Today on the 23rd annual World AIDS Day, I’d like to write about Bono. Not Bono the musician, or Bono the businessman, but Bono the humanitarian, his most controversial hat. Since he began his career as an activist for various causes pertinent to Africa in the mid-1980′s, he has been both widely hailed and widely criticized; and I will argue that both are viable and warranted.

Let’s start with the good part: the fact that Bono’s lobbying campaigns, concerts, publicized visits to countries all over Africa, and other relevant endeavors have done some good, emphasis on ‘some.’ Like him or not, you can’t argue that his work over the past 25 or so years has brought a lot of necessary attention to very big problems facing Africa. One can argue the implications of the attention, but we’ll save that for the next paragraph. He’s helped set up and participated in various projects to fight AIDS, Malaria, Tuberculosis, and poverty, most notably the Live Aid concert series, the Global Fund, and Project(RED). Again, the merits of all of these organizations is contestable, but I’ll get to that. Finally he’s given millions of his own money to fight disease and poverty across Africa all in the process of making it a continent the general populace of the world can no longer ignore. That last bit is definitely worth at least a few brownie points.

Now on to the cons of Bono’s humanitarian efforts in Africa. First of all, the attention he has brought to the continent has been, for the most part, focused exclusively on the diseased, impoverished, and even corrupt parts of the continent. This negative image is something the continent can’t seem to shake, and it’s hurting as a result. Frankly speaking, you don’t need data, research, or personal experience on the continent to form an idea of Africa as a desolate place full of disease, poverty, and corruption. All you need is a TV set. Now I know a lot of this is the result of negative media attention as well, but like I said earlier, Bono’s trip are highly publicized and he hardly showcases Africa as the beautiful, diverse, and progressive place it is striving to be. Second, regarding his various campaigns in which he’s been formally involved, all it takes is a Google search to see that the ONE Campaign and the Global Fund in particular have come under scrutiny for missing donations and corruption allegations, and acting solely as a vehicle for celebrities to revamp their image, especially after a scandal. (See Brad Pitt’s involvement with the ONE Campaign not long after his image was dealt a harsh blow due to his divorce from Jennifer Aniston.) Finally, and this critique best takes the form of a question, how much does he actually know about Africa, as reflected in his work? How often does he actually say the name of a country or a leader or a city or an ethnic group or anything more geographically, politically, socially, or culturally specific than ‘Africa’? This has major implications for people who follow his work closely, especially those who understand his stories as reliable information on Africa. That definitely doesn’t do the continent any good given that a critical first step in promoting progress is having a thorough understanding of Africa.

Given his participation in a panel discussion with President Obama, and former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton today on World AIDS Day, this thorough examination of humanitarian Bono is especially relevant. The Irish rockstar isn’t the first, however, and he definitely won’t be the last of an ever-expanding club of celebrities turned humanitarians; and I would argue that regardless of one’s personal feelings on the celebrity in question, their charitable works should always be taken with a grain of salt. After all, they’re celebrities first, and humanitarians second. Celebrity is a tool to further their humanitarian agenda, which is undoubtedly a product of their position in the world.

Ironically, I think Bono articulated my feelings, that celebrities can be used to draw attention to critical issues, but should not be understood as experts by any means on the matter, on the issue best:

“It is absurd if not obscene that celebrity is a door that such serious issues need to pass through before politicians take note. But there it is. Jubilee can’t get into some of the offices and I can. But the idea has a kind of force of its own. I’m just making it louder. And, you know, making noise is a job description really for a rock star.”

What exactly is Product (RED)? According to the official website,

“Product (RED) is not a charity. It is not a cause. It is an idea.”

Launched by Bono and Bobby Shriver in 2006, the (RED) campaign defines itself as a business model which is designed to raise awareness and a sustainable flow of funds to the The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Private corporations agree to donate a portion of profit made on the sale of specific (RED) products directly to the Global Fund. These funds will then be used for the specific purpose of providing access to education, nutrition, counseling, medical services, and anti-retroviral medicine in Africa. Currently Product (RED) allocates it’s funds only to projects in Ghana, Lesotho, Rwanda and Swaziland, but there are plans to broaden their reach. Many popular businesses are already partners including American Express (UK only), Converse, Gap, Emporio Armani, Dell, Windows, Apple and Hallmark, with many more vying to get involved.

The basic idea is that for the same price of a comparable good, a consumer can purchase what they want and the company will make a contribution to the Global Fund. The percent of profit donated varies by partner and product. For example, at the Gap, 50% of sales on (RED) products, such as t-shirts that read, “Inspi(RED),” is donated. For every (RED) laptop computer sold, Dell and Windows will donate $50. Some companies are less specific about the percentage of sales that is actually donated but the philosophy remains the same throughout the stores: ‘lives can be saved through shopping.’ Buy a pair of shoes, save a life. Buy an iPod, save a life. The idea is not completely unappealing or inherently wrong. To date (RED) partners have generated more than $110 million for the Global Fund, money that would have otherwise just gone to the corporations. Still there are some unsettling aspects of this business model.

Product (RED) buys into contemporary feelings of wanting to get something for what we give and of wanting it to be convenient. It makes fighting AIDS trendy. The newest partner, Starbucks, is donating $.05 for every one of its three special seasonal beverages sold between December 1, 2008 and January 2, 2009. The Starbucks website states “It’s easy to do good”. And it is! All you have to do is spend $3.50 on a small peppermint mocha. You’ll get a sticker to place on a map of Africa to show your contribution and go on with your day feeling good about your 5 cent donation. 5 cents is nothing to scoff about. With as many drinks as Starbucks sells, it adds up, but what is the real message being sent? Who is really benefiting? Companies get to make a minimal donation and make themselves look really good. Consumers get to feel even better about their coffee and new clothes. It’s possible that a few of these consumers will be motivated to find out more about the AIDS epidemic in the developing world. They may visit a website and educate themselves, possibly making a larger donation in the future or just spreading their new knowledge to others. But how many purchasers of (RED) products will do this? How many others will feel they have done their part by purchasing their Product (RED) iPod, instead of a blue one?

Product (RED) is not necessarily a bad thing. I myself have purchased two (RED) iPods and love them. Funds are being raised to fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Still, I find this whole idea misses the point. Money is being donated while ignoring the root of the problem. Product (RED) uses the promotion of excessive consumerism to fight a problem that has been partially caused by excessive consumerism. It does not lead United States and European citizens to question global stratification and what their role in it might be. Instead it allows them to feel like they are doing something to help by shopping, rather than motivating them to make real changes. Money can always be given, but it’s hard to imagine any real improvements in the quality of living for everyone around the world without real changes to the economic and cultural systems we live in, including changes in how people think and act and view themselves as members of their neighborhood, country and world. A change between buying a Product (RED) t-shirt at the Gap or the plain gray shirt next to it on the shelf is not this kind of change. Product (RED) has the potential to raise awareness and make people think about global issues, but it also has the potential to make them feel satisfied with the way things are and the small part they are doing by purchasing a gingerbread latte at Starbucks. So for Product (RED) and other business models aspiring to follow it’s example, rather than a green, go for it, I give a yellow: use sparingly and with caution.

By Ruth Berger, VP MSU Chapter