By John Bavoso
A theme, which constantly seems to reemerge—yet never resolve itself—is that of celebrities and national icons making political declarations about a party or an issue or coming down on one side of a heated debate. The commentary seems to fall mainly into one of two camps: those who feel that celebrities are obligated to use their fame in the promotion of causes and, as human beings, are entitled to their own opinions, or those who feel that cultural icons should more or less “shut up and sing”—that artists and famous personalities should stay out of affairs which they are not well-versed in and which are highly divisive and sensitive.
In the international realm when celebrities, artists, and athletes become de facto diplomats, these concerns become magnified and the entire situation can become more complex. One of the reasons for this is that as both individuals and citizens of a particular nation, a celebrity in the international community not only represents him/herself but also embody the identity of their home country—for better or worse—in the eyes of both the sending and receiving nations.
The New York Philharmonic’s historic visit to North Korea earlier this year sparked a lively debate over the merits and pitfalls of musical diplomacy. While many saw the visit as a chance to build cultural bridges between two countries that are still technically at war, others saw a willingness to be friendly with a regime accused of grievous human rights abuses. Now, with the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing approaching—an event during which both open international exchanges and strong feelings of nationalistic pride are simultaneously prevalent—the issue of understanding the power of unofficial ambassadors becomes more urgent.
American history alone provides a wealth of examples of cultural icons serving as unofficial diplomats. Bobby Fischer’s defeat of defending World Chess Champion Boris Spassky in 1972 serves as an interesting example of how a chess match evolved into a diplomatic battle and then a diplomatic victory. Fischer’s win was seen as a major victory for the United States over the Soviet Union during the Cold War. When he competed in a rematch against Spassky in 1992 in Yugoslavia, however, he came into conflict with the U.S. Government, which saw his participation as a violation of the UN’s embargo of the country. As a result, Fischer became an expatriate, never to live in the U.S. again.
This example highlights the difficulty in recognizing celebrities as unofficial diplomats: since no real connection to the state exists, it becomes challenging to determine where state-sponsored action ends and individual priorities take over. Whether or not the actions of individuals are attributable to a state is a fundamental consideration in international law. The matter is complicated further by the fact that states are generally more than happy to be associated with such figures as Fischer when it engenders national prestige, and are quick to create distance when personal and national interests diverge. The lines were blurred even further in the case of the 1972 World Championship because the Soviet participants were subsidized by their government, further causing them to personify their sending state.
Sometimes a public figure can serve as a diplomat for more than just his/her home country. This was famously the case with Jesse Owens, who shattered expectations during the 1936 Summer Olympics held in Nazi Germany by winning four gold medals in track and field events. While on the surface, it may seem like a triumphant moment for the United States over a future adversary and a setback for Hitler’s public display of German vitality, it was Owens’ racial identity which ultimately made his story so important. In fact, Owens made very public statements to distance himself from the United States government and famously announced that “Hitler didn't snub me—it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.” It wasn’t until 1955 that Dwight Eisenhower belatedly bestowed upon Owens the title of “Ambassador of Sports.”
While the government and the news media saw an opportunity to portray a diverse American team being shunned by a racist Germany, in many ways the opposite was true. Owens was frequently asked for autographs by Germans in the street, was able to stay in a racially-mixed hotel (unlike in the United States), and when the media tried to say that Hitler snubbed him because of his race, Owens replied, “When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany.” Clearly, the United States wasn’t looking for any American to defend or validate the Nazi regime on the global stage.
Clearly, the international nature of being an unofficial diplomat makes things more complicated. As an individual, one does not always wish to be viewed as a representative of his or her nation, but only as a single human being. Because of this, the priorities and agenda of a nation and of an individual understandably do not always mesh. Identities are always multi-faceted and when the entire global community is involved things have a way of become even more complicated.
This still begs the question: is all of this just a moot point anyway? As the world becomes more and more globalized and individuals have morphed into empires, is one’s nationality even at the forefront of his or her identity anymore? The 2008 Summer Olympics is already shaping up to be an event that will bring identity to the forefront. As China prepares itself to impress the world and validate its superpower aspirations, individual athletes have already stated that they will not compete in the games given China’s human rights record. Similarly, athletes from traditionally excluded groups are now being charged with representing their nationality and their group, as well as themselves as individuals. Regardless of how things turn out, one thing is for sure: this summer should provide an interesting case study of the current state of the debate over un-ordained diplomats and their relationship with their sending and receiving nations.
