permeability which got me thinking. Generally, as Americans, I think our policy makers and elected officials view the state as more impermeable than permeable. We are a super power, we can do as we like, and we are self sufficient (at least this is what we say about ourselves, the conceptual mask we wear). And yet, the US seems to be much looser about privatization than other powerful states. Compared to Europe, where many critical functions of the society are in the hands of the state, the US has immense privatization. I think of prisons, farming and agriculture, private land ownership, health care (to a lesser extent now, but who knows in the future!), federal work which is contracted out, etc.

I wrote my memo about the potential merger of Monsanto and Bayer, and in the research discovered how much the US has allowed Monsanto to make decisions about the American food and seed supply through a business lens. Rather than maintaining state control and maintaining the freedom to take a more holistic (health, environment, business, economics) approach, the US has allowed Monsanto to act as a corporation despite how critical the food supply is to basic human survival.

If we see ourselves as impermeable and strong in the US, why do we privatize so much? If privatization undermines the state to some extent, wouldn't this be against our priorities to maintain impermeability? How can we be both impermeable and supportive of privatization? In part I think it comes along with a Keynesian economic perspective and another critical part of American society (or the idea of who we are) being the capitalist system. Maybe it's like so many other things in life, that we hold two things in tension and try to keep a balance. And maybe the balance has gone off a bit, but to me this seems like a glaring contradiction. I don't have an answer or solution for it, but I have been mulling it over since class.

Legitimacy of North Korea

During the class discussion the question was raised how a country like North Korea can have legitimacy and a group like ISIS cannot. Of course, one of the most important answers is that North Korea is recognized by the international community as a legitimate state and ISIS is not. But in order to answer the question why North Korea was recognized as a legitimate state (and ISIS is not), we have to look at the historical events that created North Korea as a state. Naeem Inayatullah stresses the importance of history in analyzing why states do not exercise positive sovereignty and are not taking care of their citizens. When looking at the history of North Korea, it can help to better understand how North Korea became a legitimate state.

The Korean peninsula was under Japanese occupation for 35 years until after the end of World War II. The allies decided what to do with Korea after Japan surrendered and divided the country at the 38^th parallel. After the war, the Soviet Union occupied the north and the US the south. After North Korea was officially established in 1948, the Soviet Union left the country to its own fate and North Korea decided to invade the south. After the war, the international community officially divided the two countries at the 38^th parallel again. While South Korea was recognized as a legitimate state soon after, North Korea was only recognized by communist states. However, many other, non-communist states decided to recognize North Korea as a legitimate state during the years following the war. Therefore, the occupation by foreign countries eventually led to the creation of two states, which eventually led to the legitimacy of North Korea.

On a side note, last weekend, my family and I drove to an observation point an hour north of Seoul. At this observation point, which is on a hill on top of a river that separates the two states, you not only have the chance to look at North Korea, but you also learn a little bit more about the history and the sad stories of family separation. There was a period under Kim Jon-Il where hope was raised for reunification. During the so-called sunshine years, railroad tracks were built from a town in the south of North Korea to a town in the south, and there were also family reunions made possible by the Red Cross. Unfortunately, however, the sunshine years ended when Kim Jon-Il decided to engage in nuclear proliferation. During this visit, I asked myself many times what would have happened had Japan not invaded Korea. What would have happened if the UN had not divided the two countries at the 38^th parallel and the Soviet Union had not occupied the north?

References

BBC. "North Korea Profile - Timeline." Accessed November 20, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612