Beyonce, Mariah Carey and Usher: All sang for the Gaddafis, but it's OK now that the huge pay cheque they received has gone to charity (isn't that a tax right-off?) As Libya descends into civil war (well, Gaddafi did warn Libya and the world that it would happen so don't be so surprised), there has been a lot of hypocritical and shortsighted finger pointing and accompanying tsk tsk-ing at selected companies and individuals for their connections to the Gaddafis. This scenario whereby there is suddenly a stigma with the Gaddafis when until recently there wasn't is best exemplified with the way various pop stars (thanks to their publicists) have tried to give excuses and explanations to the whereabouts of the large sums they earned for private performances at the infamous annual New Year's Eve bash the Gaddafi boys have held in St. Barts. This party, which I have explained in a previous post, has seen the likes of Beyonce, Nelly Furtado, Mariah Carey, Usher and Enrique Iglesias all perform at one point in their careers for a $1 million cheque. These performances happened when the Gaddafis were in the Western good books and not the focus of (much) attention. Of course, this 'good' phase had nothing to do with Libya's oil. Now that the Gaddafis are now 'bad' again, these singers are now in hot water. What has been curious is the way their publicists have responded to the sudden 'bad' news and the Western media has been asking about 'so where did the $1 million dollars go?'. Beyonce (well, her publicist) announced that she donated the money to relief efforts in Haiti. Call me cynical but I somehow don't believe that this really did happen. It simply seems like a clever PR ploy to make Beyonce look good. Beyonce should pay her PR people a handsome bonus this year for connecting her now ill-earned gains to a 'good' (if slightly passé) cause identifiable to an US audience. Nelly Furtado (again, via her PR) said that she's going to (note: future tense) give the cash to charity, though her announcement came after the Beyonce communiqué, so the standard had been set. Usher (well, again his PR) had kept his lips shut on the subject at first but, surprise, surprise, he too has announced that the money is going to chairty - how nice of him. Interestingly, there is no word from Enrique Iglesias, but this has more to do with the fact that his mini-concert for the Gaddafis has not been reported widely in the Western media (unlike the others) so his PR is keeping quiet - why say something and draw negative attention when the general public is still in the dark? In any case, for Furtado and Usher at least, had it not suddenly become unfashionable to be working for the Gaddafis, they would have gladly and innocently spent their money as they see fit - so much for hard-held principles. The most interesting response came from La Carey's PR saying that she's (now) embarrassed about having performed for Gaddafi's sons in 2008, claiming she had no idea. Yeah right, darling. Here is what her statement said:
I was naive and unaware of who I was booked to perform for. I feel horrible and embarrassed to have participated in this mess," she said. "Going forward, this is a lesson for all artists to learn from. We need to be more aware and take more responsibility regardless of who books our shows. Ultimately, we as artists are to be held accountable.
So now the big question is what did she do with that $1 million she collected from Gaddafi? She didn't say, but her rep said this: "Mariah has and continues to donate time, money, and countless hours of personal service both here and abroad." So, between the lines, she's already spent the money then on herself.
The whole situation with the handling of Mariah Carey's Gaddafi performance and the delayed negative aftermath that she is having to now face embodies, on many levels, the hypocritical stance that the West has had and continues to have with the Gaddafis. Carey, like the West, had no qualms cooperating and doing rather profitable business with the Gaddafis, whether it be oil, gas or arms sales. However, now that the West is against the Gaddafis in support for a unclear and shadowy opposition group (or groups) fighting in eastern Libya, as if hit by sudden amnesia all previous cooperation with the Gaddafis has been conveniently forgotten while hasty and pathetic excuses are now being devised to provide justification for past, now embarrassing, actions in line with the new political reality. Orwell did say that who controls the present controls the past, and here we see a clear case of this happening.
In its behaviour towards Gaddafi, the West is now behaving in true schoolyard style. Everything is guided by shortsighted self-interest. At times this is happening to somewhat comical effect, leading to question the sanity of those in charge of policy. The worst example of this is how the EU has strongly showed its support for the ill-defined 'opposition' in Libya, strongly condemning Gaddafi for atrocities and the use of mercenaries that have yet to be independently verified, and calling for him to stand down. However, the EU meanwhile called upon Gaddafi to continue honouring his pledge to limit the flight of African immigrants into Europe's nearby southern reaches...!!!! Now let's get this straight... the EU wants Gaddafi to go, against his will, but still want him to still continue providing favours to them...? WTF? It's just as crazy as Hamas demands that Israel provide them with supplies when at the same time calls for its complete annihilation. Honestly, you can't have your cake and eat it too in both of these situations. But hey, that's our sophisticated and advanced society at work. We really have not advanced from the cavemen.
