October 30, 2007
Column: The aid crusade and Bono’s brigade
Here is a selection of recent newspaper headlines: "Redford slams Bush over Iraq"; "Bono takes IMF to task over Liberia"; "Jolie blasts US military spending"; "Clooney’s foreign policy - sexiest man has a plan to save Darfur".
You do not have to buy supermarket tabloids to read this stuff. The Bono headline was in the Financial Times; the Clooney story was in the Chicago Tribune. The news editors of these high-brow publications have not gone mad (as far as I can tell). They are simply reflecting the fact that film stars and rock musicians shape public opinion - and therefore public policy. Daniel Drezner, an academic, argues in a forthcoming article for National Interest - "Foreign Policy Goes Glam" - that the growth of "celebrity activism" reflects the decline of traditional media and the rising power of star-struck "soft news" outlets.
Something about this mix of glitter and public policy makes me uncomfortable - and apparently I am not alone. When I suggested recently on my FT blog that Bono was a "grandstanding poseur", I was astonished by the gleeful vitriol I unleashed in response.
The remainder of this column can be read here; comments can be made below.
Folks,
This is what Gideon thought of your contributions about the High Price of oil and Politics :-))
By the way, in case you missed it, the “Ask the Expert” on oil price was quite good.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/91f7d3c8-83af-11dc-a0a6-0000779fd2ac.html
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 30th, 2007 at 10:06 am | Report this commentMr Rachman
The FT site changes have given me enough to digest this week, but observing your well-blogged struggle in selecting topics to write about this week has given me serious pause for concern.
Firstly, the site changes appear to have demoted written commentary. As the FT has been one of the last corners of worthy daily words, the heightened placement of rehearsed/prepared video commentary–where credentials seem more rooted in human resources’ department files than respected, if less 9-to-5 track records–does not surprise. It merely disappoints that it comes at an hour than I still consider early in my life.
Secondly, many people suggested some very interesting subjects for your thoughtful, experienced foreign-policy attention. The piece you delivered today is unquestionably interesting and of timely concern. I appreciate very much the argument that opinions reflective of the long development of critical thinking, usually under the auspices of great universities or institutions, matter less than headline catching soundbytes from people who capture the public’s imagination rather than its respect. Yet your coyness seems untimely and the piece’s softness seems to align with the changes in the website.
Time changes the venues that define our days and I can/must accept that the pink sheets were not forever goign to be hard-hitting. Nonetheless, I will use this bit of ethernet space to express my hopes that you and the FT will not abandon completely your editorial responsibility to put tough questions–especially those that make governments and investors uncomfortable or angry–in front of your readers and our global decision makers. From the new and entertaining website format, and your focus on Bono and Youtube–in a week where Turkey, as we have known it, just for example, is the new global flash point–one could think that your marketing department has gained the upper hand.
Posted by: WCM | October 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm | Report this commentI cannot help but feel that underlying all this “vitriol” against Bono is just plain envy. After all, he has managed to gain access to people most journalists and self-important, opinionated windbags couldn’t even dream of (not directing this entirely at you Mr Rachman). And he has a charisma that makes people listen to what he’s saying. That’s what journalists and academics want, isn’t it? Access and attention. And it is just so unfair that he has achieved all of that without doing a PhD, which makes everyone else’s life efforts seem worthless when they don’t end up getting an appointment with the President.
And please don’t class Bono with the likes of Jolie and Clooney. They have simply jumped on the bandwagon. You are seeking to malign Bono’s efforts by poking holes in Clooney’s theories. Let’s see you engage Bono’s arguments and show them to be inconsistent or unintelligent.
It has become fashionable to criticise Bono. I would have hoped for something more original from you.
Posted by: Believer in Bono | October 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm | Report this commentI think you missed an important ingredient in the celebrity politics. Bono is an Evangelical Christian (although born into a Catholic family.) This is not only an important personal motivation for his “crusades,” but also fits him in a long tradition. This is perhaps more easily seen from religious America than secularized Europe- but today’s celebrities are only filling the void left by religious “celebrities” of earlier times.
Posted by: C Daniels | October 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm | Report this commentReligious leaders also tend to see things in stark and simple terms, good vs evil. Religious leaders also put aid and charity above other approaches, often at the expense of more subtle solutions. This is long before any “decline of media” or tabloid journalism.
I would also note that many of these celebrities’ causes are short-term crises where direct aid is indeed a good solution- when children are starving to death during intractable military and political disputes.
Today’s celebrities are different in that many are both very wealthy and able to effectively fundraise much more than they’re predecessors through media - surely they have not only the right to quietly aid their favorite causes, but a responsibility and perhaps even an obligation to promote them?
Elitism should be challenged, but tempered, tested and culturally validated critical thinking is too quickly dismissed in today’s Visa-card and concensus democracies.
Re: Mr Daniel’s comments, between the 18th and the 21st centuries, Western European and American cultures promoted challenges to evangelism in public policy spheres of influence. Just playing a bit, but would you think Ousama Bin Laden fails to fit into your definition of celebrity policy makers? If what remains of proven democratic institutions is to be relevant in a not-so-distant future, then should we not raise the challenges to those who learn how to master popular medium and manipulate policy? I find the blount statement that the US is a religious society to be misleading and convenient.
Lastly, in this bold new world how do you credibly encourage a gifted child to invest the better part of his/her first 30 years in institutional education? Perhaps we should rethink this?
Posted by: WCM | October 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pm | Report this comment1. There seems to be a problem because this kind of involvement of media stars creates different effects in different people. Each of these effects can be huge, and no one can know for sure what is their overall result.
One effect is raising awareness, and I won’t spend words on it.
The other is engendering the attitude: “Those stars have lifestyles that are light years from my own. They do those things about Africa _because_ they can afford it, because they’re rich and famous.”
Third one: “I would have been embarrassed to share anything with that clown Bono”
2. Bono and Angelina Jolie are not simplistic. They have become very knowledgeable about the issues of African development, having prof Sachs as their personal tutor, reading books, et al. Consider: Bono managed to attract the attention of Bill Gates,who has definitely no time for romantics with flawed agendas.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1142278,00.html
3. I think there is a big misunderstanding that I haven’t seen anywhere explained: Sachs and Jolie and Bono are engaged not so much in the economic development of all parts of Africa, as with the 300m extremely poor in rural Africa. And even ‘neutral’ World Bank officials agree that foreign development aid in those areas is necessary:
“Even if all these countries did all of this right, they still have huge gaps in the kind of resources they require to invest in education, health, etc. […] So they need ODA to complement their own efforts, ODA that is effectively targeted to areas of most need.”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2m56v7
Posted by: levantine | October 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pm | Report this comment“Bono and Angelina Jolie are not simplistic. They have become very knowledgeable about the issues of African development, having prof Sachs as their personal tutor, reading books, et al. Consider: Bono managed to attract the attention of Bill Gates,who has definitely no time for romantics with flawed agendas.”
What happened to government(s) and well-constituted NGOs? Bono and Jolie, more than likely, have been adopted by some ambitious organisations seeking a marketing front. Agree. These are not necessarily wasted or misguided efforts/investments. Nonetheless, where is the institutional accountability? Where is the diplomatic accountability?
Is the future of international governance returning to a system of patronage?
The Congo was a private venture until well into the 20th century. Contemporary Africans do not celebrate the birthday og Belgium’s Kibg Leopold.
If Jeff Sachs knows Africa today, it is surprising to those who have known him. Too few know Africa, and the Bill Clintons, Angelina Jolies and Bill Gates that go there for at-risk photo ops still understand far less than the Chinese investors with Libyan guides who are trundling ’round the soft, warm earth that characterises the greater and most troubled parts of the Continent. Sadly, too few in the World Bank or IMF are forced or funded for much on-the-ground work there.
There is much more to Africa than HIV, mutilated women, starving children, Darfur and Somalia. Sadly, in the long run, there are critical tasks that await investments far greater than the costs and expertise of care required by the Continent’s health and social victims. Establishing sound governance, financial systems and social institutions is a far more difficult and less media-friendly challenge.
Posted by: WCM | October 30th, 2007 at 9:57 pm | Report this commentIt’s a critical process in liberal democracies to have people point out problems and rally politicians to act but it is another step to rally the masses through popular appeal to endorse a certain political course of action. That turns celebrities into populist politicians who rarely are elected to office but who manage to set the agenda only because they happen to be able to very effectively rouse the rabble.
The idea that through aid we can fix poverty is questionable because aid also tends to cement the position of the corrupt, creates an asymmetrical relationship between giver and receiver and discriminates against those who through taking risks have created wealth and employment. There are good alternatives to aid such as issuing microcredits to small businesspeople under good governance rules for the banks involved that have far fewer negatives, but such alternatives are rarely being explored. The anti poverty drives give the population a guilt trip and make them believe in the simplistic idea anything can be fixed by throwing more money at it, blotting out solutions that might well be much more productive in eradicating poverty. The issue of combating poverty has nothing to do with envy and everything with accountability.
Posted by: Felix Drost | October 30th, 2007 at 11:51 pm | Report this commentThe same was said about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan, finally, was a great Presient…so Bono could also be a wonderful IMF President.
Posted by: enrique | October 31st, 2007 at 1:28 am | Report this comment“Where is the institutional accountability? Where is the diplomatic accountability?”
All the governments in the economically developed world have signed up to 0.7% of their GNPs for OAD (official development aid). Almost none of them fulfil that promise. USA and Canada are not even getting closer to this target. Where is the institutional accountability indeed?
And what are those celebrities doing? Just trying to fill this huge gap in governmental support.
“Is the future of international governance returning to a system of patronage?”
It is a patronage now, with the IMF prescriptions…
If anyone is guilty for the submissive position of African countries, it is the Western model of help that consists more than half in emergency food aid and foreign consultants, and a paltry investment in infrastructure.
In contrast, the plans “of Jeffrey Sachs” - in fact, of the United Nations - consist in 15 years of building infrastructure and providing basic health aid in the region. After 2015, the requirements for foreign aid for Africa are (or have been) expected to drop sharply. Evidently the MDGs are really thought out with a timetable and a foreseeable end. They aren’t knee-jerk aid-giving.
And I think the critics of this have never imagined their children in the conditions in rural Africa.
Posted by: levantine | October 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am | Report this commentLevantine–your thoughtful, informative remarks are appreciated. Many good professionals share our concerns and realism. Nonetheless, popular forums–including the FT and even do-gooders like Bono and Jolie–are doing little to build confidence among Africans. Their governments need to be questioned in most cases as to whether they would be comfortable with confidence amongst their respective peoples. Multinationsals, too, need to be questioned as to 1) whether their managements include real knowledge of Africa; and 2) whether their shareholders can stomach periods of negative returns in order to structure lasting solutions and profitability. The old Belgian model of exploitation has replaced whatever pretences of social investments the French and British had occasionally succeeded to deliver upon.
2015 targets are worthy, but sadly and largely, I think, unrealistic. There are new variables at play, including a flood of Chinese money and rising criminality in most urban areas.
Posted by: WCM | October 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentA Wall Street Journal column this week is a brilliant addition to this discussion. Seems celebrity experts are spending time in South America, but in their haste to commit to a cause, they may have bought into a shake down.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010801
Posted by: CLP | November 1st, 2007 at 5:11 am | Report this commentI am, tardily, responding to the Bono bashing brigade that seems to have spawned from Mr. Rachman’s article this week. I would like to get the aid/debt relief in Africa issue out of the way first: as Rachman suggests (and “WCM” and “levantine” expand upon) there are a number of issues with any notion that these efforts, by themselves, are a comprehensive or lasting solution. Attempts at accountability, like the conditional loans initiated by the World Bank in Chad, have by no means accounted for the greater political issues involved, i.e. WB stipulations (insisting on greater investment in social programs) restricted Deby’s military spending and caused greater dependence on China (for pipeline and arms). As Rachman identifies, the issues that plague the region from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Guinea (and, for that matter, north and south of there) are very much political. So, yes, I would agree that the solutions reached from celebrity capital campaigns are rid with problems and that the oversimplification of issues, like “African Poverty,” is not uncommon amongst those sexy elite who conduct them.
Posted by: JM | November 1st, 2007 at 6:21 pm | Report this commentOn to the celebrities more specifically:
Here is where Rachman’s clarification does not go far enough. His observations in regard to the growing group of what Andrew Cooper terms “celebrity diplomats,” are reductive to the point of inaccuracy. Equating Bono, Clooney and Geldof certainly overlooks drastic differences in practice. As Cooper makes clear in his work, the sound bite politics that Geldof practices are of a distinctly different vein then Bono’s more refined diplomacy. Showing his ability to play “policy wonk” at Davos and the past few G8 summits, Bono has developed his own controversial (as the Harper example serves) brand of accountability endowed with fierce commercial benefaction (the Time and Vanity Fair covers are only the most visual examples). Though (as Rachman points out) he is “unelected,” it is essentially his strong populist support that allows Bono to “intimidate” politicians and grab the attention of powerful international leaders. Overall (as this debate makes apparent) the article was a great starting point for discussion. However, to really understand the problems - and potential - of “mixing stars and foreign policy” further consideration must be given to both the shifting international milieu and the increasing influence of the transnational advocates it harbours. In this respect, you should all read _Celebrity Diplomacy_ by Andrew F. Cooper. The subject, as the many headlines in Rachman’s article attest to, is timely and integral to the study of contemporary diplomacy. It also exposes the shortcomings of Klein’s recent swing at the subject.
で、おまえはアフリカに対して何かできたのか？
Posted by: バーカ。 | November 3rd, 2007 at 6:19 am | Report this commentRight on Gideon, but I am not going to waste many words on it as he is one leopard to whose business interests publicity can never be detrimental. Where is the custard pie brigade when they are needed? Maybe it shows that politicians are vain too.
Posted by: Tom | November 10th, 2007 at 6:39 am | Report this commentRight on Gideon, but I am not going to waste many words on it as he is one leopard to whose business interests publicity can never be detrimental. Where is the custard pie brigade when they are needed? Maybe it shows that politicians are vain too.
Posted by: Tom | November 10th, 2007 at 6:40 am | Report this commentRight on Gideon, but I am not going to waste many words on it as he is one leopard to whose business interests publicity can never be detrimental. Where is the custard pie brigade when they are needed? Maybe it shows that politicians are vain too.
Posted by: Tom | November 10th, 2007 at 6:40 am | Report this comment