Earlier this month, Gawker published a really interesting essay called “Why Is South Sudan a Hellhole? Blame George Clooney”. The point of the essay was not that Clooney is a terrible person or anything, but that the Darfur genocide was a complicated geopolitical catastrophe which was made infinitely worse when Darfur became a cause célèbre and South Sudan was partitioned and given “independence.” The point of the essay was also that West should know by now that whenever we jump into these complicated situations without really understanding the facts on the ground, we make it worse. I’m not going to pretend I completely followed everything in the essay, because pretending I understand would be the same kind of mistake the world made.
Which brings me to Clooney’s latest. George cowrote (with John Prendergast and Akshaya Kumar) a New York Times op-ed about how the situation in Darfur/South Sudan – you can read it here. Summary: Darfur is still a hellhole. Sudan continues to attack the people of Darfur through literal scorched earth campaigns (burning villages to the ground, etc) and mass rape and torture. The point of the piece is “don’t forget about Darfur, it’s still terrible.”
While I think it’s noble for Clooney to still be committed to the people of Darfur – he’s paid for satellites to monitor’s Sudan’s activities for years – I also wonder if there’s a slightly superficial urge at work here. George is desperate to be taken seriously, of course, which is why he ended up married to Amal. George wants to be a bigger political player. So is it any surprise that the National Enquirer reports this week that George is looking for ways to “cement” his political credentials? A source claims: “George has big ambitions and aims to get into politics imminently. He wants to do more humanitarian work and hopes to join the Democrats’ 2016 election campaign.” The problem? A lot of people still see George as a boozy womanizer. The source also says, “Surprisingly, it’s an even money bet on what George likes better – alcohol or sex.” Yeah… that’s not a problem for a Democrat, you know?
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
Boozy womanizer? I’ll just be over here in my naive corner where this really doesn’t matter if he could do a good job.
So his “crime” if he went into U.S. politics would be that he was a single adult with no dependents who enjoyed a drink (and never got a DUI or public drunkeness charge) and had lots of consensual sex with other single adults? Yep that’s a hanging offence right there!
God if that would prevent someone from being in politics we as a people (American or otherwise) are hopeless.
I read that essay and it was so poorly written and hard to follow, and provided no new insights. It didn’t even clearly define why it’s all George Clooney’s fault, as the headline states. I don’t mind using an attention grabber to get people to read something important but this essay was rubbish.
I agree. I read it as well. I think the basis is probably true but the way it was written was confusing, jumped around and made passing reference to so many giant factors that it was impossible to take much away. I actually spent a good deal of time after reading the Gawker piece looking up the players and events online and this subject is obviously worth a better critical piece than the one it got in that article.
I kept waiting for it to make sense. There was an ass-load of name dropping, but no underlying cohesion. It used Clooney’s name to get people to read, and then rambled on and on without getting to a damn point. ANY point. I got to the end of the article and kept looking for an additional page that would tie it all together.
Every time John Prendergast’s name comes up, I immediately think of the book ‘the worst date ever’ where a journalist was trying to date him and failed. The Journalist ends up writing about the awful wars going on in Africa that they never knew about and would have remained ignorant if they hadn’t decided to try and get a date with John.
I loved that book! It was a fascinating look at the absurdity that underlies these issues and the naïveté of the “First World”…plus independent confirmation that Ashton Kutcher is a useless twat! What’s not to like?
Ah yes. The Ashton Kutcher thing….LOL.
Ps: the unnamed editor who caved to his demands is Liz Jones who currently writes stupid clickbaity articles on fashion for the DM.
That book was brilliant! I need to go and read it again.
If you’re so damn dedicated to your Darfur cause, move there. Spread your millions around to make it a better place. Don’t sit in your fancy mansion and write BS op-ed pieces and think that makes you a hero. Smarmy, hypocritical git.
He considered it carefully, then began to understand that ceramic cockatiels, white satin gloves & Casamigos tequila are considered gauche in Darfur, and thus shelved the idea temporarily.
What a ridiculous statement. Are you suggesting that everyone else uproot their lives, and leave their homes, family and friends and move to another country because they feel bad for the people there and want to help them? Should those of us that helped the people of Haiti have to move there or be considered hypocritical? If everyone had to follow this very flawed principal of yours, no one in distress would ever be helped.
The genocide in the Dafur is happening because China wants the oil below these peaceful people. The US is in cahoots with China on this issue. George’s involvement is commendable but it’s like throwing pebbles at a planet sized demon. He shouldn’t be criticized for his efforts. This is historically one of the worst ongoing war crimes. Read The Translator by Daud Hari.
It is a racially-based genocide, arab (janjaweed) militia murdering black sudanese.
With military support from the Chinese.
He’s been involved with Darfur causes for almost 10 years. Long before Amal, back when he was still dating waitresses and models and whatever.
Shhhhh. Only Angelina is really sincere. George and all of his longtime humanitarian work is superficial and contrived; didn’t you know?
Except he is involved in Darfur because of Angelina and Brad, he said so in an interview he did with Brad when they were promoting Ocean’s 13. So, applaud George, but let’s not bash his reason for being there in the first place. George, Matt D, Don Cheadle, Brad and the producer of the Ocean’s films started the Darfur charity, not George alone.
The point is not who found the cause first, etc, but that all of the people involved are committed to it and work to help (which is awesome), and here George alone was singled out as possibly being insincere or doing this for personal/political reasons. I don’t think that’s fair, because I don’t think it’s true.
There are celebs who only show up for a photo op or act charitable when they have some bad press and need some positive PR. I don’t just don’t think that’s the case here. He and his dad traveled there and made a documentary nearly a decade ago, and as mentioned, he’s put his time and money into it ever since. That’s not a guy using it just to bolster his own image.
I don’t think Jayna was bashing Brangelina so much as the Brangeloonies.
Um…why are you attacking Angelina Jolie in such a snarky way? Do you know that the poster who was snarking at George has a shrine to Angie in their home or something? It’s weird for you to have gone there – like someone bashing Gaga, gets a response of someone slyly tucking into Aretha….uh, er…what? It’s wrong for someone to smack Clooney around for speaking of a dire humanitarian crisis abroad….and it’s equally wrong for you to reveal your weirdo bitter snarky bias against Angelina Jolie (somone else who’s bringing awareness to dire humanitarian crises on a goal scale) who is entirely unrelated to this story. Who does that? Uses a situation unrelated to kick another humanitarian in the teeth just cause your prolly ugly n shite. You are transparent as fuh (see bitter resentful jealous cows everywhere). Get a life and get over it. It’s been 10 years lady. Dang.
The larger powers (China vs. America) will continue to fan the flames of ethnic unrest and inequality in Darfur and cluck like indignant chickens over the government’s inability to quell the genocide because dividing and conquering is the way to get at the oil reserves. At this point China receives about 60% of the Sudan’s oil reserves, and supplies them with, amongst other things, military support. Until the eternal international battle for oil is resolved, there’s really not much Clooney can do from a diplomatic or humanitarian point of view other than keep a magnifying glass on the situation.
I read this piece and found it sophmoric*.
I suspect that it makes more sense to look at the issues in Central and Northern Africa(Libya, Yeman, Egypt) as a whole. There are three terrorist groups(Bob Haram, Al Qaeda and Shabab) in these areas that are destabilizing the area. Al Shaba has also issued direct threats to the US recently. Unfortunately the Obama administration just recently realized that what happens in Africa is important…
* I strongly disagree with the statement that ” The sexual violence (in Sudan) has no military objective; rather, it is a tactic of social control, ethnic domination and demographic change.”
How dumb are George and his colleagues in writing this? Don’t they read what they write? Rape is a strategic tool by many military ‘entities’; by traumatizing the mother thru rape, you destabilize the family, the village and larger society.
You are absolutely right Amelie – since man has been fighting man, rape has been used by militaristic groups to subjugate entire peoples as a means of destabilizing the foundation upon which their society is based. I found the piece to be overly simplistic and I don’t think George really understands the big picture or, if he does, he’s too busy creating his “humanitarian/politico” persona by rubbing elbows with the big boys of American politics to take an educated stand, which might offend those very influential American politicians.
Jaded:
George appears to be attempting to establish his bona fides in humanitarian matters with this article etc. I am wondering what planet he is on if he thinks he can use op ed pieces in the NY Times or funding of satellites to get him in an important decision-making role, when he obviously doesn’t have the academic background? The folks I listen to (and learn from) are degreed in history, foreign affairs, diplomacy, political science, foreign language/culture etc. They need all of this background in order to understand the issues, make recommendations and function as state representatives who try to ameliorate the problems.
This is not make believe which is what actors do….this is FOR REAL. It’s alot more complicated than making tequilla!
Everything George does is because he’s so desperate to get into politics. So naturally he decided to marry a British woman with an arabic sounding name….because that’ll really help.
I rather think George does exactly what he wants to do or thinks he can help. Politics be damned.
I totally agree, annieanne! The more the conspiracy theories are expounded about George, the more ridiculous they sound!
Goerge isn’t going into politics; he’s angling for a diplomatic-humanitarian position.
He wants the Nobel prize! And as ridiculous as the Nobel committee is, he might just get it.
I think the fact that George resigned from his role as Peace Ambassador with the UN in April, yet is publishing ‘authoritative pieces’ in major media on complex political issues would indicate that he is headed somewhere other than a humanitarian role.
Clooney lacks depth of understanding, he simply doesn’t have enough knowledge about those matters. Not that I do, but I don’t write simplistic articles about it either. Can’t help thinking his favorite side-job would be that of a political journalist. I don’t think for one second he would like to go into politics. His ego is far too big for that, he wants instant gratification. Long-term effort and compromise isn’t his thing. I always wondered why he picked Darfur, because in the end, the situation there relates a lot to American/Chinese oil interests, so nothing he can change a lot about. Perhaps he overestimates his importance here, as he does with his wife’s. She, too, isn’t a big player in international law, and in the meantime, they openly hire her for the publicity of the case (Elgin marbles, the ‘Hooded Man’ case Ireland). I wouldn’t exactly blame him for the situation in Darfur still being what it is, he probably means well. But it’s not far-fetched to think that celebrity involvement sometimes can be obstructive, or even counterproductive. And THAT might be the problem: George doesn’t think of himself as a celebrity, but as a political activist.