World Peace

CARDI B

GoogleAI Overview:

“Cardi B visited Saudi Arabia in December 2025, headlining the MDLBEAST Soundstorm Festival in Riyadh, where she went viral for her culturally adapted performance, using Arabic greetings like “Salam alaikum” and “mashallah,” wearing a modest outfit, and praising the country’s clean environment and shopping. Her visit sparked buzz online, with fans nicknaming her “Halal B,” as she balanced her usual energetic style with a more family-friendly set, fitting into Saudi Arabia’s push for global cultural engagement. 

Key aspects of her visit:

Performance: Delivered a high-energy but “profanity-light” set, incorporating local cultural elements and popular hits.

Cultural Adaptation: Wore a custom, full-coverage pink outfit and used Arabic phrases, earning positive reactions.

Viral Moments: Posted videos praising the clean, new feel of the country, its luxury malls, and the shopping, contrasting it with American life.

Public Reception: Gained affection as “Halal B” and was seen as part of a trend of international stars boosting Saudi Arabia’s soft power.

Timing: Her visit occurred shortly after she was cleared in a civil assault trial in the U.S., drawing attention to her global activities.”

When Saudi Arabia is a leader in human rights violations, what are the implications of stars like Cardi B contributing to its soft power?

GoogleAI Mode: “The performance of major stars like Cardi B in Saudi Arabia carries significant ethical and political implications, as it is often viewed as a form of “soft power” or “reputation laundering” for the Saudi government. 

1. Reputation and “Image Laundering”

Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, argue that the Saudi government uses massive entertainment festivals like MDLBeast Soundstorm to deflect global attention from its record of human rights abuses. By hosting high-profile American artists, the state projects an image of a “modern” and “open” nation, effectively “whitewashing” severe domestic issues such as: 

Mass Executions: Saudi Arabia continues to carry out record-level executions for both violent and non-violent crimes.

Suppression of Free Speech: Peaceful activists and writers face long prison sentences or even death for critical social media commentary.

Women’s Rights: While some social restrictions have eased, critics point out that women’s rights activists remain imprisoned. 

2. Complicity Through Censorship

Performers in Saudi Arabia often agree to contractual terms that prohibit discussing sensitive topics like the royal family, religion, or sexual orientation. Critics argue that by adhering to these rules, stars like Cardi B are not just respecting another culture but are actively participating in state-sponsored censorship. This creates a “false equivalence,” suggesting that the kingdom is as free or safe as Western democracies, despite the lack of political and civil liberties. 

3. Normalization of the Regime

High-profile endorsements help normalize the Saudi government’s standing on the global stage. When stars like Cardi B praise the country as “luxurious” or “cleaner” than the U.S., they contribute to a narrative that prioritizes material comfort and safety over fundamental human rights. This can: 

Stifle Criticism: Broad influence can discourage international pressure or business withdrawals that might otherwise occur in response to human rights violations.

Validate Vision 2030: These events are central to the Vision 2030 agenda, which seeks to diversify the economy through tourism and entertainment to secure the monarchy’s long-term power. 

4. Divide in Public Perception

The implications also vary based on the audience:

Local Impact: Many Saudi fans view these performances as a positive step toward social liberalization and increased global connection.

International Backlash: In the West, such performances often lead to accusations of hypocrisy, especially for artists like Cardi B who have built a brand on being “unapologetically outspoken” and “raw”. Critics highlight that she is paid by the same government that has historically restricted the very freedoms her career is built upon.”

Are there other countries using soft power to improve their human rights image?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, many other countries use soft power strategies, often referred to as “sportswashing” or “artswashing,” to improve their international image and deflect attention from human rights issues. 

Prominent examples of countries that employ these tactics include:

Qatar: Notably, Qatar hosted the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This event brought global attention, but also intense scrutiny from human rights organizations regarding the exploitation and abuse of migrant workers who built the stadiums and infrastructure, as well as the country’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Qatar also uses Al Jazeera as an influential global news channel and has developed educational initiatives to build its global influence.

China: China has used major sporting events like the 2008 Summer Olympics and the 2022 Winter Olympics to project an image of modernity and strength. These efforts have been met with diplomatic boycotts and criticism over the government’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang region, the suppression of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, and its general human rights record. China also funds hundreds of Confucius Institutes globally to promote its language and culture.

United Arab Emirates (UAE): The UAE has invested heavily in cultural initiatives, such as the Louvre Abu Dhabi, and various sporting events like Formula One races and golf tournaments. These efforts are part of a broader strategy to position itself as a modern and tolerant nation, despite ongoing concerns raised by human rights groups about migrant workers’ rights and restrictions on political expression.

Russia: Russia used the 2018 FIFA World Cup to temporarily improve public perception and distract from political issues and its human rights record at the time. The government also uses state-controlled media and cultural events to promote its global influence.

Azerbaijan: This country has faced accusations of using events like the European Games and Formula One Grand Prix races to “sportswash” its image and divert attention from human rights abuses. 

In all these cases, the core implication, similar to Saudi Arabia’s approach, is an attempt to use the universal appeal of sports, arts, or entertainment to gloss over serious and systemic human rights violations and improve the nation’s standing on the world stage.”

Why do Western democracies scrutinize sportswashing, but still host events in certain nations?

GoogleAI Mode: “Western democracies often scrutinize “sportswashing” while continuing to engage with the nations involved due to a conflict between ideological values and pragmatic interests. The presence of international events in these countries is driven by several systemic factors: 

1. The “Olympic Catch-22”

Hosting events in autocratic regimes often backfires on the host, a phenomenon known as the “Olympic catch-22”. While regimes aim to improve their image, the global spotlight frequently exposes illiberal practices, inviting “naming and shaming” campaigns that would not occur without the event. Western democracies may view hosting as an opportunity to force these nations into the international spotlight, theoretically incentivizing them to adopt stronger human rights standards to avoid global backlash. 

2. Economic and Structural Realities

Western democracies often face significant domestic hurdles to hosting mega-events, which autocracies do not: 

Public Accountability: Democratic governments must justify the use of taxpayer funds for expensive stadiums that often become “white elephants”. This has led many democratic cities to withdraw bids for the Olympics or World Cup.

Financial Capability: Autocratic regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are willing to absorb massive financial losses to host these events as part of long-term soft power and economic diversification strategies like Vision 2030.

Bidding Competition: International organizations like FIFA and the IOC often award events to the highest bidder. Because fewer democracies are bidding due to cost concerns, autocratic regimes have become the primary candidates. 

3. Geopolitical and Strategic Interests

Diplomatic Relations: Maintaining strong ties with resource-rich nations is a priority for Western foreign policy. Engaging through sports can act as a “universal language” to build goodwill and ease political tensions.

“Diplomacywashing”: Some nations, like Saudi Arabia, have expanded their strategy from sports to high-profile diplomatic mediating (e.g., hosting talks between Russia and Ukraine) to further normalize their standing and make themselves indispensable to Western interests. 

4. Influence of Corporations and Sports Bodies

International sports federations operate as private entities, often prioritizing their own financial growth over human rights criteria. While the IOC has recently introduced human rights and sustainability clauses into host contracts, these are often criticized for lacking binding legal force or clear definitions of “manifest violations”. Additionally, Western companies and sponsors are heavily invested in the global exposure these events provide, creating economic pressure to continue participation regardless of the host’s record.”

What are the solutions?

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, human rights experts and international bodies have proposed several multi-layered solutions to combat sportswashing and ensure mega-events contribute to positive social change.

1. Reforming Governance and Bidding

Mandatory Human Rights Criteria: Governing bodies like FIFA and the IOC are being pushed to require host candidates to meet minimum human rights standards before awarding hosting rights.

Binding Contractual Clauses: Host city contracts should include legally enforceable clauses related to labor conditions and non-discrimination. Breaches could trigger financial penalties or, in extreme cases, revocation of the event.

Independent Oversight: Establishing permanent, independent monitoring bodies involving civil society and NGOs to conduct on-the-ground audits throughout the event’s lifecycle. 

2. Legal and Financial Accountability

National Legislation: Governments can introduce laws, such as the CFIUS framework in the U.S., to review foreign government investments in sports franchises for potential “reputation laundering” or national security risks.

Punitive Measures for Sponsors: Applying “forced labor” prevention acts or similar punitive stances to event sponsors can force companies to scrutinize their complicity in a host nation’s human rights violations. 

3. Strategic “Counter-Sportswashing”

Transforming Participation: Athletes and stars can use the event’s global spotlight to stage coordinated protests or raise awareness for specific causes, effectively subverting the host’s original intent.

Media Literacy and Transparency: Journalists and academics play a key role in countering state-sponsored narratives by providing detailed accounts of “illiberal practices” linked to the events. 

4. Remedy and Redress

Grievance Mechanisms: Developing accessible pathways for individuals or communities harmed by the event (e.g., displaced residents or mistreated workers) to seek legal remedy and reparations.

Whistleblower Protections: Implementing confidential systems for athletes and journalists to report abuses without fear of retaliation from the host government. 

5. Collective Action

Fan Responsibility: While individual boycotts are difficult, organized fan pressure can influence club owners and sponsors to adopt more ethical stances.

Diplomatic Pressure: Partnering democratic nations can use their participation as leverage to demand specific, measurable reforms in the host country.”