I will admit to being one of the 17.8 million Americans who tuned in last week to the Fox love-fest that was “Idol Gives Back.” I will even agree with much of the hype surrounding the show; it did accomplish its mission of awareness and inspiration. Having spent time living in Africa, I have a soft spot in my heart for the issues of AIDS and malaria and couldn’t be happier to see them addressing both on prime-time television. During an appearance in Los Angeles on Monday night, even noted economist Jeffrey Sachs was wowed at the potential impact of malaria’s five minutes of Idol airtime. The $60 million raised so far certainly doesn’t lie… “Idol Gives Back” is making a difference. But even given that success, as I watched Wednesday and Thursday nights, I couldn’t help but wonder: what image does this portray about our country?

Celebrity diplomacy is certainly nothing new for America or the world. Just as the British crown has made a habit of knighting the likes of Sean Connery and George Michael, formally or informally, America has been happy to send Brangelina or Cal Ripken, Jr. off to fight our global battles. But on Wednesday night, what started as a glorified telethon, mixing celebrity endorsements with performances and issue-oriented videos, turned political when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown appeared to pledge funding for 20 million new malaria bed-nets. Though the £100 million pledge may only represent 1/6,180th of the expected 2008-2009 British budget, it does demonstrate a genuine effort, portrayed to a global audience, to stop a serious problem. Ryan Seacrest marveled, the press swooned and with 17.8 million Americans and Simon Cowell looking on, just one week before Brown travels to the U.S., British public diplomacy ruled the night.

What did America have to offer in return? Two-times the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana? Ben Stiller’s deadpan? Maybe Robin Williams playing Russian Idol Ivan Yakinoff (yes, say it slowly) making Stalin jokes? Or Daughtry traveling to Uganda to make a music video and convincing village children to sing along? It certainly wasn’t the three remaining presidential candidates, who were cut from Wednesday’s show because of time. And even when they did appear on Thursday two shied away from policy statements, instead relying on the same old, tired and uninspiring mantras of charitable will and the ability to bring change. The third, John McCain, saw it as an opportunity to throw in a snarky, political dig at his once and future Democratic opponents. Funny, I wasn’t aware poverty, disease, education and hunger were partisan issues.

In the end, entertainment ruled. You can’t blame Fox, we know they’re in it for the ratings. So instead blame those who participated for not taking the event to a higher ground. Blame the audience for not demanding it. Or maybe stop the blame and concede the fact that in order to get nearly 18 million viewers (albeit 10 million less than last year) and to raise $60 million in America, you have to appeal to a lower common denominator.

So therein lies the rub of celebrity diplomacy. Short-term successes may not lead to long-term triumphs. Growing awareness might not lead to sustained commitment. But isn’t something always better than nothing? One can only hope that for “Idol Gives Back” and its donors, that “something” is more than just two nights of publicity-stained pseudo-activism.

Afterall, even though it’s called American Idol, the entire world is watching.