Celebrities such as musicians, acors, and socialites are given privilege and access to opportunities that most will never have – especially when it comes to international affairs. Angelina Jolie Pitt has worked as
UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador
, contributed to the Council on Foreign relations (CFR) and spoken out for the legal rights young asylum seekers. Dennis Rodman has traveled to North Korea several times, met the Dear Leader, even sang ‘Happy Birthday’ to him and lived to tell the tale. The fact that these public figures, who have professions that traditionally operate outside the realm of international politics, affairs and policy, are using their platform to attempt some good, is admirable. The work that Ms. Jolie – Pitt has accomplished is remarkable and her presence on the international stage is a rare example of when privilege and access is put towards a greater good.
But then there are the examples of misplaced goodwill, and fumbled attempts of involvement in issues that are figurative hornets nests of contention, strife and political faux-pas. A month ago, Siobhan O’Grady took a look at celebrity athlete political gaffs via
Foreign Policy
. The list of celebrity missteps is as humorous as it is sobering.
The ability of celebrities to advocate and be heard is not a privileged to be used lightly. That many celebrities have engaged in what can be called ‘soft power diplomacy’ is remarkable. However, my caution- and one that is evident in Ms. O’Grady’s piece- is that there is not a direct equation between celebrity status and an intelligent well thought out opinion on international affairs. Simply because one IS a celebrity does not mean they MUST jump into the realm of politics and policy. In fact, I would venture that it is perfectly alright for celebrities to stay away from politics and policy unless they actually have a succinct purpose, mission, and long term commitment to the cause, issue, country, and initiative they are engaging with. My reason for saying this is, the culture of celebrities engaging on the global stage often with nefarious leaders [ * cough
* looking at you Dennis Rodman. ] sets the expectation that legitimacy is found through celebrity status. In other words that legitimacy of message is based on the level of popularity of the person carrying the message. This sets a dangerous precedent for those who are not celebrities-particularly human rights advocates, journalist and aid workers-who struggle to have their voices and the voices of those they serve heard. Similarly, this sets dangerous precedent for celebrities, who are given a platform that is buffered by accomplishments in sports, movies or a quite robust Instagram following (Yes, a reference to the Kardashians) – yet is by its very nature-removed from the sphere of international affairs. This platform is, to some degree, the fault of an odd mix of social culture norms- movie stars are heroes and given platforms- the human rights worker from Central Asia- struggling to learn journalism and call out the hypocrisy of an autocratic system-is not given the platform.
What does this mean? Well, it brings into even sharper relief the hilarity of
Steven Seagal’s
recent visit to Azerbaijan. At best, the motive behind Mr. Seagal’s visit seems like an attempt to ride the wave of his fading career by appeasing an aging oligarch who grew up watching his movies. At worst, the visit was a staged attempt for Azerbaijan to have another opportunity to legitimize sounds bites, statements and claims. By visiting, meeting with Mr. Aliyev, and participating in sporting events, Mr. Seagal was used as a tool to lend affirmation to a government that is seeking to divert attention away from worrying human rights issues. There is a sense, in reading about Mr. Seagal’s visit, that because Mr. Seagal said he was impressed that therefore, it must be true. Unfortunately, to the viewpoint of those advocating for transparency in human rights, the visit of Mr. Seagal simply furthered the idea that legitimacy is framed by celebrity- making the work of journalist, human rights advocates and regular citizens even more difficult. To that end, it seems that Mr. Aliyev is wiling, and even eager to receive the approval of a faded movie start, yet unwilling to engage in discourse with the individuals who are asking for transparency.
There is not a perfect solution to the issues of celebrity ambassadors or ‘soft power diplomats’ (as
Mr Seagal was once called
). While the platform of popularity can be used for good, the status and access that accompanies a celebrity status should not be used for self-serving ends (Mr. Seagals fading career, Mr. Aliyev’s iron grip on government) at the expense of white washing serious issues raised by concerned journalist and advocates.
