No Time for Celeb Activists

Gideon Rachman, the FT's chief foreign affairs columnist, offers a humorous and insightful take on the proliferating role of celebrities in development, debt-forgiveness and poverty reduction. George Clooney, Bono, Graydon Carter and Angelina Jolie all take hits from Rachman's wickedly poisonous pen.

"There is something unedifying about an unelected celebrity intimidating politicians," he writes. Indeed. Especially when, as Rachman notes, "they see things in the stark and simple terms favoured in Hollywood movies, rocks songs and the speeches of US president George W. Bush."

Isn't it just a little too easy for Bono or Brad Pitt to tell us what the solution is to complex issues such as underdevelopment? I think it is. On the other hand, I find my respect increasing exponentially for Mia Farrow. She has for many months been writing insightful and passionate op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere on the atrocities in Darfur and China's connection to the Sudanese regime.

"As Khartoum's largest and closest business partner, China has provoked outrage from the international community for underwriting genocide in Darfur. In recent months, Beijing has responded with steadily increasing talk about its commitment to promoting peace in the region. But it has taken no meaningful action."

This is good stuff. Unlike some celebrities, who seem to fit their advocacy in between film premiers and shopping for yachts, Ms. Farrow seems to have devoted herself entirely to this issue. Perhaps that's why Gideon Rachman leaves her out of his column? And I say good for her -- keep it up (and show the rest how it's done!).

Achtung stalling, baby!

Doing his best to keep debt forgiveness on the front burner, U2 frontman Bono yesterday called the International Monetary Fund's failure to keep its promise to write off $800 billion in Liberian debt an "IMF-ing outrage." Speaking to the Financial Times, the singer went on to lambast a system that requires developing nations to "waste time fighting with IMF modalities, 'bureaubabble' and unaccountable distant red tape in DC".

I like Bono a lot, and I can see the that the real value of a statement like this is that it is embarassing to the IMF. Questions of legitimacy are never far from the minds of these bodies and they should be called to task when their promises are not kept. In this case, it seems clear that a commitment was made and has not been fulfilled. But, the ramifications of loan forgiveness are complex. Bono might just as easily offer to take care of Liberia's debt out of his own pocket. That would solve this problem too, after all. But he won't, of course, and he shouldn't -- it wasn't his money that was lent in the first place. And that's it in a nutshell. States are equally, if not more, prone to moral hazard than individuals. If debt is to be written off, it must be handled in a way that avoids encouraging other borrowers to default. It would be nice if the IMF was taking its time in order to get this tricky balance right.

Alas, this is not the case. As the FT story points out, the foot dragging all boils down to the question of "Who's gonna pay?"

"The delay is aggravated by a three-way split inside the IMF, according to people familiar with the discussions. Managers at the fund are insisting shareholder governments need to put up more cash to meet the full cost of the relief. Middle-income countries argue richer members should be contributing more, while wealthier countries argue the fund itself has the resources to meet the gap."