Why Does Angelina Jolie Have my Job?

What do Angelina Jolie, Jessica Simpson and Lindsey Lohan have in common, besides being famous women? They all act as goodwill/humanitarian ambassadors on behalf of the UN, non-profit and news organisations.

In the last decade, celebrities have been acquiring high profile positions in such organisations without any education or experience. This phenomenon speaks volumes about the human condition. It seems that the public will only impart money to non-profits if a famous person offers a sales pitch and attaches a name to a cause. People like to give charity to an organization that is respected, and apparently celebrity support, amounts to respectability.

Angelina Jolie was named as a United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) Goodwill Ambassador in 2001. In 2003, Jessica Simpson became a Smile Ambassador for Operation Smile. Lindsey Lohan travelled to India in March 2010 to film a documentary on child labour and trafficking of women that was broadcast on BBC3.

The humanitarian/human rights sector is one of the most competitive job markets in the world given its non-profit nature and the high demand for such interesting and fulfilling work. It’s a world that requires volunteer work, graduate and masters degrees just to get a job interview. So I beg the question, what credentials do stars like Jessica Simpson, Lindsey Lohan and Angelina Jolie have to justify their positions?

I have been working globally as a human rights/refugee lawyer for the last 10 years and clearly cannot do what they do. Obviously, I don’t have a public profile that enables me to just show up and say something meaningful about a deplorable situation, in the hope of garnering physical and financial support for the requisite cause.

The real problem relating to access to such work, is the highly bureaucratic nature of deeply established organisations like the UN. Erika Iverson, who works in US Resettlement in New York, said, “I worked with people who didn't know their heads from their asses in resettlement but kept moving up the ladder because they did know how to work the UN promotion system, which is basically 'don't fuck up'.”

This bureaucracy is essentially what keeps indifferent and under-qualified people moving up the ladder. Both Ms Iverson and I have the education, experience and desire to work our way up in our profession, but its very difficult to garner job security in our field. We engage in such work because we want to use our skills to contribute something positive to the world.

Yet, it seems that celebrities don’t need any sort of qualifications or particular skills, they just need to care and be high profile enough. Angelina Jolie, in particular, is captured gallivanting all over the world visiting refugee and IDP camps and engaging in advocacy in Washington D.C. Undoubtedly, her commitment to displaced persons is real and striking. As Ms Iverson says, “she was hired to be a poster child for caring and it turns out, she actually cares.

As a Goodwill Ambassador, Ms Jolie has generated media coverage about the plight of refugees and the conditions under which they live. She has travelled widely to remote refugee camps and UNHCR reception centres in countries including Tanzania, Namibia, Cambodia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, and Ecuador.

Ms Iverson, is impressed that Angelina has made something of her position, “which actually doesn't require her to do more than say a word or two at appropriate occasions.”

There is no doubt that celebrities have become a perfect pawn in the game of exposure, in an effort for non-profits to acquire much needed funds. Ms Iverson points out that her “biggest beef with Jolie is that she's Ambassador for UNHCR instead of the U.S. Department of State’s Reception and Placement Program (USRP), or the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) or the International Rescue Commission (IRC). UNHCR is a mess . . . but IOM, USRP and IRC are doing what they can to keep this train running in the right direction.”

Committed and informed celebrity spokespeople do not hinder those of us actually working in the field. They help create a discourse and provide vital knowledge to those, who otherwise, may not engage in such issues. Ms Iverson says “I think it's because of them, I can actually explain myself to people who don't know exactly what it is that I do.”

This is also true of reporters and producers of news and current affairs. Brittney Nystrom, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at the National Immigration Forum in Washington D.C says "it's not only the viewers who take notice when a celebrity speaks about a tragedy or visits a camp.” Ms Nystrom suggests that “reporters and producers are more likely to cover an issue that has been introduced by Angelina Jolie or Jessica Simpson than if 1000 experts on the issue begged them to pay attention.” It seems that the concept of ‘news values’ is somewhat dictated to by what celebrities deem appropriate to support. However, those stars that use their humanitarian profile as a means of further exploiting their celebrity status can have a damaging effect.

In March 2010, Lindsey Lohan travelled India to film a documentary on child labour and trafficking of women that was broadcast on BBC3. She created a controversy when she falsely claimed to have personally rescued 40 children. She boasted on Twitter, “over 40 children saved so far ... Within one day's work ... This is what life is about ... Doing THIS is a life worth living!!!"

She was adamant that the experience had changed her life, complaining about the superficiality of celebrity in contrast to the fulfilment of humanitarian activism. "Focusing on celebrities and lies is so disconcerting, when we can be changing the world one child at a time ... hope everyone can see that," she said

However, activists in charge of the raids claimed that Ms Lohan arrived in India after the raids had occurred and the children had been rescued. The activists criticized her comments, accusing her of trivializing the issues of child labour and trafficking.

It is an indictment on our society that the status quo requires a celebrity to tell them what is immoral and ugly in the world and what therefore deserves their attention and support in rectifying.

However, Ms Iverson believes that “if this is what it takes to get people to notice refugees, I'm all for it. If Angelina Jolie can make the average American care about the average refugee from Iraq, Burma, Somalia, etc, then let her. It makes my job of reigning in that support that much easier.”

Perhaps the use of celebrity spokespeople is a vital way of exposing atrocities and garnering the funds needed to provide protection and accountability, as human kind is becoming a little more immune to violence and a little more obsessed with celebrity, each day.

Ms Nystrom believes that "we like to keep our entertainment separate from reality. It's more comfortable that way. Seeing celebrities surrounded by terrible poverty or despair forces us to look at a reality we otherwise choose to ignore."