Celebrity diplomats, diplomatic celebrities?
We’ve all probably seen pictures of Ban Ki Moon head of the UN dancing to the famed “Gangnam Style” song with famous celebrity PSY. And most people have seen Bono or Anglina Jolie touring worst stricken African countries trying to buffer up support through the media to receive aid. But is it really necessarily good things that ultimately were seeing the blurring of the lines between celebrities and Politicians?
According to a recent article in the Washington Post, Obama’s appearances in many talk 
shows lately have significantly increased his ratings and popularity[1]. The president of the United States is not the only one who conducts such PR stunts. David Cameron (Prime Minister of the UK) and even the Minister for foreign affairs William Hague have all appeared on Jonathan Ross’s show. All of which have also boosted their popularity, and most importantly for the TV network the number of viewers of the show have soared. Both sides the “host” and the “hosted” win, but is it necessarily good for the public to see a public figure sitting in a place where drug addicted and controversial celebrities have sat the previous day? Is it good to see a man who holds one of the most key and important posts in the world dance to a ridiculous dance technique and making himself look idiotically?
More equally is it right for celebrities to conduct charitable aid events and then just give away the money. One of the most famous aid events that started this so-called “Celebrity charity” was the “Live Aid” in 1985. The event itself was held in 7 venues all around the world and attracted hundreds of thousands of people, the live broadcast was channeled to 1,9 billion people. The program raised ultimately $283.6 million. The aid money went to the famine stricken Ethiopia, and relieved the country’s starving, but only for a while. The celebrities that attended or that have organized the event have certainly made a name for themselves but the aid itself didn’t target the core causes of the famine, rather the aftermath and the symptoms of this monstrous cataclysm. Furthermore before the event had began, on his tour of the African state, Bob Geldoff who was one of the main organizers of Live Aid called the President of Ethiopia a “C**t” which in a normal diplomatic situation is unacceptable. Fortunately for him and probably for Great Britain the interpreter didn’t translate at that point. But these kind of quirky situations just show that celebrities take on roles that in normall ciurcamstances would have been taken up by experienced politicians. And since Live Aid this kind of activity among Celebrities have increased. Does this mean that Politicians are actually failing us as reliable public servants? What’s even more worrying is the fact there are more and more instances where celebrities themselves go into politics. Probably the best example would be Arnold Schwarzenegger who was ultimately elected Governor of California! Austrian born actor who stared in the sci-fi movie “The Terminator” had no political experience and yet he was elected to govern the wealthiest state in the US.
Whether or not this shift in Politics is good only time will show, but for now it seems that Political posts or functions that were performed by the more experienced people who have a history of public service are slowly given to people who have the ability to entertain. Also what is dangerous is that politicians who are supposed to be serving the people are ultimately serving themselves and destroying the façade of hierarchy that exists between a politician and a normal citizen.
Public Diplomacy and Global Communication D 
Although one cannot deny that celebrity involvement in the diplomatic sphere acts to spread issues into the mass public consciousness, I would argue that not only does this act to erode the hierarchy that exists between politician and citizen (or should I say celebrity) but the issues run deeper and undermine governments reducing both vulnerable citizen and (weak) government to ‘bystanders’. To hear that Geldof used such language at all let alone directed at the President of Ethiopia is appalling. It reflects the superior, il-considered bad ‘diplomacy’ that hits the mainstream when celebrities are allowed to engage in politics out of their depth. That is not diplomacy and it is not acceptable. For this reason amongst others Geldof’s ‘celebrity’ status should no longer be entertained!
Over the years on global politics has taken new directions, thus embodying new actors in international relations. Especially when it comes to issues of “low politics”, involving issues such as the environment, promotion of human rights among others.
The emergence of threats, “high politics” issues ceased to be so relevant and policymakers turn to other strategies, employing alternative means outside the military field, able to capture the attention of their targets. And change in politics favored nation’s able to exercise cultural and ideological attraction, thus favoring the rise of celebrities in PD, which emerge as new actors in the international sphere.
And indeed the importance of soft power increased and as Gelb observed “soft power seems to mean everything” (Gilb, 2009:69). And now, not America but all over the world governments have used the influence of soft power, and is to be noticing the rise of Asia and china in particular.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a well-known public figure even without political background, was elected Governor of California, taking advantage in relation to those with political background. His victory demonstrates that being a public figure is an advantage to receive the acceptance of the public. And agree with your point, since traditional politics is shifting to well-known public figures as they have the ability to persuade the public.