While Brad Pitt was playing the pity-poor-dark-place-Brad card with People Magazine, Angelina Jolie was co-authoring a New York Times op-ed with Senator John McCain. I didn’t realize that Sen. McCain and Jolie even knew each other, but I guess there’s significant overlap in the VENN diagram of their work. McCain is an interventionist Republican: he believes that America should be MORE involved in political/economic/diplomatic and military operations around the world. Jolie is… well, she just wants America to take the lead in humanitarian action across the board. So now they’re joining forces to bring attention to (and call for action on behalf of) the Rohingya Muslims.
On International Women’s Day, Angelina Jolie and Senator John McCain are appealing to Americans to come together to defend human rights and American leadership in the world — specifically with regard to the recent increase in violence and atrocities being committed against the Rohingya Muslims. In a co-written op-ed for the New York Times, Jolie and McCain outline the human rights issue at hand and urge Americans and the U.S. government to take action.
“Around the world, there is profound concern that America is giving up the mantle of global leadership,” they write. “Our steady retreat over the past decade has contributed to a wide array of complex global challenges — a dangerous erosion of the rule of law, gross human rights violations and the decline of the rules-based international order that was designed in the aftermath of two world wars to prevent conflict and deter mass atrocities.”
Jolie, 42, and McCain, 81, cite a lack of diplomacy in Myanmar, formerly Burma, that has led to 680,000 Rohingya Muslims being forced to flee “a systematic military campaign of killings, arson, rape and other mass atrocities amounting to ethnic cleansing.”
They add: “According to recent reports, many survivors are still not getting proper assistance because of a lack of funding for gender-based-violence programs. Addressing these shortfalls and taking steps to protect Rohingya refugee women and girls from further sexual violence should be a priority for the United States and like-minded countries. We must also take urgent steps to get medical care and assistance to Rohingya families in desperate need in Rakhine State in Myanmar.”
Jolie and McCain urge the passing of the Burma Human Rights and Freedom Act, a bill sponsored by Senator McCain, which would impose sanctions on Burmese military and security forces responsible for the violence and also support efforts to properly investigate human rights violations.
“While politics have left Americans deeply divided, we can all unite around the belief that a commitment to freedom, justice and human rights has distinguished the United States as a great nation,” they write. “Our failure to hold accountable those who commit mass atrocities and human rights abuses will lead to more violence and instability.”
I hope that this will increase awareness and that somewhere, someone in American government is doing something. But I suspect that Donald Trump and his people simply stopped reading when they got to the word “Muslims.”
PS… Harper’s Bazaar did a really lovely piece about Angelina’s first-ever stop by a fashion show. Last year, she sat front-row for the RefuSHE fashion show, a line of clothing and accessories which benefit refugee women – go here to read.
I write in @nytimes today with filmmaker & humanitarian Angelina Jolie that America must take the lead in defending the Rohingya from atrocities & human rights abuses in #Burma https://t.co/zcHYTQwxAp
— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) March 9, 2018
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Is Angelina a Republican? I know her father is.
Well, I was curious too, so I just googled it and around the 2008 presidential elections she said, “I think people assume I’m a Democrat. But I’m registered independent and I’m still undecided. So I’m looking at McCain as well as Obama.”
I belatedly remembered we are in the age of Siri and Alexa now and belatedly searched for it, but I found the exact same as you. It seems like the most recent interview was Before Obama Part II. I wonder whether in the intervening years, and prior to the Orange Days, her view might have changed.
She might sound like democrats at times, but sometimes she lets a subtle old-GOP view (to me anyway) loose here and there.
I suppose as SK said, she might’ve wanted to come across as ultra bipartisan because of the issues she champions.
Have you heard of “Compassionate Conservatism”? George W Bush applied it in somewhat condscending fashion in brown and black countries because white mans burden and all that crap. But yeah, there IS a Conservative contigency thats deeply invested in world events for reasons other than oil and the military complex. The problem is that these people have no interest in empowered beneficiaries because empowered nations no longer need white saviors. So they confine assistance to “emergency crisis funding” and exclude development initiatives that allow people to help themselves, like fair trade practices. As you may have guessed from the fact that this branch of conservatism reads like a missionaries handbook, it is supported heavily by evangelical Churches.
As for Angelina, I dont know where she stands politically. I wouldnt be surprised if she is a soft Conservative. Someone who believes that government should cut taxes and trust citizens to donate to charities to provide the social safety net.
She keeps her politics under wraps so that she can work with all politicians to achieve her humanitarian goals. I can’t imagine many of her touted beliefs would line up with most Republicans – especially not the current lot; but who knows?
A lot of people feel like she is secretly a Republican. If she was still looking at McCain after he picked Palin that is extremely worrisome for someone who has children of color.
Considering her thinly veiled swipes at the Trump Admin in recent interviews I highly doubt it. I find it rather sad that people jump to conclusions about political affiliations based on who one collaborates with on important issues. Humanitarian work isn’t partisan. And those who want to further that work dont have the luxury or frankly the time to play that political game. There used to be a time in our own Congress when people worked from both sides of the aisle to get things done. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. I think Angelina is rather politically apathetic- she has said as much. Because if you take a long hard look at the state of humanitarianism neither Dems nor Repubs have done enough.
I don’t think anyone believes she’s a Trump Republican. They are responding to her quote about considering McCain and Obama. I doubt she’s politically apathetic. She’s probably an issues voter who prioritizes a nominee’s views on refugees when deciding.
Erm, McCain has a child of colour as well.
@KRB my comment is based on what Angelina herself has said about how she feels about politics and politicians. She stated ina recent interview that she was pretty indifferent to politics- because she felt she had to be in her line of work of humanitarianism. And that it is only recently that her feelings have changed.
McCain is one of the leading voices for human rights in Congress. His VP pick was bonkers, but I respect the many times he has broken with his party on human rights.
There are many “secret” Republican celebrities, they pretend to be Democrats because they know how they will be ostracized if the truth was known.
As for Angelina, she has never said what party she endorses and she never will. To be able to work at the level she is in UNHCR, she has to try and be as impartial as humanly possible.
As ususal Brad Pitt is concentrating only on himself, and Angelina is thinking of others. This attitude sums up why Angie dumped him and she and her children have moved forward with their lives while Pitt is still in the dark about his addictions.
McCain is the man of the military industrial complex. He recently complained that the US military budget isn’t big enough and that it didn’t get any increases (currently about $ 600 billion). You understand McCain’s ideas when you consider that the US military budget about 36% of the whole world’s military spending (world military expenses about: $ 1686 billion). Next biggest military spender is China (about $ 200 billion).
Sources:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/
https://www.google.com/search?q=wold+military+spending&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab
If Jolie supports McCain then she supports war and she should know that.
Forgive me I am just too lazy to google precisely every last dollar. For me it is about the proportions of military spending which in my opinion show what McCain is all about.
Brad is the liberal and she is more conservative libertarian. I never thought of her as a progressive. Before she did this work she wasn’t an activist and never talked about the environment or was involved in causes.
Usually the more conservative celebrities keep it quiet. A liberal probably wouldn’t partner with McCain these days. I also recall she didn’t have issues with guns. Not a NRA fool of course.
That said I am positive she isn’t a 45 supporter. He said nasty things about her and he’s repulsive.
Oh stop it , there are literally stories Angelina has told about Marcheline involving her in causes as a kid , and how that inspired her and she has memories of that. And there’s the story about how when she was in primary school she held a protest for a fired school janitor to be reinstated, so to say she was never involved in causes is a stretch . Voight himself despite his idiotic ways was an activist before well……. So she was raised in a socially conscious environment. She may have been a self absorbed destructive teen, but that’s her background. And she’s been doing “this work” for 17 years as of last month, and that’s officially with the U.N. so it’s nice that before 25 you had it all figured out.
Tegteg literally put up a quote with the words “I’m a registered Independent” yet people still want to assign political leanings to her.SMH. The only accurate thing in this comment is that she doesn’t have an issue with responsible gun ownership.
Really? She didn’t do this work and didn’t talk about conservation? What do you think she has been doing in Cambodia for the last 15 years. Google her work in Cambodia, buying up land, demining and spending a fortune to keep out poachers. I think you should dig a little bit deeper and you will be surprised at the breadth of work she has done over the years that is really not appealing for gossip.
Yeah, but she started this work when she was 25, so it’s not surprising that she wasn’t an activist before then. She had a very cushy life and by her own admission had no idea how the other half lived.
I don’t think she was quiet because she was conservative, I think she was quiet because she was uninformed. Once she went to Cambodia, her perspective changed.
And I wouldn’t consider her a libertarian if she supports military intervention or government aid in foreign countries.
Calm yourselves and drink a cup of soothing chamomile tea. Lol Not you KBB.
Anytime anyone makes a simple observation you read hidden insults where none exist. If you want clarification, I am fine with that but don’t embellish what I said.
@Joy You proved my point. She wasn’t an activist. That is seriously stretching. I did not say she was living in a cave. Aware is not an activist.
Pre this chapter in her life was different. Those were her wild lost years. Be realistic and get your timelines in order. I don’t think politics were on her mind at that time. Why is that construed as an insult? That is silly. She was different back then. Not just in her teens.
You are conflating and not even reading precisely what I said. I say what I mean. Perhaps not as articulately as I would like but I can clarify what I mean myself.
@KBB I said conservative-libertarian to put some sort of label for SOME of her views since then and now. I was merely saying there was nothing to attach her to Progressives or Liberal before this or since. I wasn’t equating those years to mean anything else but that.
I don’t have like every single thing about her to like her overall. She is a human being, not a deity. I like her btw.
Little “c” conservative isn’t The Conservative movement. Those are two separate things.
She’s been involved in causes and activism for OVER HALF HER LIFE, so not sure what you mean about not being an activist ‘before then’. Most people don’t start until around that age anyway.
I thought she was the liberal because according to stories, Brad is the one who wanted more discipline and order and routine.
As to McCain, he has earned respect back for taking a stand against Trump. There is a reason Trump supporters loathe McCain and think he is a ‘lefty’. If ever there was a Republican for a Liberal to team up with on a cause like this, it would be McCain. He appears to be the only genuine one in the party.
I thought she was a Libertarian
I think Jolie is more cause- affiliated then party- affiliated thus independent, Libertarian. I could be wrong but that is the impression she leaves. I do think she will work with either party to bring awareness, or whatever, to the causes she and the U.N. espouses. That is what she is supposed to do. That is why she is an ambassador and not a field worker. Her job is to sway public opinion.
I think a team up with McCain makes perfect sense as, apparently, his agenda of intervention internationally particularly militarily falls in line with Jolie and the U.N.’s position. Right or wrong is a different question.
Also, the “party” label is so superfluous to me. I’d rather independents. Many with a party are in no way following the party lines anyway. That isn’t a bad thing, it’s just a strange way to get elected. Bernie isn’t a Democrat, Trump isn’t a Republican, and neither is McCain really. This isn’t an indictment of any of them. I just think the two party system had become untenable. Most don’t agreed with either party down the line.
I’m all for independent thinkers. Sadly if you aren’t a Republican or Democrat with party backing it is difficult to get elected. Trump is an anomaly as I think neither party including his so-called own, wanted him to be elected. Curious about what will happen with Feinstein also as I saw a tweet saying the Democrats were not going to back her as their candidate next election. I’ve no idea if that’s true but if it is, I find it curious.
Politics, I’m sorry but I trust none of them. The power is too great, the compensation for dirty deals to high, and the profession itself either calls for crooks or idealists, both are scarey to me because I’m older and cynical as heel.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer.
I will add I am sure Jolie isn’t a supporter, duh!
Problem with Jolie is that she doesn’t consider politics nor politicians when going humanitarian. Partnering with and supporting McCain usually results in more wars and more victims. Though I have no doubt that a lot of democratic polticians wouldn’t do any different than McCain.
Beating the war drums for yet another “humanitarian intervention” that will cost a million lives and trillions of dollars. And, sanctions devastate ordinary people who have nothing to do with their government’s decisions. Ugh.
John McCain is literally the worst person to write this op-ed with; his policy and the ones he champions have led to millions of refugees.
What is happening in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims is nothing less than an ethnic holocaust and it’s ridiculous to blame McCain for it. And I don’t particularly like the guy.
I have to agree – the combination of a McCain op-ed with the tacit endorsement of the NYT is ominous. Those calling for a US intervention are overlooking our recent, blood drenched history, and peace nowhere in sight. Our bulling our way into this disaster is only going to worsen the violence, not help end it. Oh, but it might provide a permanent US presence in the area, thumping our chests about freedom and predatory capitalism. That outcome would be even better to most of these politicians.
How did overlooking gross human rights abuses in Afghanistan work out for us?
@Megan
That is a faulty oversimplification of Afghanistan.
We aren’t successful nation builders. It hasn’t worked anywhere.
So what do you propse we do to help the millions of people displaced by this ethnic cleansing? To help the women and girls who have been raped and the families who have been torn apart by violence. What are your suggestions??
How about Aung San Suu Kyi does something and we stay out of it.
Intervention by foreigners / foreign govts has led to more misery world wide. Let them figure out their own solution rather than have our misguided solution imposed on them.
Ps: i felt as angry about what was happening to the Yazidis (different region / people, same problem) until i discovered that the women have created or joined all female militia to fight back against their tormentors.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/female-kurdish-fighters-ypj-set-up-new-training-academies-arab-yazidi-women-to-fight-isis-a7508951.html
This is a better solution than our western imposed ideas about what needs to be done.
For a start a US commitment to non-violent solutions, including economic violence. That means not arming or creating “rebels” for “regime change.”
@LAK she ISNT doing anything about it. She hasnt done a d*mn thing while hundreds of thousands are murdered and raped. This happened on HER watch. She doesn’t care. It’s clear feom her silence and inaction that she believes in freedom only for people who believe what she believes. I said nothing abou military intervention – I don’t believe in that. But between the US and the UN something MUST be done to help these people. As a Muslim and an American the complete apathy to what is occurring not only in Myanmar but Syria is sickening to me.
@Frosty I agree that it should be non-violent. I don’t believe every issue can be solved with war. But you are anti- sanctions as well so again what do you propose is done? Aid for the refugees and sanctions are the too things I think would help quite a bit. I also think Aung San Suu Kyi should stand trial for human rights violations.
Valiantly Vanished: the only way to intervene is to force them to stop and that would only be military because sanctions will only punish the people rather than the perpetrators, BUT since that creates MORE problems, i go back to let them sort themselves out because our western imposed solutions have created bigger problems than they’ve ever solved.
It’s hard to do nothing, but history shows that we must. As i posted in the link upthread, those Yazidi women and Kurdish women figured out that they needed to rescue themselves rather than wait for western help which wasn’t coming or be shoved into refugee camps which is another kind of hell that isn’t helpful to anyone.
I mention Aung San Suu Kyi precisely because she is a shining beacon for why our western help isn’t needed. If she truly deserved all the help and accolades that we gave her and had the courage to stand by the convictions she pretended to have for all those decades, then she would help these people instead of wringing her hands and suddenly being the helpless little woman faced with the Burmese Military instead of the Lion she once was faced with the very same military army.
I agree with LAK, the only thing foreign governments should do is provide aid for the refugees and open their borders and accept refugees into their country. This is what Canada and many European countries have done during conflicts. Us sending in the troops to bomb and shoot up these places will make everything much much worse.
Yes, LAK, I think despite when there are good intentions, the U.S. usually mucks things up both for the country/cause they are attempting to support and for the thankless members of the military that are sent in to do the job with little understanding, little personal discretion on how to handle things, just loads of do this/don’t do this/ hand out this money and train people in warfare as “consultants” but not as combatants. I am not blaming our soldiers. I am certain peacekeeping is a heck of a lot more hazy, and anxiety-inducing then “there is your target to eliminate/protect , do that, go home” .
@LAK – your argument that Rohingya women need to ~join forces and fight back~ are kind of victim-blaming though. I’m not saying a military intervention needs to occur, and truthfully, I don’t have any better solutions at this moment. It is an extremely messy situation that has unfortunately been ignored by many governments and the media. Unfortunate because what the Rohingya are going through right now is nothing short of ethnic cleansing. But to say that they need to take their fate into their hands is really dismissive.
Aung San Suu Kyi has no jurisdiction over or control of the military. It is the military, not the government, that is persecuting this violence. The media and Suu Kyi are both so tightly controlled, it’s possible she does not know the full extent of the atrocities. We, however, do know and have a duty to act since genocide is a crime that affects us all.
The idea that people who live in ghettos far removed from the main cities of Burma with too little to eat, scarce access to clean water, no access to medical care, and a 21st century military bearing down on them (thanks to plenty of support from the US) are somehow going to rise up and fight back is beyond ignorant.
Tifzlan: Show me a successful societal change that didn’t involve the victims standing up for themselves. From Civil rights to Independence movements to Aung San Suu Kyi to Mandela. Whoever heard of a strong arm dictatorship armed to the teeth that willingly backing off a systematic abuse of the weakest in society because a foreign govt asked nicely. And whoever heard of foreigners intervening successfully in any of these situation? At every turn, the victims had to stand up for themselves. It’s awful, but there it is.
Megan: Black Hawk down…..read the true history. Independence movements in Africa…start with Mau Mau. Yazidi / Kurdish women militia vs Isis. Malala. Ghandhi. Mandela. These are people who stood / standing up against an almight govt armed to the teeth and won.
Clearly this ethnic cleansing isn’t going to subside any time soon and like the Yazidi / Kurds situation in the ME, we aren’t going to send help, so they will have to rescue themselves just as the Kurds / Yazidis did.
@LAK and what do you propose the Rohingya fight with? Pitchforks and torches? Slingshots? How does an unarmed population with no access to guns fight a state of the art military?
The idea that the world should turn its back on genocide is appalling to me. Its Rawanda all over again and I can’t believe we could ever forget that lesson.
Meghan: We learnt the lesson of Rwanda and ended up with Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria. It’s also very selective of you because how about the people of Yemen? Or areas controlled by Boko Haram? Or present day Libya and it’s slave markets. And we certainly did nothing for the Yazidis during that awful week they were stuck up a mountain pass as Isis advanced on them and proceeded to kill their men whilst carting off the women to be sold as s3x slaves.
A state of the art army is actually not very easy to manoeuvre regardless of the scary consequence of it’s weapons. It’s the fear of that which holds people back, but we have so many examples throughout history of state of the art armies losing to people wielding metaphoric rocks and pitchforks as well as the real thing.
We can help with humanitarian aid, but any other way that requires our intervention will only lead to disaster because that’s the way it has turned out every.single.time. and we have left the people much, much worse off.
Also, the Kurds have been fighting for their independence since 1880. Nearly a century and a half of war and they still have not won.
@LAK you don’t know my positions on this conflicts so don’t try to leverage them against me. The fact is all parties are/were armed in those conflicts and how did that work out?
Truth is that you don’t win wars without weapons or without strategic or tactical advantages.
Afghanistan and the Kurds have one thing in common: their land is difficult to conquer militarily. Because lots of hills and lots of rocks. Look at tophographic maps of that area. Even high-tech armies simply don’t see guerilla enemies who know all the small pathes around those areas. Heavy military equipment can’t be moved there (no roads) and helicopters have difficulties spotting these guerillas as well. While the guerilla are known to transport military equipment on donkey’s backs: because those creatures can use those pathes.
Also both Afghanistan and the Kurds received military equipment from several sources: USA and sometimes Iran or Saudi Arabia. The US gave weapons to the Afghani people who were supposed to use them against the then-Soviets. After that they used the weapons against the USA.
Vietnam was a similar case: lots of woods and some mountains and hills and lots of rivers. Difficult to move in with heavy equipment. That is why they used Agent Orange to remove the leaves.
I hit a pay wall when I tried to access the opinion piece. We all agree that the targeting of Rohingya Muslims is wrong, the question is what is to be done about it. Can whoever read the piece please summarise their proposal? Also, do they call out Ang Sung Su Chi by name or are they acknowledging that her political position with the military is too tenous to do anything?
They don’t call her out. At this point she’s an embarrassment and the least said about her the better.
They do not call her out.
Suu Kyi does not control the military. There is nothing she can do to stop the violence. McCain’s bill is simple: the US needs to stop training and supplying the Burmese military if they murder, torture, rape and forcibly displace ethnic minorities. A rather reasonable step, I think.
@ Meghan
Could you give a source for what you wrote about McCain’s bill, please?
@ Frosty
That is exactly my suspicion. McCain doesn’t seem to understand that you can solve conflicts without military interventions. Jolie simply doesn’t acknowledge that a lot of these so-called humanitarian interventions did cause more victims that without these interventions.
“McCain for peace” is simply ludicrous.
I find it a little disturbing that her last two OpEds have been with 1) That Nato guy and 2) McCain. The first is the military, the second is a known war hawk.
And for the record, China is building a nice oil pipeline that comes out on the coast right where this ethnic group lives. Maybe Jolie doesn’t know this, but McCain certainly does. That bill that was passed several years ago in the US forbidding the import of Burmese Jade and Rubies? Odd that it completely ignored Burmese oil, wouldn’t you say?
McCain is looking for an excuse to park the US military in what is essentially China’s back yard.
Just came to say that upon first glance I totally thought this headline said something along the lines of “Angelina Jolie goes public with Senator John McCain.” What a world that would be. Apologies to Mrs. McCain. Happy Friday y’all
Lol typical Jolie wrecking another home
She hasn’t even wrecked one yet, what are you talking about.
Jesus! I laughed out so loud in my very quiet office space. I don’t know if I could’ve continued in a world where John McCain left Cindy McCain for Angelina Jolie. But hey, I thought I wouldn’t have been able to live in a world with Donald Trump being president and I’m still here.
How disrespectful about a dying man. Some of you who hate Angelina for no other reason than you think Pitt walks on water embarrass yourselves in your vitriol against Angie.
Brad Pitt is JUST a man, nothing more nothing less. A very immature and troubled man I certainly would not want in my life.
@Shambles that’s what I initially thought, too! I was like OMG! then saw it was just that they wrote an op-ed together, so disappointed. That would’ve been gossip nirvana.
I just read she has worked with McCain in the past before never knew.
Yeah I just came here to say the same thing! While her ex was busy playing the victim card Angie was busy doing what she knows how to do best. What a remarkable woman.
+1
+1000
Humans of New York (HONY) is currently doing a series on the Rohinga. It is devastating. Check it out on Facebook.
I’ve been following it. Devastating doesn’t begin to describe it. HONY should be commended for their efforts. They have raised over $1 million to build housing for the refugees in Bangladesh in less than a week. The refugees currently have nothing to sleep under but plastic tarps — if they have that.
It’s on the HONY Insta feed, too. It made me realize this is far worse than the passing glimpses the US news media is granting it. I can’t even read the rest of the ones on HONY. I had to stop when they interviewed the lady whose house was burned down with her baby still inside.
Ben Stiller is also very much involved with the Love Army, which is partnering with HONY to build the bamboo huts for the Rohingya.
This is why I love this woman, she works with different people to help those who need it.
People who dislike her are now going to claim she is secretly a Republican (as above). But being a Republican 10 years and now are two different things.
She says she is Independent and I believe her. And unlike other celebs who adopted black children and then became best friends with a loud racist comedian, Angelina never to the public knowledge done that.
I agree. She doesn’t seem to be political in the traditional sense. She seems to be more apt to keep her political affiliation under wraps so as to allow her the opportunity to address her causes with whomever is in power. If her various causes, like aiding refugees and mass genocide, then it makes sense for her to be willing to work with whichever political party is in power and not alienate anyone. I do think that she really doesn’t f -ck with Trump because he is a personal affront to everything she stands for, so why not work with McCain. Although this cause is a noble one, McCain has not seen a conflict abroad that he doesn’t believe a military intervention would fix. He is way too hawkish for me.
Agreed. I don’t believe for one second that she’s a republican. Someone brought up a quote from her from several years ago identifying as an Independent, and that was years before all the Trump craziness.
What a strange post Maya, this isn’t a competition between two actresses (especially one that stays away from politics).
PR
Yup – PR for the hundreds of thousands on Rohinyga Muslims. The women and young girls who have been raped their husbands, fathers and sons murdered in front of them. It’s about time they got some PR.
I agree with you Tulia
Badly needed PR if it yields positive results. I have no problem at all with celebrities lending their name to a good cause. I do have a problem with people who cynically dismiss it as nothing but self-serving PR. In any case it beats spending your days whining about the dark place you’re in.
Oh Carmen, get a grip, Angie has been trying to help others for over 17 years, she is no Reese Witherspoon or Jennifer Garner who use humanitariaism as PR only when they need it.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. Back off. I have never denigrated Jolie’s efforts to help the plight of the refugees and wish other celebrities were as dedicated and committed as she is. I have a problem with people who snark “P.R.” whenever they see her doing something constructive.
Yes and I hope she continues writing about this genocide all over the place. This topic needs good old fashion celebrity gossip PR like no other. Just yesterday I read a story about a woman in a refugee camp, who recounted how all the men in her village were killed — even the little boys and the women were raped. She tried to hide her little daughter underneath her dress and a soldier grabbed her baby by the foot and threw it – while still alive- into a bonfire. So yes, great PR from Angelina Jolie.
Jesus Christ there are no words….donating what I can now.
Babies are burning and you cry PR….
That really puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?
If it helps ease your conscience to believe that….
Hmmm…not once in this op ed do they call out State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi for failing to condemn the violence against the Rohingya. She fought for democracy in Myanmar/Burma for years, but more and more it looks like she only wanted democracy for some people – not ethnic and religious minorities. Depressing.
You know the Military controls the Government, so what power does Aung San have.
McCain and Jolie knows that Aung San has no control over anything in Myanmar, she is just a figure head, so what would be the purpose of calling her out.
Aung San Suu Kyi gladly suffered years of house arrest and separation from her husband, ostensibly to bring democracy to her country. She won prestigious human rights awards for her struggle. But as noted below, she has refused to acknowledge the decades-long plight of the Rohingya minority in Burma/Myanmar and may actually believe the party line that the Rohingya are not “real” Burmese/Myanmarites.
Regime change begins at home. Aung San Sui Kyi is a powerful symbol in her native country and abroad. One statement from her – even a mildly worded rebuke of ethnic cleansing – would attract more attention and resources to the cause. But she says nothing while continuing to work for a government that commits horrific atrocities. Seriously…how can John McCain and Angelina Jolie advocate for intervening in this tragedy without demanding accountability from the regime and its most famous human rights defender?
What BearcatLawyer said.
It’s amazing that Aung San Suu Kyi was the brave Lioness willing to endure so much suffering for her people for decades yet here she is recast as a helpless little woman unable to affect change against the very same military junta she faced down for over 2 decades.
Suu Kyi is not a saint and never should have been elevated to one. She, like so many in Burma, believes the Rohingya are not a distinct ethnic minority, but a hold over from colonialism when the British brought Bengali’s to Burma for cheap labor. Rohingya are not citizens, nor do they enjoy any protections under the law. It is not illegal to beat, rape, or kill a Rohingya.
Politically, it would be impossible for Suu Kyi to speak out since the state controlled media has long pushed the narrative that their crack down on the Rohingya is in response to terrorism by the Rohingya.
I saw an interview she gave last year?? And well her answers were very telling when she said there was no ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. I think she truly believes that, and that’s so sad considering what she previously stood for. But then again she’s not really in charge is she??
There’s no way she really believes that. She knows and she doesn’t care, in my opinion.
It has bothered me that no one was talking about this. It’s horrific.
But I can’t listen to McCain about anything. He helped destabilize the Middle East and that allowed Isis to take root. He’s a war hawk and an interventionist. I wish it were someone else.
He does not seem to think much about the slippery slopes of foreign policy.
Yes, I agree about McCain but if his beliefs and the U.N’s are in alignment then the Jolie/McCain partnership makes sense. It will bring publicity. Already has.
I don’t think the U.N. particularly cares about internal American politics or slippery slopes either effecting the people you are supposed to help or the soldiers of the nation sent to provide that help.
Sanctions might provide incentive to stop this. It would have to be U.N. backed by many nations stridently calling for a halt to all human rights violations along with the halt of any kind of genocide. I am befuddled as to how to make this happen without American boots on the ground and that had not worked out well for us in either of the prior two administrations (Bush or Obama) and I’ve zero confidence it would work out any better under Trump.
Suggestions?
@magnoliarose
You mean the same ISIS who a certain person with the initials HC sold arms to?
@Tulip
I know we can’t do what we have done. We are to blame for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Interfering in the Ukranian elections brought 45. Boots on the ground is a recipe for failure. It hasn’t worked anywhere. Arming rebels create dictators.
Only humanitarian missions and diplomacy can move this. Myanmar/Burma has been under the thumb of harsh dictators or colonialists for a very long time. To arm rebels just sets up another cruel dictator to take the place of this authoritarian regime. This is what they are used to living with.
You can’t change a cultural mindset with bombs or war. Only the people can do that themselves. War is big business for defense contractors and a whole bunch of other people. So they are going to send their lobbyists to K Street and get busy. That part is absolutely on McCain’s mind. They are big GOP backers.
We have no business near this with aggression. Over 100,000 plus plus civilians died because of the Iraq War and look at it. Nothing gained. But we haven’t lost much either in comparison. Very evil empire of us.
Also, our racist in charge won’t accept refugees. So we have no business there if we won’t. Just like the rest of the world took in refugees from the war WE started but not us. And do any of us really want that psychopath in charge of a battle to save anyone? He is to blame for over a thousand deaths in PR, and yet he could care less. The generals around him would love it.
How would killing more civilians solve this? The UN forces are a corrupt joke.
Only a group of nations can get together and open talks to broker a deal to allow the minority groups to leave with some incentives for the regime to accept peacefully. Then we leave.
Bearcatlawyer It is amazing how you find a way to criticize everything Jolie does and find ways to excuse the same thing in other celebrities, but carry on.
Bearcat has spoken, from what I see, exclusively on McCain and the political leaders of the countries committing these atrocities. Jolie is simply an addendum to these people that actually have political might and hard political capitol to spend toward these issues. Jolie simply has the soft persuasion of p.r. to get “the people” behind McCain’s and the U.N.’s policies. That is why she is a U.N. ambassador to effect change through swaying public opinion.
Just because may disagree with McCain and his methods is not an attack on Jolie. I think her heart is in the right place but she is short-sided on long term effects to everyone and every country involved. Many Americans do not want boots on the ground anymore not after so many debacles: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, on and on. Regardless of intention, these operations are not going well or didn’t go well. They were are certainly harming America’s reputation as a meddler who comes in to help and after mucking about takes the express train out while whole countries of people suffer as much or more than they did prior to intervention.
This is about something far larger than Jolie and her good intentions. It is about foreign policy and Jolie, as much as she cares and can be admired for doing so, isn’t the person to look to on this issue. Humanitarian efforts, charity drives, speeches, and p.r. for said causes is where her value lies, not in shaping U.S. policy. That is in no way an attack. She may join Clooney, Damon, Affleck, Penn and all others who sincerely want to effect positive change, but not policy.
Policy should be through the dually elected government officials, as pitiful as that lot often are, following the best interests of the people in a way the people approve and support. Elsewise, history as shown, mess after mess that the U.S. claims to have gone to sort only to leave behind a worse situation and more, perhaps earned, anti-American sentiment.I
I wish I had the magic answers. I don’t think many are going to be willing to take in refugees, particularly Muslims, fair or unfair. I also fear sanctions will only hurt the oppressed even more. Where does that leave us?
I think with the Yazidis that the fact that the people were such a minority was actually helpful. Their religion was extremely unknown and their culture, even if at odds with a host country, was too small in number to cause cultural issues. Also , I think they had no interest in converts but wanted to be left alone to practice their beliefs in peace. This may be true of these people as well but many people feel burned by those assumptions in the recent past. All comp!every unfair but true, nonetheless.
@Magdalene – based on years of working with various international organizations involved in refugee resettlement, I have very good reasons for questioning AJ’s commitment to human rights as well as her underlying motives. She is very, very good at burnishing her image, but some of her actions over the years (e.g., doing business with ex-Khmer Rouge strongmen) are problematic to say the least. And from everything I have heard from people actually on the ground trying to manage terrible situations under ludicrous conditions, effecting meaningful, long-lasting change is not really any celebrity’s strong suit. AJ certainly is very skilled at drawing attention to crises, but the net result is often that AJ gets publicity and some short-term donations roll in – but not much else.
From what I have gleaned over the years, AJ does not take any criticism of her human rights work well. Sites like CB and others routinely paint AJ as a paragon of philanthropic virtue while glossing over or outright ignoring her suspicious dealings with known human rights violators. If there is one thing you learn in this niche of the law, it is that nothing is black and white – EVERYTHING has shades of gray. EVERYONE makes mistakes too; they trust the wrong people, they believe exaggerated tales, they do things they think will help but end up hurting, etc. Putting on blinders instead of listening to criticism and taking responsibility for one’s actions is risky. Pretending that AJ, who is an actress/director and not someone who has spent years studying and working full-time in the human rights arena, is somehow above the usual messy fray is silly.
I appreciate the attention AJ brings. She can definitely motivate certain people to help more than countless UN press releases or policy papers ever could. But I resent the implication that celebrities and the money they raise can magically make all these bad things disappear forever. I also am uncomfortable with anyone who professes one thing but practices another.
Perhaps she should just stop since nothing is ever ‘quite’ right. I personally am an AJ fan, though wouldn’t call myself a Stan. I guess that is why I can admire that she is doing more than…well, more than I am personally…and can also appreciate the fact that she is human and may not be all things to everyone as expected.
I’m glad they are putting a spotlight onto this genocide.
I really admire Angelina who uses her star power for the better.
Unfortunately with the current administration and GOP majority Congress, nothing much will be done here. But I give them credit for trying, and bringing attention to the issue.
Good and necessary op ed , it’s terrible what the Royinga have been subjected too. Not a fan of McCain and his politics personally but meh.
No Angelina is not Republican, she’s deliberately publicly apolitical she’s always said she needs to be able to work with whomever to get the work done as stated in a BBC Hardtalk interview in 2004.
Jon Voight being Republican does not automatically mean she would be one too btw , and Voight was a democrat btw before well……. And let’s not forget she was raised by Marcheline “Even in my very progressive family, my brother was encouraged to go to directing school, and I was encouraged to act.” Angelina THR November 2017. I’m sure the words progressive and Republican don’t exist in the same universe. So I’ll never understand the leaps some people will make about her.
Funny when John Kerry interviewed her recently for Elle , I don’t remember people talking about her political leanings?? She’s also friends with Colin Powell too (probably not a helpful point to make because well…) but it’s always fascinated me and well their politics aside, she’s doing what she feels she needs to do and I refuse to fault her for that and what other people’s politics that are not her own do. She felt she and McCain could come together on this important issue and work together and that’s okay with me.
I don’t see anything wrong with Angie working with McCain on this.
Bono was very bipartisan in his humanitarian work as far as working with Republicans and Democrats. People picked him apart for it, but he refuses to be drawn in to their issues regarding being bipartisan. But he is very open about being a liberal and is not apolitical about issues. He visited George W. Bush recently when he was in Texas on tour and praised George and Laura’s commitment to globally fighting the AIDS/HIV crisis. to which Bono is very devoted to . That doesn’t stop him from being vocal about immigration issues here and minority rights in America. He lives here half the time in NYC. And Trump is not a typical Republican. Bono has not kept quiet about Trump. If you care about America and the world, keeping quiet about this horrific thing that is happening to my country, America, this abomination called Trump, I don’t get.
I think people have a problem with McCain’s record on foreign policy rather than him being a Republican. It wasn’t even a criticism of her but mostly him.
OMG the hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Specifically, whose?
You’re not making any sense. Please explain?
Sorry,Superficial comment…….What a gorgeous face!
I find her breathtaking, she is a true beauty.
I’m glad she got rid of Brad as I always felt he and Jen were more compatible. After seeing both Brad and Jen PR post divorce it’s concreted this observation, both love being pitied. Poor Brad, Poor Jen. Its always about them, poor victims of temptress Angelina and edgy Justin.