The Only Game in Town

(Cartoon courtesy of Steve Sack- http://penigma.blogspot.de/2014/01/from-great-steve-sack.html)

This week my research really took a specific turn as I narrowed down my research pool to only New York Times articles from January 1, 2012 to present-day regarding Dennis Rodman and North Korea. Naturally, limiting my dates of interest creates a smaller pool of data to sift through and the dates chosen correspond to approximately one year before the Rodman incident through any current developments happening. My decision to use media sources as a tool of measurement also stems from the role media plays in forming public perception. Media plays a powerful role in forming public perception on a topic by presenting issues in a particular frame or light and even what news they choose to display. While the research terms I decided to use are quite broad, “Dennis Rodman + North Korea” and “North Korea”, I felt it was important to get a sense of how the New York Times was representing North Korea before Dennis Rodman played onto the scene. One of the great limitations of using such a specific source is that many of the articles I found from before February 26, 2013 (date of Rodman’s first visit to North Korea) offer mere snippets of news. This is unsurprising due to two reasons of limitation; the USA’s isolationist diplomatic policy with North Korea and North Korea’s high level of censorship and isolation from the rest of the outside world. Regardless, I did find some interesting results from my interim research.

Firstly, articles before Rodman’s visit were quite vague in their details regarding Kim Jong Un, as nothing was really known. A NY Times article from January 5, 2012 describes the North Korean leader as “believed to be in his late 20’s” and in regards to his accession to power, “whether he will be able to achieve the the kind of grip of power that his father had-or how the power elites might behave if he fails to do so- remain topics of intense speculation with potentially grave implications…”[1] In February 2012, almost one year exactly before Rodman’s visit, the US and North Korea engaged in nuclear disarmemant discussion but unfortunately, North Korea abandoned the deal only 2 months later in April. This situation was once again discussed with very little depth and much speculation to the inner-workings of Kim Jong Un’s cabinet. In comparison, once Rodman’s visit became known and reported, the articles become more in-depth and detailed. American citizen, Kenneth Bae, who had been captured by the North Koreans in 2012 and charged with criminal acts, became a popular discussion with Rodman pledging to go retrieve Bae, stating Bae was not his responsibility and more recently, implying North Korea was right to imprison Bae. The jump of articles regarding North Korea make a sizeable jump once Rodman began visiting, implying a new interest amongst the population in this unknown country. North Korea was no longer perceived as a “lost-cause” with no chance of diplomatic relations, Rodman was portrayed as a potential key figure in opening some sort of dialogue between the two countries. The NY Times included Columbia University professor Charles Armstrong, in their analysis of Rodman’s visits and quoted him saying, “This might not be the ideal way to approach it and Rodman would never be anybody’s first choice of diplomat but, if you pardon the expression, this is the only game in town.”[2] The inclusion of this quote shows that the NY Times is attempting to supply Americans with a viewpoint that it is time for some sort of relationship with North Korea.

The sheer increase in coverage that the NY Times paid to North Korea and their analysis of Dennis Rodman, shows that there is a public interest in North Korea and that there are people interested in pursuing some form of diplomacy between the two countries. Their focus on Dennis Rodman alone and little attention paid to official statements regarding North Korea, could also hint at a public perception that is not satisfied with the official governmental stance on North Korea.

 

[1] Sang-hun, Choe. “U.S. Asks China to Pressure North Korea To Avoid Provocations During Transition.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/world/asia/us-urges-china-to-keep-pyongyang-from-military-provocations.html?_r=0 (accessed June 19, 2014).

 

[2] Cacciola, Scott. “Rodman Leading Team of Improbable Emissaries.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/sports/basketball/rodman-leading-team-of-improbable-emissaries.html (accessed June 19, 2014).

The evolution of Sean Penn’s celebrity diplomacy as seen by the media

As discussed in the last seminar session, I have come to the conclusion that it seems necessary to change the way of doing my analisis, if only in the approach or the focus of it.

Instead of trying to determine the repercussions of the public friendship between Sean Penn and Hugo Chávez for both men and for the relations between their countries, I will concentrate on how the media depictes this relationship over the years, depending on where they stand on political matters. For this I will choose media sources from four different camps: first, the ones that are right wing critics of Sean Penn’s actions, then the left-wing supporters of them, the (few sources) that do not judge the meetings between the two and just present the facts, and finally the group of news sources that mock and ridicule either one or both men.

At the beginning of Penn’s contact with Hugo Chávez, around the year 2007, not a lot attention was drawn to the media by it. As Penn was, as I said in my last post, rather careful of not getting too close to the President at the beginning, saying he was in Venezuela because he wanted to interview him for a magazine.

 

Nevertheless, at least one episode is worth mentioning, which is a response Letterman made on the The Late Show with David Letterman, a lighthearted, very popular T.V. show regarding FOX News’ critique of Chávez:

(The Late Show with David Letterman, October 1st 2007)

In it, we mostly see a media depiction from the last listed group, that is trying to mock or ridicule Chávez in the U.S.. Contrary to other governments that were hostile to the U.S.A., many media sources did not see Chávez as a threat and tried to minimize him by making fun of him. This is the case with David Letterman, who interestingly said directly to Sean Penn: “To me, my impression of the guy (…) is that he’s nuts, he’s wacky, and kind of entertaining, but we gotta keep our eye on him.”

We also see Penn correcting Letterman when he says he visited Chávez, saying he “went to write about him”, which shows his initial distance from accepting a personal closeness. Even so, he promptly defends Chávez in front of Letterman and criticizes FOX News, the most important right wing news agency in the country.

As Penn’s advocacy grew the following year, in 2008, FOX News continued attacking it and calling him “ignorant” for supporting “a dictatorship”, for example in an article that appeared on foxnews.com im March 2008, written by film producer Thor Halvorssen. In it, he claims to have confronted Penn during the Academy Awards Ceremony, regarding human rights violations and freedom of the press in Venezuela. He also mentions the Letterman interview and calls Penn “a propagandist” and “ignorant about the human rights record in Venezuela”.1

 

After Penn’s second visit to Venezuela and his second meeting with Chávez, in November 2008, The Huffington Post ran a short note by the AP, where they limited to inform about it without leaning toward either condemning it or praising it.2

 

This is one of the relatively few articles that are not biased, which normally are way shorter than the media appearances or news that lean toward political positions, and also overshadow the neutral ones.

 

In the next part of my research I will continue looking chronologically for media reactions to Penn’s celebrity diplomacy, trying also to find some positive depictions of it, which are, at least in the case of U.S. media, quite rare.

What do Angels do?

At the beginning of my research I started by defining what kind of measurement I was looking for in order to find out which influence Angelina Jolie has in the lives of the people in Refugee camps. As I found out from the UNCHR side Angelina Jolie has been very active working for the UNCHR as a Goodwill Ambassador since 2001 (UNCHR Factsheet 2014). I decided to measure impact by looking at the amount of funding the UNCHR is getting which can be directly connected to her or by material support the refugee camps got through her involvement. With this measurement I was able to look for a very specific impact that can be more easily detected than the impact Angelina has by just giving comfort by talking to the people, as is it impossible to measure hope or encouragement.

At first I found a page (CleanTechnica) that apparently is telling the reader that Angelina Jolie made IKEA spend 1€ for every LED light bulb to the UNCHR. Looking more closely at the article one realizes that even though Angelina Jolie is working for the UNCHR as a Goodwill ambassador, she had apparently nothing to do with the involvement of IKEA with UNCHR in any direct sense. Even though she was not responsible for this raise of funding in any official way or documented way she seems as the main responsible person in this article. Even on the official UNCHR side, Angelina Jolie is not mentioned in the article about the new Funds given by the IKEA Foundation (UNCHR, 2014b). Without even mentioning what IKEA is actually doing for the UNCHR it is mentioned what kind of work Angelina Jolie is doing and two big pictures of her involvement with UNCHR are shown. Furthermore I found this kind of link on different pages that reported on the IKEA funding (1sunforall, 2014). Every time Angelina Jolie was mentioned or pictures of her are shown but it is not mentioned that she actually talked to the IKEA foundation about this kind of support.

This example of major raise of funding for the UNCHR was pinned on Angelina Jolie’s presents for the UNCHR but it does not prove in any way that it was Angelina Jolie who triggered this event. It is interesting to see that even though she might have nothing to do with IKEA she became the poster child for the UNCHR and therefore get associated with this new fund. As it was mentioned in the Guardian Article by Peter Stanford and Justin Forsyth (2011) “Are celebrities a help or hindrance to charities?”, the funds raised for many charities as the UNCHR could never been raised but a clear impact in a good or negative sense can not be detected. This kind of celebrity diplomacy seems to be a more representative kind that might put the spotlight that the celebrities are under on the charities they chose to support but does not give them direct help.
In the academic literature Celebrity diplomacy is defined in many different ways but as it is mentioned by Alleyne (2005), celebrity diplomacy is often seen as a new form of public relation tool especially for the United Nations in the last years. This definition fits to the role that Angelina Jolie has in the UNCHR. As Alleyne (2005, p.175) argues that Kofi Annan used celebrity diplomacy in his public information program in order to avoid problems with member countries.

In my further research I will focus on the role Angelina Jolie has inside of the UNCHR in order to find more possible impact.

“Since her appointment as a Goodwill Ambassador, Angelina has more than fulfilled my expectations,” writes the High Commissioner. “She has proven to be a close partner and a genuine colleague in our efforts to find solutions for the world’s refugees. Above all, she has helped to make the tragedy of refugees real to everyone who will listen. Angelina’s interest in helping refugees, her personal generosity, and her truly compassionate spirit are an inspiration to us all” (High Commissioner of UNCHR 2013)

As this comment by the UN High Commissioner shows she might have an influence but one which is hard to track down.

 

Sources:

Alleyne, M. (2005). The United Nations’ Celebrity Diplomacy. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 25, 175-185.
Clean Technica (2014).Thru March 29, IKEA Donates 1€/$1.35 Per LED Sold To UNHCR. Retrieved from: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/16/thru-march-29-ikea-donates-unhcr-1e-1-35-leds-sold/ on the 05.05.2014
McHugh, K. (2014). Of agency and embodiment: Angelina Jolie’s autographic transformations, Celebritie Studies, 5, 5-19.
UNHCR (2014) Angelina Jolie Fact Sheet, Retrieved on the 13.05.2014 from : http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49db77906.html
UNHCR (2014)b. Rekord! IKEA spendet 43 Millionen Euro für Flüchtlinge. Retrieved on the 09.06.2014 from: http://www.unhcr.ch/home/artikel/796d3ed65537588a5e6cdd1cf37e3e28/rekord-ikea-spendet-43-millionen-euro-fuer-fluechtlinge-1.html?L=ivef%3Dprss%2Funhcr%2Fsonderbotschafterinnen%2Fangelina-jolie.html%3FL%3Divef%3Dprss%2Fwp-cat-list-theme.css%3Fver%3D2.0.3
UNHCR (2013)“Goodwill Ambassador releases new book on visits with refugees“, retrieved on the 11.06.2014 from http://www.unhcr.org/3f9e8bb77.html
UNHCR Channel on Youtube, Angelina Jolie Visits UNHCR Operation in Dadaab, Kenya, and Angelina Jolie in Ecuador, Retrieved on the 04.05.2014 from :https://www.youtube.com
The Guardian (2011) Are celebrities a help or hindrance to charities?, Retrieved on the 05.06.2014 from : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/26/celebrity-ambassadors-charities-debate
Wheeler, M. (2013) Celebritiy Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press
Wheeler, M. (2012) Celebrity Diplomacy: A source of political legitimacy in an era of late modernity? London: Metropolitan University
1sunforall (2014) IKEA Says “THANK YOU!” We Raised $10m for Refugees & UNHCR Retrieved on the 11.06.2014 from http://1sun4all.com/solar/ikea-brighter-lives-refugees-unhcr/

 

The Silver Fox of nuclear disarmament – a tool of and for the United Nations?

Before starting with my research and starting to define the different concepts and terms that will be in the foreground of my research about Michael Douglas’s involvement as a UN Messenger of Peace I had to critically asses my research question and approach as it seemed very unfeasible when I started reading academic literature about celebrity diplomacy. Unfeasible in regard to measuring steps forward and especially in regard to measuring Douglas’ influence over the USA to ratify the CTBT as this is a topic that is not discussed through the various media outlets and seems to be happening behind closed doors.

Therefore, I started wondering about a comment he made when he was appointed UN Messenger of Peace by Secretary General Kofi Annan in 1998.

He stated:

“I’m in an enviable position […] When I talk about movies I can talk about messages of peace, and infuse them into the entertainment pages”. (Scott 2007: 92–93)

Since filming the China Syndrome in 1979 he has not been shy in using his influence through the media to draw attention towards the battle of nuclear disarmament. However, generally observing his biographical path, he only started taking an active role through NGO work and as a UN Goodwill Ambassador. For the purpose of feasibility I will focus however, on his work since being appointed UN Messenger of Peace in 1998 till now with a special focus on the infusion of messages of peace in regard to nuclear disarmament/CTBT into the entertainment pages as Douglas stated.

Since the incident of Fukushima I believe based on observation, that the question of nuclear disarmament has again become a prominent and pressing one. Generally the question arises if celebrities such as Michael Douglas have had an impact on nation states signing and ratifying important international treaties concerning nuclear disarmament to move forward in making this world a saver place for everyone.

Thus, narrowing this general question down in my research I want to explore and the implications of Michael Douglas’s humanitarian work in regard to nuclear disarmament with a focus on the CTBT. Has Michael Douglas as a UN Messenger of Peace achieved awareness for the CTBT and therefore awareness for the work of the UNODA through infusing messages of peace into the media?

Drawing on this question my starting point laid on the advance of nuclear disarmament for which the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) provides a legal framework. The International Criminal Court of Justice (ICJ) decided in a 1996 Advisory Opinion that “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”. Therefore the progress of especially nuclear disarmament rests on a solid foundation in international law and is implemented by concrete actions of individual nation states.

In my opinion for international law to be successful (in most cases) a general consensus is needed. In this research I will focus on the concept of John Street (2013) to distinguish between celebrity politicians (CP) who have used populist techniques when seeking elected office (CP1s) and politizied celebrities (CP2s) who have employed their fame to promote political issues.

The latter is where Michael Douglas’s work as a UN Messenger of Peace becomes of importance, when believing that the media has influence over the general public worldwide to create this special “general consensus”. Assuming, that this has been the objective behind his work for the UN in promoting the UNODA, CTBT and UN in general I’m expecting to find a great deal of infused messages of peace in regard to nuclear disarmament through my research. Thereby, I’m expecting that the results will show that Michael Douglas was a tool used and instrumentalized by Secretary-General Kofi-Annan to promote the UN and raise awareness through his influence about the UNODA and CTBT. Especially, in regard to nuclear disarmament still being a prominent and pressing topic which is a topic that the UN takes very seriously and is an important international player (maybe even the most important international player) in regard to keeping us (the general public) and further generations to come safe from nuclear meltdowns.

UNODA – Strengthening peace and security through disarmament

The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) was established in January 1998 as the Department for Disarmament Affairs which was part of the Secretary-General’s programme for reform. It underwent a few name changes, in 1992 its name was changed to Centre for Disarmament Affairs, under the Department of Political Affairs, at the end of 1997 it was renamed Department for Disarmament Affairs and finally, in 2007, it became the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.

The official website states that the Office promotes:

◦Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation

◦Strengthening of the disarmament regimes in respect to other weapons of mass destruction, and chemical and biological weapons

◦Disarmament efforts in the area of conventional weapons, especially landmines and small arms, which are the weapons of choice in contemporary conflicts.

Further, the UNODA ‘provides substantive and organisational support for norm-setting in the area of disarmament through the work of the General Assembly and its First Committee, the Disarmament Commission, the Conference on Disarmament and other bodies’ (UNODA n.d.). The objectives to achieve its set goals are through dialogue, transparency and confidence-building on military matter, and encourages regional disarmament efforts.

Moreover, it provides ‘objective, impartial and up-to-date information on multilateral disarmament issues and activities to Member States, States parties to multilateral agreements, intergovernmental organisations and institutions, departments and agencies of the UN system, research and educational institutions, civil society, especially non-governmental organisations, the media and the general public (UNODA n.d.). This becomes from importance for my further research in regard to Michael Douglas’s infusing of messages of peace through his official role in the UN.

The CTBT- How to create peace if the major countries holding nuclear weapons still hold the ability to test them without any penalties?! The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty (CTBT) was established through the Conference on Disarmament (CD) which began negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban-treaty in January 1994.

An overwhelming majority of Member States of the CD expressed their readiness to support the draft treaty. India, for its part, stated that it could not go along with a consensus on the draft text and its transmittal to the United Nations General Assembly. The main reasons for such a decision, as India pointed out, were related to its strong misgivings about the provision for the entry-into-force of the treaty, which it considered unprecedented in multilateral practice and running contrary to customary international law, and the failure of the treaty to include a commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to eliminate nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework (UNODA n.d.).

On 10 September, the General Assembly by resolution (A/RES/50/245) adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary of the Treaty, to open it for signature at the earliest possible date. The Treaty was opened for signature in September 1996.

It is from importance to note, that Article XIV of the CTBT states, that if the Treaty has not entered into force three years after the date of the anniversary of its opening for signature, a conference may be held upon the request of a majority of ratifying States.

Previous Conferences on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Treaty were held in 1999, 2003 and 2007 in Vienna, and 2001, 2005 2009 and 2011 in New York. In accordance with Article XIV of the Treaty, it will enter into force after all 44 States listed in Annex 2 to the Treaty have ratified it.

So far the following states have ratified the CTBT: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland and Viet Nam.

Thus from importance are the following Article XIV states who have not yet ratified the treaty especially with Michael Douglas’s background of being a US citizen by birth: China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the United States of America.

Therefore, I decided to consider the CTBT in my research as the main treaty being concerned with nuclear disarmament. As the title of this chapter gives away, how can a Messenger of Peace who’s main concerns are around nuclear disarmament effectively promote the CTBT, when his own nation-state has not yet ratified a treaty allowing it to test nuclear bombs?

UN Messenger of Peace  – powerful rehabilitation tools for the United Nations? 

Celebrity relations were institutionalised within the UN when the Department of Public Information (DPI) was formed (Wheeler 2013: 144). The DPI was concerned to promote the work and purpose of the organisation and therefore, commissioned film, radio, and television programs to ‘propagate its message’ (Wheeler 2013:144) of peace.

Further, Cooper (2007) noted, that celebrity diplomacy as an alternative form of agency in which stars fill the void in public trust created by the political classes intends that the “bonoization” of diplomacy has led to new and valid ways in which stars may only draw attention to a range of international activities and promote meaningful change.

With this emerging trend and the UN’s influence and public opinion declining, the UN Ambassadors were created employing famous influential people to create awareness for the fight of the UN for a peaceful world. In 1958 the UN stated: ‘the reason why we use these actors is that we have found that this does after all… reach people…and…give them…the basis of an operation, its raison d’ere, to explain the UN activities to them. We felt that if our audience increases because they know a certain actor is going to narrate a certain part or is going to be used in a certain programme, our purpose is served’ (UN 1958: 38).

After employing “too many” UN goodwill ambassadors and receiving much criticism from media and academia Kofi Annan created in 1998 the UN Messengers of Peace (Cooper 2008: 28; Wheeler 2013: 148). More than 10 individuals such as Michael Douglas, Jane Goodall, Daniel Barenboim, George Clooney, Stevie Wonder, Charlize Theron have been honoured as Messengers of Peace since then by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, for an initial period of three years.

In the UN conference 2002 called “celebrity advocacy for the new Millennium” it became clear that celebrities will be the tools the UN would use to pressurize reluctant governments to take seriously the rhetorical pledges the UN makes during every General Assembly (Alleyne 2005: 179). Thus, the UN believed that CP2s could influence international public opinion to support the UN’s goals of idealism and universalism.

Putting this development in context with nuclear disarmament, Tsaliki, Huliaras and Frangonikolopoulos (2011: 300) argument that CP2s can provide an effective lead ‘through the non-confrontational reordering of political and economic forces in the service of global goals’ has to be considered and will play a coming role in my further research.

Moreover, Joseph Nye’s (2004) concept of “soft power” which refers to the ability to effect change though the rules of attraction rather than coercion or payment can not be overseen when looking at Michael Douglas’s work as a UN Messenger of Peace battling nuclear disarmament for the UN. Thus, as Wheeler (2013) noted soft power  has meant that CP2s have lent weight to transnational campaigns in a commercially driven global news media. Further, they have provided a ‘definable focus for public engagement and have employed their star power to put pressure on diplomats, international policy makers and national leaders, by occupying a diplomatic space, have brought about credible interventions throughout the international community’ (Wheeler 2013: 146).

Michael Douglas – Infusion of messages of peace as a tool for the UN?!

‘celebrities […] hail national and international audiences in the way only presidents, royalty and prime ministers can hope to achieve’ (Marshall 2006: 3) 

Michael Kirk Douglas, son of movie star Kirk Douglas was born in New Jersey in 1944. His film career took off after starring roles in “The China Syndrome” 1979 and “Wall Street” (1987) for which he won an Academy Award. Further, he is an acclaimed Producer of – “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”- which went on to win five Academy Awards including Best Picture.

After working on The China Syndrome in 1979 Douglas became fiercely involved in issues concerning nuclear disarmament. In 1998 he then was honoured as a Messenger of Peace for the UN by Kofi Annan. The United Nations official Website for Messengers of Peace states that Douglas is ‘committed to disarmament issues, including nuclear non-proliferation […] he focuses public awareness on the United Nations’ efforts to strengthen peace and security by speaking publicly’ (United Nations, n.d.).

Official media presence for the UN involved being a guest of the UN television programme “World Chronicle” (2004), where he talked about his commitment to the UN and disarmament issues. Further, he spoke at special screenings of the documentary film “Countdown to Zero” at UN Headquarters in New York in May 2010. Following, he recorded a message of solidarity with the people of Japan in the wake of the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit the country in March 2011.

Dahlgren (2009: 137) noted that actors perceive their usage of the mass and multi-media to be an effective means through which to influence public opinion. Traditionally many academics view celebrity politics as a ‘manufactured process’ fabricated by media exposure (Louw 2005, Turner 2004). However, as seen by the example of Michael Douglas celebrities have become politically engaged with the public sphere. Therefore, there can be an alternative trend identified towards the celebritization of politics both theoretically (Street 2004) and empirically (Holmes and Redmond 2006) in regard to performance, authority and representation.

Drawing on Douglas’s appointment as Messenger of Peace for the UN in the light of Putnam’s (2000) argument that new forms of social capital are necessary to reconnect citizens with their societies it becomes clear, that Douglas is filling exactly that spot for the UN in regard to his public engagement with the media by spreading messages of peace.

However, there have been many critics of the role of UN Messengers of Peace (Wheeler 2013: 144) although there has not been much criticism  voiced about Michael Douglas’s involvement. Philip Drake and Michael Higgins argued that ‘the relationship between celebrity and politics needs to take into account the particular celebrity, the mode of performance they adopt, their earlier image, and the political claims they make (Drake and Higgins 2006: 99-100). This “holistic scorecard” appears to resonate with Michael Douglas’s approach, who’s private life compared to other UN Messengers of Peace has been in the shadows while focusing to make his political work shine in the media.

Here a quote by Marshall (1997) helps to illustrate the special position of CP2s such as Douglas in the media:

‘Celebrities represent subject positions that audiences can adopt or adapt in their formations of social identities. Each celebrity represents a complex form of audience-subjectivity that, when placed within a system of celebrities, provides the ground on which distinctions, differences and oppositions are played out.. the celebrity’s strength or power as a discourse on the individual is operationalised only in terms of power and position of the audience that has allowed it to circulate’ (Marshall 1997: 65 in Wheeler 2013)

Andrew Cooper’s research underlines the contention that there is an advantage in linking individual star power such as Douglas’s to a collective project such as the UNODA in regard to CP2s having the ‘power to frame issues in a manner that attracts visibility and new channels of communication at the mass levels’ (2008:7). This proves compelling when considering the UN’s dilemma of attracting attention to important matters such as nuclear disarmament. Further, highlighting Douglas’s promotion of messages of peace and his access to mass media conversely, it provides the celebrity a chance to influence the foreign and security politics of their political community. The celebrity participates in helping determine the boundaries of ethical inclusion and exclusion within and beyond borders (Rosamond 2011:77).

Foremost Rosamond’s argument that celebrity culture, media and global communication help constitute international politics by exposing domestic and international audiences to moral dilemmas of global reach. Amongst this well propagated, significant public dialogue across both communities and national boundaries, the spectre of doubt sometimes appears. Rosamund as well discusses the hindrance of celebrity presence being entwined in such global issues. He raises questions about the perceived sincerity of individual celebrities and their real level of commitment to the cause at hand, positing whether in reality there in fact be ulterior and less altruistic motives afoot. However no instances of doubt are so far reasonably attributable to Michael Douglas. His comment of infusing messages of peace, in regards to his employment as a UN Messenger of Peace, seems a worthy guide for his behaviour to date. As it stands it is certain, that he does serve as a tool for the UN to promote the UNODA and CTBT through his official public appearances. Therefore, my further research will be focusing on finding these messages of peace that Douglas has infused into the public sphere.

Bibliography:

• Alleyne, Mark D.: The United Nations’ celebrity diplomacy. SAIS Review , Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press 2005, p. 175-185.
• Cooper, Andrew F. 2007. Celebrity diplomacy and the G8: Bono and Bob as legitimate international actors. Working Paper Nr. 29, The Centre for International Goverance Innovation
• Cooper, Andrew. F. 2008. Celebrity Diplomacy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Drake, P., & Higgins, M. (2006). I’ma celebrity, get me into politics’: the political celebrity and the celebrity politician. Framing celebrity: new directions in celebrity culture, 87-100.
• Firsing, Scott T. Disturbing Times: The State of the Planet and Its Possible Future, South Publishers (2007) pp. 92–93). Holmes, S., & Redmond, S. (Eds.). (2006). Framing celebrity: new directions in celebrity culture. Routledge.
• Link to the CTBTO http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/ (accessed 6th of May) Link to UNODA resources about nuclear disarmament treaties: http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/ (accessed on 6th of May).
• Link to UN Messengers of Peace: http://outreach.un.org/mop/michael-douglas/nggallery/image/michael-douglas-meets-the-press/ (accessed on 10th of May).
• Marshall , David, t’Hart, Paul & Tindall, Karen. 2006 Celebrity Politics: The Politics of the Late Modernity? In: Political Studies Review 8 (3): 322-340
• Michael Kirk Douglas. [Internet]. 2014. The Biography.com website. Available from: http://www.biography.com/people/michael-douglas-9278088 [Accessed 11 Jun 2014]. Putnam, R. (2000). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41-51.
• Rosamond, A. (2011). The Cosmopolitan-Communitarian Divide and Celebrity Anti-War Activism. I Liza Tsaliki, Asteris Huliaras & Christos A. Frangonikolopoulos et. al. (ed.) Transnational Celebrity Activism in Global Politics Changing the World.
• Street, John: Celebrity Politicians: Popular Culture and Political Representation. BJPIR: Vol. 6, 2004, p. 435-452. Street, John: Do Celebrity Politics and Celebrity Politicians Matter?, In: British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol 14, 2012, p. 346-356.
• Tsaliki, Liza; Frangonikolopoulos, Christos A. & Huliaras, Asteris. 2011.Transnational Celebrity Activism in Global Politics- Changing the World?. Bristol: Intellect.
• Wheeler, Mark. 2011. Celebrity diplomacy: United Nations’ Goodwill Ambassadors and Messengers of Peace. In: Celebrity Studies 2 (1): 6-18
• Wheeler, Mark. 2013. Celebrity Politics: Image and Identity in Contemporary Political Communications.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Head or tails – two sides to celebrity diplomacy and Goodwill Ambassadors

 

Ever since scholars have acknowledged the expansion of celebrity involvement beyond their role as entertainers or simple product endorsers entering political territory, differing theories on how to classify their role in international relations (Choi and Berger 2010). Taking on the distinction John Street made between „celebrity politicos“ of traditional politicians using techniques of the show business to seek elected office (CP1) and celebrities who try to influence the exercise of political power through their fame (CP2)(Street 2012: 347), the latter category will be concentrated on in this research.

The major argument for celebrity involvement seen by both institutions and political decision makers is awareness raising for certain issues (Debeljak 2012; Maihold 2008). This phenomenon of letting famous non-officials act is accelerated by the public’s addiction to stardom, celebrities and what they are doing which has even increased since the age of smartphones and global internet makes content non-stop available (Choi and Berger 2010: 314). In this regard, celebrities have a bigger audience fascinated by their actions and the means to shape the common discourse which so far has been influenced though books, civic society and social groups (Choi and Berger 2010: 316).

The implication of awareness through celebrities is controversial. Firstly, the attention drawn to certain topics by celebrities can enhance the probability for chance. Several target groups are considered to be reached through the deployment of stars: a broader public including major fundraisers, a younger audience as well as people that usually are not interested in development programs. Additionally, they are sometimes able to provide access to decision makers (Wheeler 2012) In their role as advocates for a cause, they have the ability to „bridge the gap between […] audiences and faraway tragedies by using their fame“ (ibid. 12). As a counter argument, (superficial) knowledge does not justify their claim to represent an official agenda. Secondly, the line between trivial entertainment and serious politics gets blurry (Street 2004: 439). The tendency to an anti-democratic development in which celebrities act on behalf of the powerful to further a cause without being accountable has been critisised. People put their trust in these alternative forms of activism which at the same time undermines traditional aid initiatives and the ability of political classes (Wheeler 2013: 143). Moreover, the complexity of issues is left out and putting the focus on a celebrity can lead to the cause becoming an afterthought (ibid. 159).

UN Goodwill Ambassadors

Especially the UN organisations had started early in incorporating celebrities in their strategy to improve their public profile. Already since the early 1960s several actors starred in numerous programs, but with the appointment of Kofi Annan as UN secretary-general, the era of Messengers of Peace and Goodwill Ambassadors began and with it an even closer contact of celebrities to political elites. More than 400 active Goodwill Ambassadors in 2007 helped the UN to maximise media buzz whenever one of them got involved in certain issues or visited troubled regions, decision-makers or UN events (Wheeler 2013: 144ff.). It therefore comes as no surprise that when the ten Millennium Goals were set by the UNDP to be achieved by 2015, celebrities played a crucial role. Kofi Annan “wanted celebrities to be the tools the UN would use to pressurize reluctant governments to take seriously the rhetorical pledges they make during every General Assembly“ (Alleyne 2005: 179). Still, criticism concerning the shortcoming of value promotion, celebrity conduct and their credibility impact the view on Goodwill Ambassadors and the question whether they have led to a trivialisation of the UN’s mission (Wheeler 2012; Alleyne 2005).

UNDP COMIC 2011

Match Against Poverty

As Goodwill Ambassadors, the former football players Zinédine Zidane and Ronaldo became responsible for the Match Against Poverty which was initiated „to raise wareness and mobilize public awareness for the Millenium Goals“ (UNDP.org 2014). Since 2003, games on different continents with different depending on the. This research was planned to highlight the media coverage of 3 years: 2003, 2010 and 2014. 2003, the first game took place in Basel, Switzerland, 2010 two games were played in Lisbon, Portugal and Athens, Greece for the victims in Haiti raising more than 1 million Dollar in total and the last game in Bern, Switzerland in March 2014. Due to the lesser insufficient development of online media in 2003, the next two games in 2004 (Madrid, Spain) and 2005 (Dusseldorf, Germany) also have to be included to make an analysis of at least 15 articles for this time frame possible.

Analysis

In order to analyse how distinctive the named key aspects of awareness and trivialisation are for the case of the Match Against Poverty, a twofold analysis will be employed. Since awareness in the case of celebrity diplomacy is i.a. measured by the in the media (Choi and Berger 2009), and used for both quantitative and qualitative approaches (cf. Schrøder 2002), a partial critical discourse analysis will be carried out on the found articles. By looking at their audience and reach as well as key categories in the articles such as the references to the Millennium Goals, the medial image of the Match Against Poverty can be determined to a certain extent.

In the next two posts, the findings will be presented and used to answer the question whether the raised media awareness for the Match Against Poverty leads to a trivialisation of the cause.

Sources:

Alleyne, Mark D.: The United Nations’ celebrity diplomacy. SAIS Review, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press 2005, p. 175-185

Debeljak, Klara: Building Support for International Development, InterMedia 2012, URL: http://www.audiencescapes.org/sites/default/files/PDF_version_Building_Support_Combined_0.pdf (accessed June 10, 2014).

Choi, Chong Ju/ Berger, Ron: Ethics of Celebrities and Their Increasing Influence in 21^st Century Society. Journal of Business Ethics 91, 2010, p. 313-318.

Schrøder, Kim Christian: Discourse as fact. In: Bruhn Jensen, Klaus: A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and quantitative methodologies. London and New York: Routledge 2002. p.: 98-116.

Street, John: Celebrity Politicians: Popular Culture and Political Representation. BJPIR: Vol. 6, 2004, p. 435-452.

Street, John: Do Celebrity Politics and Celebrity Politicians Matter?, In: British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol 14, 2012, p. 346-356.

UNDP.org: Match Against Poverty, URL: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/goodwillambassadors/match_against_poverty/ (accessed: June 10, 2014).

Wheeler, Mark: Celebrity Politics. Cambridge: Politiy Press 2013

Wheeler, Mark: Celebrity Diplomacy: A source of political legitimacy in an era of late modernity? Online Paper 2012, URL: http://capitalismdemocracycelebrity.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/wheeler-celebrity-diplomacy-manchester-symposium-paper-20121.pdf (accessed June 10, 2014).

Pictures

http://publicandculturaldiplomacy1.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mel-gibson-celebrity-diplomacy.jpg?w=320&h=254

 

Sean Penn and Hugo Chávez: The beginning of a beautiful friendship

In researching about the friendship between Sean Penn and Hugo Chávez, I first came to two starting points: first, that Sean Penn has been a very left-leaning and particularly politically active star, even for an industry like Hollywood, which is considered more progressive than the average U.S. society, even before his approximation to the venezuelan President. He not only visited Iraq shortly before the U.S. invasion of 2003 expressing his protest against Bush Jr.’s foreign policy, but also travelled to Iran in 2005, in the midst of escalating diplomatic tensions between that country and the U.S. It is interesting to note that his political involvement has become more evident in the last 15 years, while before that he kept a relatively low profile on political and social issues; in the early to mid 1990s, he was more well-known for his highly publicized marriage to Madonna and his conflicts with the yellow press. [1]

Second, I have realized that it is quite difficult to find reliable sources regarding the contact between the actor and the statesman; not only are many articles very subjective and full of bias either from the left praising both men or from the right insulting them, but also it is not easy to find a chronological analysis or report about the development of their friendship.

Even so, the best time frame for the start of it would be around 2007 according to the sources, which is around the time Penn began visiting Caracas more or less regularly. [2] This was well into Chávez’s government, when he was on his third presidential term and after already having ruled the country for 8 years.

Chávez and Penn inspect an agricultural research facility in Venezuela during one of Penn’s first visits to the south american country (Photo: Miraflores Press Office)

Sean Penn first was a little cautious about his public statements regarding Chávez´s socialist policies, stating that “his interest [was] purely for an article he [was] writing on the socialist leader.” [3]

After the intensification of the visits, Penn began defending Chávez in writing and on video, discussing the president’s government in Late Night T.V. Shows, on talk shows, (some videos of which can be viewed on Youtube) and in magazines.

Chávez did his part underlining every visit of Penn to Venezuela, presenting him on state T.V. on different occasions and finally calling him “one more bolivarian” in 2012.4

Now that I have defined the antecedents, the time frame as well as the first major encounters that led to both public figures’ relation, I hope I can develop in the coming weeks into major milestones in it between 2007-2013, either through separated public appearances, statements and interviews on both sides or by analyzing the impact of their joint appearances in different contexts.

1. http://www.biography.com/people/sean-penn-9542280#directing-and-acting&awesm=~oGfZ0y4Q2Nsyty

2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3668537/Sean-Penn-Mr-Congeniality.html

3. Ibidem

4 Bolivarians are adherents of Bolivarianism, a political doctrine championed by Chávez that combines Marxism, anti-imperialism, Latin American integrationism, left-leaning theology and other aspects.

Rodman the Diplomat?

For the past few days, I have been conducting research focused on what the general American public thinks of North Korea and Dennis Rodman’s visits there. I focused mostly on reading personal blog posts, comments on major news outlet’s articles and also combed through Twitter. I really just wanted to see what normal, ordinary people think and I was quite surprised. The responses, posts and twitter accounts are from a broad sample of population, they include men and women, various ages and coming from different backgrounds. The common denominator was that they were all American citizens.

            Upon looking through the comments, I noticed a collective trend of Americans viewing the North Korean government as absolutely delusional but not to be seen as a real threat to America. One comment on an article from Huffington Post entitled, “20 Things I Learned While Visiting North Korea” read; “Very well written and interesting article. I just have a question to everybody: why do we really care what NK does inside its borders? As long as they’re not messing with us, then why should we even bother what’s in there? If they want to live like that, then let ‘em. We don’t ask this question in some of the poorest African countries….” (John Puruntong)[1]

This idea that we should either continue the isolationist approach to North Korea was a popular thread in my research. Many seemed to think along the same lines as the commentator above and believe that we should leave this “crazy country” alone. Many also found the relationship between Kim Jong Un and Dennis Rodman to be something humorous and worthy of numerous memes or even cartoon tshirts.

However, the most interesting find in my research was easily the amount of commentators who believed that Rodman was doing something right and that the USA should begin some sort of diplomatic relationship with North Korea. One notable blog post comes from a high school student in New York, Aaron Miller, who writes; “Any progress — for both the North Korean people and American diplomacy — is contingent on some form of initial contact. And as of now, only Dennis Rodman has the potential to serve as that ambassador and begin working on America’s diplomatic ties with the North. So perhaps next time Rodman publicly requests it, President Obama will give him a call and give basketball diplomacy a chance.“[2] This is a young man, between the ages of 17-18 who rationally believes that Dennis Rodman may hold a key in sparking diplomatic relations between the two countries. It is worthwhile to note, that the author of this article is a Harvard-bound high school senior who describes himself as someone with “strong interest in government and economics.”[3] Similarly, another blogger, Doug Bandow, writes, “Nevertheless, Dennis Rodman is better than nothing. Not much better, but still better as long as Washington adopts a policy of ineffective isolation.”[4] There seems to be a growing segment of the population who are frustrated with America’s isolationist tactics and believe that the door should begin to be opened. Naturally, Dennis Rodman tops no one’s list as the ideal diplomatic candidate but is accepted as the better option against the alternative of having no one. One commentator on an article about basketball legend, Magic Johnson’s opinion on the trip, wrote “I see what Rodman is trying to do (make himself a hero by doing what no diplomat has been able to do yet in North Korea), but just as naively misguided as he is thinking he can become the hero through his “basketball diplomacy”, he is also delusional, not even realizing just how dangerous and sociopathic the North Korean leader actually is.“ (Tarra_Scott)

It will be interesting to continue to expand this line of research and delve more into the public perception of North Korea and Dennis Rodman. I would like to find a way to narrow my research to right before Rodman’s trip and right after. I also think I need to find a constant in the articles I am looking at. The commentators will vary according to the journalistic material and I believe finding a constant will help me in my research.

 

[1] 20 Things I Learned While I Was in North Korea (The Huffington Post)

By: Why, Wait.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wait-but-why/visiting-north-korea_b_4256519.html

[2] Give Basketball Diplomacy a Chance (The Huffington Post)

By: Miller, Aaron.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-miller/give-basketball-diplomacy_b_4509351.html?utm_hp_ref=dennis-rodman-north-korea

[3] Miller, Aaron

[4] Dennis Rodman May Be Crazy or a CIA Case Officer: In Either Case He Is Not Entirely Wrong About North Korea (The Huffington Post)

By: Bandow, Doug.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/dennis-rodman-may-be-craz_b_4574494.html?utm_hp_ref=dennis-rodman-north-korea

So What Do We Think Now?

            North Korea is one of the world’s most mysterious countries with little being known of its actual internal culture. The few bits of information we have paint a country whose leader, Kim Jong Un, has total control over the North Korean people to the point of brainwash. One of the main tenants being constantly preached to the North Korean population is complete rejection of all things to do with American culture. Interestingly enough, famous American basketball star Dennis Rodman, has developed a close rapport with Kim Jong Un and has been invited (and accepted) to the country quite a few times. For a country that has nearly zero foreign visitors, especially those of Western countries, this is an unusual event. The two even appear to have developed a close rapport with Rodman referring to Un as his “friend.”[1] While this was by no means a state-sanctioned visit, Rodman has spoken of his time in North Korea as an attempt on his part to open the lines of communication between the United States and North Korea.

 

(Photo courtesy of NYdailynews.com)

            Although there has been no increase in political dialogue between North Korea and the United States, I am interested in the cultural implications of Rodman’s visit. More specifically, has Rodman’s visit sparked any change in the American public’s perception of North Korea and if so, how has this perception changed? Could this changing view offer any larger political implications in the future?

            To examine this question, I will be utilizing many current articles that discuss Rodman’s friendship with North Korea. I hope to not only gain information from more scholarly articles but to also use opinion pieces and social media posts. I believe including social media in my research is vital as it can give me a broad sense of what the public thinks of Rodman’s visits. I will also be watching some of the documentaries produced regarding North Korea, as well as, interviews with Rodman about his visits in North Korea. I believe a little bit of looking back will also help me while conducting my research on this topic, as it is a very current issue and constantly developing. Looking at celebrities like Jane Fonda, who famously caused an uproar due to her apparent backing of the Viet Cong during the Vietnamese War. Although these are completely separate cases, I believe it might offer some guidance into the development of this situation with Rodman. I will also research sports diplomacy and see if any developments are being made on that front between the United States and North Korea. Rodman originally flew to North Korea to display his basketball prowess and argued that playing an exhibition game there, was all in the spirit of sports diplomacy.

            By utilizing so many different sources and approaches, I believe I can properly conduct this research into answering my question on the cultural implications of Dennis Rodman’s visit to North Korea.

 

[1] McLaughlin, Seth. “See Dennis Rodman’s epic CNN meltdown defending Kim Jong-un.” Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/dennis-rodman-calls-north-korean-leader-kim-jong-u/ (accessed May 21, 2014).

“Give peas a chance” – Paul McCartney’s Meat Free Monday project addressing climate change

In the fight against climate change and global warming celebrities have become one important group of non-state actors rising public awareness. The engagement of leading climate change celebrities varies to a great extent- ranging from own organizations to promoting green lifestyles. The ‘celebritization’ (Boykoff et al. 2009) of climate change has expanded through increased media coverage. Whereas some celebrity’s activism occasionally happens being labelled as greenwashing or career boost, others have sincerely committed themselves to long-term projects (e.g. singer Sting established the Rainforest Foundation to protect the rainforests and their inhabitants, actor Leonardo DiCaprio has actively been engaged in campaigns and media projects addressing climate change through his foundation).

To my knowledge, the majority of climate change celebrities call upon politicians and send letters or requests to country leaders in order to obtain some sort of action finally being taken in the global crisis of climate change. However, within my research project I want to investigate how celebrities actively try to involve the public into the solution process.

By the example of Paul McCartney’s environmental engagement through the Meat Free Monday project I want to find out how celebrity diplomacy fosters awareness of climate change causes and to what extent it offers mitigation options to the public. Therefore, my research shall primarily be based on examining media and newspaper coverage as well as on the assessment of a very small number of scientific literature on this subject.
My reason for deliberately choosing Paul McCartney’s project to be observed is the fact that it familiarizes the public with the nexus between climate change and livestock production on the one hand plus it provides feasible options for public engagement on the other.
In the course of my research project I hope to shed some light on the actual success of such celebrity projects and on their potential of genuinely raising public awareness of climate change.
As one of my key interest addresses the actual feasibility of such projects, the question of my research project constitutes to be the following: “In comparison to other celebrity projects, does Paul McCartney’s Meat Free Monday campaign offer effectiveness in improving people’s commitment to an environmentally friendly lifestyle”

 

Research Plan
In order to answer the above delineated research question my research plan shall be structured as follows:

First, I will outline and assess the nexus between meat consumption and resulting consequences for global climate. I regard this initial step as indispensable as it serves to be the foundation on which McCartney’s principal argument for his campaign relies on. Within this step I will predominantly analyse sources from the United Nations (UN), the World Bank as well as genuine literature provided by independent institutions such as the Meridian Institute or Climate Focus.

Building on this assessment, the second stage will then deal with the actual concept of the Meat Free Monday campaign. Here, I will focus my research on how the campaign is constructed and how it tries to actively involve people in a solution process. Useful material will largely be drawn from the campaign’s website, social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and other media coverage (e.g. newspaper articles, radio broadcast).

The third step shall address what I call comparison. As mentioned in the research question above, one central aspect of my research is the actual difference between Paul McCartney’s project and those introduced by other celebrities fighting against climate change. Central to this stage shall be the assessment of other projects’ attempts of actively involving people rather than merely calling upon policy makers. My aim is to show that compared to other projects, the Meat Free Monday campaign genuinely allows for active participation of the average person.

Within the final step I want to critically present findings about the feasibility of McCartney’s project. Hence, I will reflect upon the general perception of the project and then most importantly upon how it actually makes a difference to people’s lifestyle.

Movie: This is why Meat Free Mondays matter(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXbJ1err5zw)

 

Sources:

Boykoff, M. T, Goodman, M. K. (2009). Conspicuous redemption? Reflections on the promises and perils of the ‘Celebritization’ of climate change. Geoforum 40, 395-406.

http://www.ecopedia.com/lifestyle/10-celebrities-taking-action-global-warming/

http://www.meatfreemondays.co.uk/

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Education/article1062584.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5pBxiF_Lrc

 

Do celebrities and their charity foundations matter?

Many celebrities have their own foundation for charity, whether if it is for environmental protection, disaster relief or to help disadvantaged children.  But do these foundations have an impact on politicians, those who are responsible to make decisions and to take actions?

http://www.reuters.com/article/slideshow?articleId=USN1833517620080118&slide=1#a=1

George Clooney, who was named the ninth UN messenger of peace by Ban Ki Moon in 2008 for his engagement in international crises and therefore raises attention for the United Nation’s work, is one of the founders of Not On Our Watch (www.notonourwatchproject.org). Together with Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, Jerry Weintraub, Don Cheadle and David Pressman he founded this foundation that tries to raise awareness and supports international advocacy and humanitarian assistance, primarily for the conflict in Darfur

http://www.welt.de/debatte/die-welt-in-worten/article10987936/Ein-haesslicher-Frieden-fuer-den-Sudan-und-Darfur.html

The conflict in Darfur, West Sudan, emerged between settled African tribes and Arabic nomads about limited resources of water and pasture.

In February 2003, two rebel groups were founded and demanded the end of the marginalisation and discrimination of African tribes and declared armed fight to the Sudanese government, which in return reacted with massive military action. This was when the conflict escalated.

Since then, more than 300.000 people were killed by fights between rebel groups, the Sudanese military and militias, supported by the government. More than two million People were forced to leave their homes and are refugees in their own country, in addition there are almost 300.000 people escaped to the neighboring country Chad and 50.000 to the Central African Republic.

A United Nations commission reported mass executions, mass rape, repelling and stopping the return of the refugees through burned down and destroyed villages.

Both sites are guilty of human rights violations and war crimes.

On July 31^st 2007, the Security Council of the United Nations decided on a peace keeping mission (UNAMID) in cooperation of the African Union and the United Nations. The mission is extended until July 2014.

Clooney’s engagement for Darfur is not limited on bringing the issue in the media and in this way back on the agenda. In 2006 he met with Egypt’s former foreign minister Ahmed Abul Gheit hoping that he would intensify the pressure on Sudan’s government. He also visited refugee camps and crises areas in Darfur and held a speech to the UN Security Council.

BBC Interview with George Clooney about the situation in Darfur from the 15th December 2006.

In my research proposal I want to look at the influence that Not On Our Watch and especially George Clooney had on the conflict in Darfur so far. I want to have a closer look at their activities, events, speeches and to whom they talked to and if those people undertook any actions afterwards.

The question that I want to answer is, if they were able to raise awareness of politicians for the Darfur conflict.

To do so, I need to define impact and how I want to measure it. That is important to be able to answer my research question and to know which documents and articles I need to look at.

The next step is to look at the Darfur conflict closer, who are the actors, what is happening, did any changes occured and how is the reporting about it in the media without going to deeply into the conflict. Therefore, I will look at official documents like from the UN, the German and US Department of State, and newspaper and journal publications.

With all this information I will follow up George Clooney and his engagement in the Darfur conflict as well as his foundation Not On Our Watch.What was the first step of their engagement, what did they do and what projects, events, speeches and other activities did they undertake? I will look at newspaper and journal articles but also at declarations from the UN, since George Clooney was named the ninth UN messenger of peace. Furthermore press conferences and publications form Not On Our Watch are a good source of information.

Another important factor are official government declarations. Did they raise their development aid or undertake any other actions and can this be related to a pesonal talk with George Clooney or an event his foundation organized?

The final step is to bring all  information together, evaluate them regarding the definition of impact I will introduce in the beginning and come to a conclusion if George Clooney and his foundation were able to raise political awareness or not.

I expect there to be an impact of their engagement on political awareness.

 

Sources:

Deutscher Bundestag: UNAMID (Darfur/ Sudan)
http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/ausschuesse18/a12/auslandseinsaetze/auslandseinsaetze/unamid/247446

Michael, Maggie (2006): George Clooney Seeks Sudan in Egypt, The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301428_pf.html

Not On Our Watch
http://notonourwatchproject.org/who_we_are

United Human Rights Council: Genocide in Darfur
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide-in-sudan.htm

Worsnip, Patrick (2008): George Clooney named U.N. messenger of peace , Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/18/us-un-messengers-clooney-idUSN1833517620080118