Gaga and Tedros: Some Thoughts

[jezze0410 393]

There have already been topics here on how some Hong Kongers and Taiwanese are criticising her for being pro-China, how China has censored Gaga, and how nice/terrible it is that Gaga has praised Tedros (Director of the WHO). I'd just like to expand on these issues, and explain why I think Gaga associating herself with Tedros (rather than the WHO) is problematic.

Let's begin with the least complicated fact: Gaga is a persona non grata in mainland China and on the soft blacklist due to the support she expressed earlier in her career for the Dalai Lama; she's on the long list of foreign celebrities/public figures to be cancelled in China for saying/doing anything that can be interpreted as disrespecting China/its people/its territorial integrity.

The criticism from HK and Taiwan over the last few days has been about her association with Tedros, and this criticism naturally increased in intensity during/after At Home Together, since she not only praised him so effusely, but the broadcast itself also labelled Hong Kong singers as being from China, rather than simply "Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong SAR, China"; this is compounded by the fact that singers from the UK were labelled as being from England, which shows that it is not a matter of showing the WHO member state to which the singer belongs (the four British nations are represented in the WHO by the UK). In normal times, this would be akin to a show labelling Scottish singers as being British while English singers are labelled English (not entirely accurate, since the HK/China issue has always been far tenser), but in the context of the recent democracy movement, the mass arrest of pro-Democracy leaders in HK the day before, and a very controversial move by the HK government that effectively allowed greater direct involvement by Chinese officials on local affairs announced mere hours before the broadcast started meant we HKers were particularly on edge. It also does not help that referring to Hong Kong simply as "China" and the UK as "England" are choices often made by Chinese speakers (the word for the UK, 英國, basically translates to "English Country") -- another piece of evidence that suggests that China or pro-China forces had a heavy hand in this event.

Let's look closer at Tedros himself. Prior to his appointment as Director of the WHO, he served as Minister of Health in Ethiopia as a member of the Tigray People's Liberation Front, a Marxist-Leninist party. His campaign for the Director post was backed and funded by various despotic regimes, including Mugabe's Zimbabwe and China. His appointment of Mugabe as WHO Goodwill Ambassador in 2017 was seen as returning a campaign favour, and widely criticised. Under his leadership, the WHO has been unwilling to take firm action on China or raise any doubt on data released by China during the initial outbreak, which was the key to containing SARS in 2003 (for those who don't remember/weren't yet born, the WHO basically sent a team to China without invitation and demanded greater transparency), and the WHO has showered disproportionate praise on China's management of the virus (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and until recently Singapore have all been successful) and made cringey remarks about how countries should learn from China (the lockdowns in China were far, far more draconian than those anywhere else, and the countries and territories I mentioned earlier succeeded in containing the virus without resorting to anything close to them). While I understand the realpolitik behind not openly criticising China in order to buy China's cooperation, The WHO's narrative of China aligns far too closely with China's propaganda push for it to be mere realpolitik.

This is not Gaga's first decision that might be considered by some to be politically problematic; her performance in Baku for the European Games was criticised by many for promoting the regime and whitewashing Azerbaijan's human rights record (it is one of the least LGBTQIA+ -friendly countries on Earth), for example. But back then, it was clear to me that she, perhaps naïvely, thought she could express support for and solidarity with the ideals of the European Games (bringing people together) without associating herself with the host regime. When she performed at the Hurricane Harvey relief concert and posed with all five living former presidents, she was trying to raise money and spirits for a great cause, and showed respect for the institution of the US Presidency without appearing to endorse all the presidents' policies/personal shortcomings; during her legendary Superbowl Halftime Show, she sidestepped politics and explicit criticisms of Trump in favour of promoting national unity.

Gaga has always used her platform to unite people, uplift spirits, and support causes; she's far too intelligent and well-informed to be completely unaware that the optics of some of her performances might be bad, but she's been largely successful at distancing herself from the most problematic aspects of such performances. I think, for all my reservations about the WHO and my dislike for Tedros, that curating Together At Home and raising money to fight the virus are noble endeavours. But her being friendly with Tedros is, for me, uncharacteristically tone deaf, and is a rare lapse in judgment.

[Phoenix Rises 954]

still , Trump cutting aid to WHO is more problametic .

[jezze0410 393]

13 minutes ago, Ronald Allen said:

still , Trump cutting aid to WHO is more problametic .

That's debatable. Yes Trump did so mainly to find a scapegoat for his poor management of the crisis domestically, but as things stand, the WHO is either (i) led by a leader who is gladly following the whims of a regime that cannot be trusted, or (ii) forced to act in a way that mollifies a rogue state to ensure its cooperation; if (i), the USA withdrawing funding might initiate a change in leadership; if (ii), the USA is just trying to out-China China in order to receive fair treatment. In either case, even assuming that the WHO's current problems can be fixed eventually (which I doubt), they can't be solved rapidly enough for the WHO to function as an effective, trustworthy tool for international cooperation during this pandemic.

[HermioneT 1,998]

Dear god, don't be that dramatic. She wanted to help and make a difference and she choose to do so with one of the biggest players in this field. And this is fine because otherwise it would have been probably a drop in the ocean. All big NGOs and companies have some questionable sides to them but that doesn't mean they can't be doing good work. I'm boycotting a lot of the companies who she mentioned as givers, but I still rather have them donating nonetheless.

Just because the US president is a raging maniac who is looking for an scapegoat to blame as the US death tolls are ridiculous high compared to other countries doesn't mean it is "evil" to cooperate with the WHO. Yes, there are certainly smaller ngos amd players who have a better reputation and less questionable actions and people in their rows, but it is indisputable that their influence is unmatched.

It is pretty much obvious that there were and are mistaken made by China, by the WHO and by a whole other group of countries. Still, this should not stop one to help. This is not a situation to look for problematic aspects and "canceling moves", but to take action.

[Antichrist 9,818]

40 minutes ago, HermioneT said:

Dear god, don't be that dramatic. She wanted to help and make a difference and she choose to do so with one of the biggest players in this field. And this is fine because otherwise it would have been probably a drop in the ocean. All big NGOs and companies have some questionable sides to them but that doesn't mean they can't be doing good work. I'm boycotting a lot of the companies who she mentioned as givers, but I still rather have them donating nonetheless.

Just because the US president is a raging maniac who is looking for an scapegoat to blame as the US death tolls are ridiculous high compared to other countries doesn't mean it is "evil" to cooperate with the WHO. Yes, there are certainly smaller ngos amd players who have a better reputation and less questionable actions and people in their rows, but it is indisputable that their influence is unmatched.

It is pretty much obvious that there were and are mistaken made by China, by the WHO and by a whole other group of countries. Still, this should not stop one to help. This is not a situation to look for problematic aspects and "canceling moves", but to take action.

hiding any kind of information about a disease until it spreads & infects half the world IS NOT A MISTAKE. IT'S A LITERAL CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

[UnlikelyStan 306]

1 hour ago, jezze0410 said:

There have already been topics here on how some Hong Kongers and Taiwanese are criticising her for being pro-China, how China has censored Gaga, and how nice/terrible it is that Gaga has praised Tedros (Director of the WHO). I'd just like to expand on these issues, and explain why I think Gaga associating herself with Tedros (rather than the WHO) is problematic.

Let's begin with the least complicated fact: Gaga is a persona non grata in mainland China and on the soft blacklist due to the support she expressed earlier in her career for the Dalai Lama; she's on the long list of foreign celebrities/public figures to be cancelled in China for saying/doing anything that can be interpreted as disrespecting China/its people/its territorial integrity.

The criticism from HK and Taiwan over the last few days has been about her association with Tedros, and this criticism naturally increased in intensity during/after At Home Together, since she not only praised him so effusely, but the broadcast itself also labelled Hong Kong singers as being from China, rather than simply "Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong SAR, China"; this is compounded by the fact that singers from the UK were labelled as being from England, which shows that it is not a matter of showing the WHO member state to which the singer belongs (the four British nations are represented in the WHO by the UK). In normal times, this would be akin to a show labelling Scottish singers as being British while English singers are labelled English (not entirely accurate, since the HK/China issue has always been far tenser), but in the context of the recent democracy movement, the mass arrest of pro-Democracy leaders in HK the day before, and a very controversial move by the HK government that effectively allowed greater direct involvement by Chinese officials on local affairs announced mere hours before the broadcast started meant we HKers were particularly on edge. It also does not help that referring to Hong Kong simply as "China" and the UK as "England" are choices often made by Chinese speakers (the word for the UK, 英國, basically translates to "English Country") -- another piece of evidence that suggests that China or pro-China forces had a heavy hand in this event.

Let's look closer at Tedros himself. Prior to his appointment as Director of the WHO, he served as Minister of Health in Ethiopia as a member of the Tigray People's Liberation Front, a Marxist-Leninist party. His campaign for the Director post was backed and funded by various despotic regimes, including Mugabe's Zimbabwe and China. His appointment of Mugabe as WHO Goodwill Ambassador in 2017 was seen as returning a campaign favour, and widely criticised. Under his leadership, the WHO has been unwilling to take firm action on China or raise any doubt on data released by China during the initial outbreak, which was the key to containing SARS in 2003 (for those who don't remember/weren't yet born, the WHO basically sent a team to China without invitation and demanded greater transparency), and the WHO has showered disproportionate praise on China's management of the virus (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and until recently Singapore have all been successful) and made cringey remarks about how countries should learn from China (the lockdowns in China were far, far more draconian than those anywhere else, and the countries and territories I mentioned earlier succeeded in containing the virus without resorting to anything close to them). While I understand the realpolitik behind not openly criticising China in order to buy China's cooperation, The WHO's narrative of China aligns far too closely with China's propaganda push for it to be mere realpolitik.

This is not Gaga's first decision that might be considered by some to be politically problematic; her performance in Baku for the European Games was criticised by many for promoting the regime and whitewashing Azerbaijan's human rights record (it is one of the least LGBTQIA+ -friendly countries on Earth), for example. But back then, it was clear to me that she, perhaps naïvely, thought she could express support for and solidarity with the ideals of the European Games (bringing people together) without associating herself with the host regime. When she performed at the Hurricane Harvey relief concert and posed with all five living former presidents, she was trying to raise money and spirits for a great cause, and showed respect for the institution of the US Presidency without appearing to endorse all the presidents' policies/personal shortcomings; during her legendary Superbowl Halftime Show, she sidestepped politics and explicit criticisms of Trump in favour of promoting national unity.

Gaga has always used her platform to unite people, uplift spirits, and support causes; she's far too intelligent and well-informed to be completely unaware that the optics of some of her performances might be bad, but she's been largely successful at distancing herself from the most problematic aspects of such performances. I think, for all my reservations about the WHO and my dislike for Tedros, that curating Together At Home and raising money to fight the virus are noble endeavours. But her being friendly with Tedros is, for me, uncharacteristically tone deaf, and is a rare lapse in judgment.

You are absolutely correct and & this should be more heavily discussed. After watching the event I almost think that she realized this and had to consciously reduce the level of Cultural reach and impact it would reach. Noble intentions but some very problematic people are doing unprecedented things that threaten the sovereignty of everything.

[Andreu 37,216]

A very interesting stance  I understand that people from HK might be not happy with that but I dont think Gaga had a pro china intention. Cant believe some ppl are lmaoing OP

[UnlikelyStan 306]

I personally hate the fact that all this money was funneled to world health organization  they are literally marketing the idea of a world government and mandatory national vaccinations directly in front of us with no shame. WHO is an extension of Corrupt influence of Russia and China’s communist party. This is all about using the influence of celebrities to accomplish their goals, which to be clear, is not about public health. They are using fear and public health as a vehicle to get to their destination. So happy people on GGD realize this isn’t a democratic vs republican issue. This is a global threat. It’s not easy to fully determine all of the factors at play, but seeing the text “global citizen” in the top left of the entire show confirmed a lot of internal suspicions for me. As well as Tedros and his awkward dialogue

[UnlikelyStan 306]

I have no doubt that Gaga is of the most pure & kind sole. She must have become aware of much of this info too late into the process and after watching I really think the event was down scaled due to the legitimate controversy

[UnlikelyStan 306]

2 minutes ago, Andreu said:

A very interesting stance  I understand that people from HK might be not happy with that but I dont think Gaga had a pro china intention. Cant believe some ppl are lmaoing OP

It’s herds of idiots. Everywhere all the time. I call them normies. Don’t mind the normies, and don’t be too hard on them, they are quite sensitive 

[UnlikelyStan 306]

The US is investigating the world Health Organization (at least Trump has defunded & heavily threatened to). I feel that this is going to go one of two ways - Tedros will either become even more powerful, as will the Chinese communist party, big pharma, and their international clique as they absolve sovereignty and attempt to use the United Nations to build an international super government, or they will all fail because a lot of very real information about what is actually going on comes out, and they will all end up in some sort of international prison or charged war crimes. This is serious.

If we consider China, Russia, and the US as the most powerful global superpowers (perhaps others should be included), we must put a lot of things aside right now & pray that Trump makes a global stand about this issue in particular because there is an ongoing effort by China and Russia to take over the world. Plainly and simply. 

[jezze0410 393]

2 hours ago, HermioneT said:

Dear god, don't be that dramatic. She wanted to help and make a difference and she choose to do so with one of the biggest players in this field. And this is fine because otherwise it would have been probably a drop in the ocean. All big NGOs and companies have some questionable sides to them but that doesn't mean they can't be doing good work. I'm boycotting a lot of the companies who she mentioned as givers, but I still rather have them donating nonetheless.

Just because the US president is a raging maniac who is looking for an scapegoat to blame as the US death tolls are ridiculous high compared to other countries doesn't mean it is "evil" to cooperate with the WHO. Yes, there are certainly smaller ngos amd players who have a better reputation and less questionable actions and people in their rows, but it is indisputable that their influence is unmatched.

It is pretty much obvious that there were and are mistaken made by China, by the WHO and by a whole other group of countries. Still, this should not stop one to help. This is not a situation to look for problematic aspects and "canceling moves", but to take action.

I think you've missed or misunderstood my point. I never claimed that the WHO was evil or that cooperation with it was, my point was that the WHO's leadership either has malintent or is incompetent. I in fact complimented Gaga's intent to help, despite my reservations with the WHO itself, and my criticism was directed at her friendliness towards Tedros (specifically her calling him a superstar). My point was that in the past, she has been able to separate the worthy cause from the often problematic personalities involved, but not this time.

[HermioneT 1,998]

7 minutes ago, jezze0410 said:

I think you've missed or misunderstood my point. I never claimed that the WHO was evil or that cooperation with it was, my point was that the WHO's leadership either has malintent or is incompetent. I in fact complimented Gaga's intent to help, despite my reservations with the WHO itself, and my criticism was directed at her friendliness towards Tedros (specifically her calling him a superstar). My point was that in the past, she has been able to separate the worthy cause from the often problematic personalities involved, but not this time.

Well, I gathered that and I do actually think, too, that the WHO acted incompetent. This whole discussion, though, is a political showdown, regardless of which I personally think the WHO is still a sufficient partner (if surely not the best) for an event like that. I know too less about Tedros to talk about his role, but I could imagine she did consciously call him "superstar" (although I do not approve of this choice of words) to make a point - because we all know how she is positioning herself towards Trump. My point is that - if you dig deep enough - you will find a hell lot of problematic people and actors participating in this event ( e.g. Procter and Gamble who she mentioned as donators). And if you look from that perspective she better hadn't done anything at all - but I prefer her taking a side and act. Because I generally don't believe it is possible to take action/help in an 100% ethical and social harmfree way in the world we are living. (also maybe because the whole Tedros/WHO problematizing is not that big here compared to in the US). 

 

[babylonn 126]

This whole event was funded by Bill Gates (using Gaga’s name and impact) to make everyone comfortable with some vaccine he wants everyone to have. You will not be allowed back into society or the workforce until you have this vaccine, of course you can’t just say that or people will see that it’s shady so you need to put together stuff like this to make people feel like they’re okay with/desire it. Microsoft also just filed a patent for a sensor implant that rewards you with money for “body activity” like sis what even is that. Also where was Dua Lipa, Miley, Lana, Adele, Ed Sheehan, etc? I found that kind of surprising. 

[vyniildisk 12,689]

It would be better if she would put this together without associating herwelf with the WHO but what it's done it's done and i enjoy the concert like there was no tomorrow