Take the recent controversy surrounding former Miss World and Bollywood star Priyanka Chopra and her callous response to a questioner who asked whether she, as a Unicef goodwill ambassador, should have come out in support of the Indian Army during recent tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad. “I am patriotic,” was the actress’s excuse as she shushed her questioner by saying, “Don’t embarrass yourself.”
More recently, the United Nations decided to throw its hat in the ring, as if it had nothing better to do. “We do expect them [goodwill ambassadors] to adhere to impartial positions when they speak on behalf of Unicef or any other organisation,” insisted the spokesperson for the UN chief. “[But] in their personal capacity they retain the right to speak about issues of interest or concern to them,” he said. Of course, the UN representative clarified that goodwill ambassadors’ personal views “do not reflect the views of the agency they are affiliated.”
It is at best naive on the world body’s part if it expects the public at large to buy this stance. Whether the UN — or any other organisation for that matter — likes it or not, any individual it selects to represent its image does so in both public and private capacities. Would the UN offer the same justification if one of its goodwill ambassadors was found to be a Nazi sympathiser or extremist affiliate in his or her free time? The world body also needs to introspect; if it cannot accept responsibility for the individuals that represent it then how it can expect to influence entire member states.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 27th, 2019.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ