The events in Egypt continue to resonate with celebrity politics.  Reflecting on my last blog post on the state hold on celebrities  it is useful to focus briefly on Mrs. Mubarak.  A number of Wikileaks about her role show her involvement in Egyptian politics.  Far from being content in playing a symbolic role as First Lady, Mrs. Mubarak was interpreted by a number of US diplomats to have played a major political role in trying to assure a dynastic succession to Gamal, the Mubaraks’ son.

But let me shift the focus in this blog post from the old regime to more future oriented scenarios. In particular I view the events in Egypt as opening up the puzzle once again:  can celebrities go home again?

To suggest that an individual such as Mohamed ElBaradei is a celebrity runs into all sort of thorny definitional questions. But he did gain a measure of fame from winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for his work as director of the UN nuclear agency. These achievements put him in a different category than those who gain celebrity status only by some form of support to a cause.

Yet, in some ways the question of whether or not a notable such as ElBaradei can go home again echoes other circumstances from the world of entertainment and sports. Although the list is likely longer, those I put at the top of the cluster of those celebrities away from their home are: Wyclef Jean, George Weah and Imran Khan.

All of these individuals received some measure of kudos as long as they concentrated their attention on non-political activities. Wyclef Jean used the fame he achieved as a member of the Fugees as a platform to build the Yéle Haiti Foundation. George Weah a star footballer became a UNICEF goodwill ambassador and an advocate for youth in his home country of Liberia. Imran Khan moved from being an iconic cricketer to an activist, starting a charitable foundation in Pakistan bearing the name of his mother and serving as a UNICEF special representative for sports.

Moving from social activism to success as an elected national political leader however seems to be a ‘bar too high’. George Weah lost the Liberian presidency in a run-off with Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Imran Khan had a disappointing career as a politician. And Wyclef has been barred from running for the presidency in Haiti for not meeting the residency requirements.

These failures can all be put down to problems attached to these individuals – whether opportunism or lack of organizational prowess. Yet their lack of success also reveals how difficult it is for celebrities – whether defined by ascription or achievement – to go back home.

Such a bar, although not the only constraint in the case of ElBaradei, offers an insight into how difficult it will be for him to emerge as a political actor in the new Egypt.

The main focus on the events in Egypt has been on the mass gathering of demonstrators in Tahrir Square in Cairo.  These demonstrators became the media heart of the protests against the Mubarak regime. Yet as in other areas I have looked at the role (or non-role) of celebrity activists is salient as a lens focused on the intersection of politics and culture.

One thematic issue that emerges from such an enquiry is the differing levels of activism between older and younger celebrities. A major older celebrity is Omar Sharif the Oscar winning star of Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago and other movies. What is striking in his comments is his desire for both change and stability. On the one hand, he says that President Hosni Mubarak should have resigned. ‘Given that the entire Egyptian people don’t want him and he’s been in power for 30 years, that’s enough’. And he added: “The president hasn’t improved the standard of living of Egyptians. There are some people that are very rich — maybe 1 percent — and the rest are all poor trying to find food.”

Yet he expresses concern over moving beyond the Mubarak era. As he told AP: “I personally don’t know what they [anti-Mubarak forces] will do afterwards. Who will they bring, who will take his place, who will be in charge of the country?” This fear was magnified if it turns out that the Muslim Brotherhood gains from the exit of Mubarak leaves. “They [the Muslim Brotherhood] were trapped and now are starting to come out. They have 20 percent of the population, and it’s frightening for me.”

This cautious on the one hand and on the other hand attitude can be contrasted to the enthusiastic anti-Mubarak views of young celebrity protestors, some of whom have gained prominence in other countries. A case in point is Khalid Abdullah described by the BBC who repeatedly interviewed him as a ‘British-Egyptian’ actor (the Kite Runner is his best known film, and he was honored at the 2010 Cairo film festival) who rather than looking down at ‘Liberation Square’ like Sharif is actually in the square. Besides Abdullah’s distinctive characteristics his role also raises the question of whether celebrity activists who have gained some measure of fame abroad can go home again – a theme that I will return to next week.

If the shifting agency of celebrity activism needs to be looked at further however so must the embedded context in which celebrities have had to operate in Egypt. What jumps out is the tight grip of the state. As I have pointed out in earlier blog posts a wide number of Egyptian celebrities dating back to Umm Kulthum in the 1960s have been mobilized for the interests of the state.

What is different about Egypt under Mubarak is the personal nature of this grip. Rather than just promoting celebrities because they adhere to the interests of the state, Mubarak’s family members have taken on the role of celebrity activists. The best – or worst – illustration of this phenomenon is the endorsement of Suzanne Mubarak, the wife of Egyptian president as a goodwill ambassador for the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

The Egyptian first lady may be committed to good causes, as other individuals in this role are. Indeed, she has won a number of awards for he work. Yet, in witnessing the pent up demand for change I can’t escape the conclusion that having her as a goodwill ambassador is just one more indicator about how pervasive the hold of the Mubarak regime on Egypt has been.

As in other parts of the world, a healthier format would be to have prominent celebrities – with no state links – exclusively appointed to this role, especially from the younger generation of activists.

The image of Bono taking centre stage once again at Davos on a panel about ‘Raising Healthy Children’ could easily open up another grueling debate about the merits of the U2 lead singer as a global celebrity activist. This is a subject I have commented on in the past, notably in the Global Governance journal. Although I take an extremely positive view of Bono’s efforts (to the point of suggesting that there is a dynamic that can be termed the Bono-ization of diplomacy!), the criticism of his role as a development campaigner has to be taken seriously. Such attacks include delving into his private financial affairs pertaining to the movement of some of his corporate profile for tax advantages.

Whatever readers think about the ethical motivations and application of such hard-edged practices a bigger question has to be asked. Should we target Bono for criticism because he combines, musical entertainment, business self interest and celebrity advocacy at the same time?  Can we let the older generation of rock stars off the hook for focusing on the first two activities without any sustained effort on the third?

My attention to this issue is influenced in part by my reading Keith Richards’s autobiography (Life) over the holidays. I came away with two very different thoughts. The first was a reaffirmation of the view that talents need to be cultivated if not by vigor of tiger moms and the 10,000 hours rule (the length of time that Malcolm Gladwell suggests it takes to become an expert in any field). What drives the success of the Rolling Stones is how much practice they put in.

More in tune with the theme of this blog, however, is that there has never been any focused move by the Rolling Stones to do anything that benefited the public good. They were quite explicitly rebels without a genuine cause. Above all self -indulgence trumped any sense of giving back.

To be sure, this attitude can be rationalized by a number of factors. The Stones were quite clearly ripped off by promoters and managers at the early stage of their career.  And in the pre-Thatcher era they had to pay massive amounts of tax, pushing them to live abroad. They even titled one of their biggest albums, Exiles on Main Street.

Yet opportunities were there for them to expand their horizons. Bianca Jagger became interested in a wide range of causes by the late 1970s but this triggered no similar commitment on Mick Jagger’s part (apart from some apparently low-key and much later project participation such as lending his voice to an education campaign in South Africa in early 2010 and work on a UN charity album in 2009).

Keith Richards was obviously impressed by Václav Havel the Czech intellectual president but there was no spillover effect after a concert in Prague. Even Eric Clapton, a well-known advocate of the view that rock stars should just ‘keep to the music’ has set up and continued to maintain a strong connection with a non-profit drug rehabilitation centre on the Caribbean island of Antigua (part of a region that Mick and Keith spent much time). Keeping to strict parameters about how rock stars should behave made the Rolling Stones immensely wealthy but in comparison to Bono the impression is one of restricted lives. It seems perverse then that the U2 singer comes under such criticism for stretching out in terms of celebrity engagement when the Rolling Stones are free of such criticism by downplaying social engagement.

One of the least recognized subjects of celebrity activism relates to who advises these celebrities.

The traditional answer focuses on institutions. When we look back to early celebrity activists the UN acted as the core mentor organization. UNICEF stands out for the efforts of such pioneers as Danny Kaye and Audrey Hepburn.

This approach continues to operate. There is a wide and impressive breadth of operation  – albeit there still are issues of quality control. This route is still the first option for many stars when they want to get involved. A good indication of this attraction is the choice of UNHCR by Angelina Jolie for refugee issues.

What is fascinating, however, is that over the last few years there has been a growing fragmentation of the advisory role. The UN, for instance, no longer has a monopoly. Major celebrity activists have been influenced by advisors with backgrounds in other forms of organizations notably NGOs. The relationship of Jamie Drummond, the Executive Director of ONE, and Bono jumps out because of their prior involvement with the Jubilee 2000 – ‘drop the debt’ campaign.

But the phenomenon that bears more scrutiny is what can be termed free-lance advisors. Some of these are extremely well connected Hollywood insiders. A prime example is

Donna Bojarsky, a political consultant close to the Obama administration, who runs an influential Foreign Policy Round Table, encouraging the entertainment industry’s leaders to be engaged with international affairs and the US’s role in the world.

Another strand comes from experienced foreign policy experts who straddle a number of advisory roles. A good illustration of this type of person is Morton Halperin. Long associated with a set of leading Washington DC-based think tanks, such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution, Halperin acts also as a consultant to George Soros’ Open Society Institute and as a board member of ONE.

Some other consultants focus on specific issues. John Prendergast is arguably the best known of this type of advisor, coaching and navigating a number of celebrities (including Don Cheadle, George Clooney, Javier Bardem and Ryan Gosling) through the complexities of dealing with African issues such as Darfur.

And finally I return to Trevor Neilson.  I mentioned him in my last blog post on Richard Holbrooke who mentored a large cluster of stars.  In fact Trevor has a roster that includes Ashton Kutchner and Demi Moore in the campaign against child sex-trade trafficking.

Neilson’s work links back up to the theme of mentor organizations. The difference is that unlike the UN or NGOs, Neilson’s firm (Global Philanthropy Group) is explicitly commercially oriented with a fee for service.

This diversification does point to widening prospects for recent graduates in international public policy programs to take up this form of advising. Instead of having to wait to move up the ranks of more formal organizations, or work towards becoming a go-to expert, the rise of firms such as GPG offer a different and ‘quicker’ type of attractive opportunity – a hybrid apprenticeship linking the worlds of wonks and celebrities.

Get you job applications ready – you IR graduates!

The tributes to Richard Holbrooke have concentrated on the core components of his career, highlighted by his diplomatic trouble-shooting in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Although his career as a US official dealing with front line conflicts was long and distinguished, Holbrooke had other elements to his personality and professional profile that merit attention.

What should not be missed is his leadership in an area entirely removed from geo-political mediation. This was in the area of global health.

In January 2000, as the US ambassador to the UN, Holbrooke convened a path-breaking meeting of the Security Council to discuss AIDS in Africa. As the Executive Director of UNAIDS reminded us: “Ambassador Holbrooke managed to redefine the AIDS response by identifying AIDS, not only as a public health issue, but as matter of global security. Through his unique actions he has mobilized world leaders and business partners in committing to the AIDS response. The AIDS movement has lost a good friend.”

Moreover, as in his work on geo-political mediation, Holbrooke proved tenacious. After departing from the UN, Holbrooke embraced the leadership of an NGO devoted to the mobilization of businesses and corporations in the fight against AIDS. In a span of six years, Holbrooke turned this organization—the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS —into an organization with a global span. Expanding its mandate to include malaria and TB, it became a key conduit to the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

As in the other aspects of his life instrumental purpose was combined with an embrace of a celebrity aura. The work on AIDS brought him into contact with a host of A-Listers. Some of these celebrities, as might be expected from the mandate of the NGO, came from the business world. The Corporate Advisory Board currently includes Sir Richard Branson, Chairman, Virgin Group of Companies; Ratan N. Tata, Chair of the major Tata companies; and David Stern, Commissioner, National Basketball Association (NBA); financial support for the work of the Coalition was provided by Bill Gates, George Soros and Ted Turner.

Other A-Listers that he associated with on the AIDS initiative, however, were bona fides Hollywood stars. Angelina Jolie, notably, participated at the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS’ 2005 Awards for Business Excellence Gala (and has kept up a connection since).

The other link between the worlds of official diplomacy and celebrity activism is the promotion of up and coming talent. As a young diplomat, Holbrooke was mentored by a variety of diplomatic ‘old hands’. In his leadership of the Business Coalition Holbrooke appointed as Executive Director, Trevor Neilson, who had previously served as the served as the Director of Public Affairs and Director of Special Projects for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Nielsen has since set up the Global Philanthropy Group, a firm that connects celebrities and causes.

But more on that in another Guest Blogger post.  Meanwhile the United States and this Administration in particular will miss Richard Holbrooke.