Is George Clooney helping?

Posted By Joshua Keating Monday, January 10, 2011 - 2:35 PM Share

George Clooney's "anti-genocide paparazzi" seems to be dominating nearly every transmission coming out of south Sudan this week. Clooney, along with the Enough Project, Harvard researchers, and some of his wealthier Hollywood friends, have hired satellites to monitor troop movements along the north-south border, particularly the oil-rich region of Abyei. Clooney, active for years in the Save Darfur movement, has also become something of a celebrity spokesperson for the independence referendum. Naturally, the international humanitarian blogosphere's snark brigade is out in force.

Laurenist: "If you're anything like George Clooney, you lounge around on your yacht off the coast of Italy thinking up ways to save Africa."

Texas in Africa: "While John Prendergast, George Clooney, and other advocates who don't speak a word of Arabic have been raising fears about violence for months … the likelihood that a genocide or war will break out immediately seems to me to be slim to none."

Wronging Rights: "Clooney has described it as 'the best use of his celebrity.' Kinda just seems like he's trying to recruit a mercenary for Ocean's Fourteen."

Troubling as this morning's border violence is, there seems to be good reason for skepticism about the satellite project. The imagery the satellites provide isn't all that clear, showing about 8 square miles inches [Corrected.] per computer-screen pixel, making it difficult to figure out just what's going on on the ground. That level of imprecision can be dangerous when trying to assign guilt or innocence in crimes against humanity. There's also the question of how much of a deterrent this type of monitoring really is. Laurenist again:

In 2007, Amnesty International and the American Association for the Advancement of Science launched “Eyes on Darfur,” a satellite project that monitored developments on the ground in Darfur. As you’ll recall, mere months later, Darfur was saved after millions of people updated their Facebook statuses with a link to blurry photos of sand.

But what about Clooney's presence itself? The actor's use of the paparazzi and basketball as analogies for horrific human rights violations might be grating to those who study these issues seriously, but isn't it worthwhile to bring attention to an often overlooked conflict? Here's UN Dispatch's Mark Leon Goldberg:

I know some people (cough, cough, Bill Easterly, cough, cough) have hangups about celebrity activism.  But does anyone really think that Sudan’s upcoming referendum would be covered on a National Sunday morning broadcast without George Clooney’s handsome face to greet viewers?

(Interestingly, Bono-basher-in-chief William Easterly doesn't appear to have weighed in yet.) 

Clooney has his own words for the haters:

“I’m sick of it,” he said. “If your cynicism means you stand on the sidelines and throw stones, I’m fine, I can take it. I could give a damn what you think. We’re trying to save some lives. If you’re cynical enough not to understand that, then get off your ass and do something. If you’re angry at me, go do it yourself. Find another cause – I don’t care. We’re working, and we’re going forward.” 

This kind of "at least I'm doing something" rhetoric drives development scholars absolutely bonkers and for good reason. But for now at least, it's hard to see how Clooney's presence as a cheerleader is really hurting. Once the referendum is over however, I hope he heads back to Lake Como. In international negotiations, a certain degree of obscurity can often be just as helpful as the media spotlight. Making a new country is a messy business anywhere, and in Southern Sudan, it's going to involve some very ugly compromises. (I wonder, for instance, what Clooney thinks about the Southern Sudanese government expelling Darfuri rebels in what seemed to be a conciliatory gesture to Khartoum.)

In the difficult weeks and months ahead, Southern Sudan will certainly need international help, but it should come from people with a slightly more extensive background in the situation. Most of all, it's probably not helpful for celebrities and the media to promote a narrative of the Juba government as the "good Sudan." Even in the best-case scenario, it's bound to be shattered pretty quickly.  

In any event, the Southern Sudanese themselves seem pretty nonplussed about Danny Ocean's presence in their midst:

“Who is that man talking?” a Sudanese journalist asked, gesturing to a white man with a group of reporters around him. When told it was George Clooney, a movie star, the Sudanese journalist looked confused and walked away.

For more on Southern Sudan, check out Maggie Fick on the dangers of referendum euphoria, view a slide show of Juba on the eve of independence, and read Robert Klitgaard on how the region's leaders are preparing to crack down on corruption.  

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

EXPLORE:AFRICA, CELEBS, SUDAN
 

ENRIQUETAT

7:37 PM ET

January 10, 2011

over it!

So OVER IT!!!

It's interesting how easily you post the snark that individuals spend countless hours a day on Twitter perfecting. I had believed this was a serious publication.

Since I used to follow @ Laurenist for a while I can attest not sure how she would have the time to do all that "human rights" works in her bio.

It has become way to easy for individuals to garner a platform where they break down the efforts of individuals doing the work with " sideshow" antics from a computer in their room.

I would have appreciated a in depth report underscoring hours and years Mr. Cloony and his group have invested in their work with Darfur, underscoring a balanced report. Instead you merely placated to school like children on the playground of twitter.

Also it would be nice to know exactly who your quoting so that readers understand the expertise of the individuals...unless your going for any joe's will do in which case..good job.

Lastly, given the events of the last few days, perhaps I am overly sensitive to the facts that as a society we really don't get it....people are dying and individuals are jumping in to save lives while others stand around pointing fingers because he or she didn't put on his own life jacket....critical because he jumped in. In this case, if the satilites imagery is so bad get a f'n expert and help him instead of watching to see if he fails.

The fact of matter is Cloony jumped in....which leads to question how many quoted here have done the same...in any way shape or form consistently, currently??

I do hope I am wrong but given I had followed her tweets for quite sometime...I feel certain my words ring true.

In words @lauenist would appreciate as she loves self deprecating humor....Grow up.
respectfully,

Enriqueta

*Ps not a celebrity freak just someone who is tired of the BS... Paz

 

WONK4873

7:39 PM ET

January 10, 2011

Am I Helping?- By Joshua

Am I Helping?- By Joshua Keating

No.

However, I do find it delightfully satisfying that you've been outdone by a man you consider your intellectual and moral inferior.

 

JOSHUA KEATING

9:17 PM ET

January 10, 2011

Dear wonk,

I don't consider Clooney my "intellectual and more inferior," nor did I say so. Indeed, he's most certainly much better informed about the conflict and has done more to try to prevent violence there than I ever will. 

But if he's going to involve himself in a delicate international situation, why is it wrong to ask if what he's doing is really helping?  Critiquing the actions of public figures in the arena of foreign-policy is what we do here!

 

MGRAHAM

12:46 PM ET

January 11, 2011

Yes, but you don't get the

Yes, but you don't get the facts straight about what the monitoring entails. It would certainly be able to show build up of military hardware. Clooney is simply the public face of this thing. Behind the scenes are some well-respected experts on satellite imagery. Why would bringing troop buildup in Abyei to public attention not be worthwhile? You don't really explain why they shouldn't be doing this or why it isn't effective. Let's get a conversation going on the pros and cons of publicly available satellite imagery, once only in the realm of government analysts, to monitor and possibly change the cost calculus of conflict. Snark about celebrities is an easy cop-out.

 

MGRAHAM

1:04 PM ET

January 11, 2011

This is especially

This is especially problematic:

"Troubling as this morning's border violence is, there seems to be good reason for skepticism about the satellite project. The imagery the satellites provide isn't all that clear, showing about 8 square miles per computer-screen pixel, making it difficult to figure out just what's going on on the ground. That level of imprecision can be dangerous when trying to assign guilt or innocence in crimes against humanity. There's also the question of how much of a deterrent this type of monitoring really is."

1. Factual error- it's in fact 8 square inches. This is pretty damn clear. It allows you to see tanks that weren't there yesterday, artillery build up, mass graves, etc. it's a fairly straightforward monitoring task.

2. It doesn't try to assign guilt in crimes against humanity. It's trying to show if there is or is not military build up or significant changes on either side in a contested region.

3. Deterrent- come on, of course there's a question about how much of a deterrent this is! Which of the US foreign policy tools or human rights activism in the last five years have proven to have significant impact on the actions of the Sudanese government in Darfur? Does lack of causal link to policy change mean we no longer try to publicly hold their feet to the fire through the work of journalists, human rights monitors, or remote evidence like this?

 

ALLENELI

1:12 PM ET

January 15, 2011

But Josh...

One can easily argue that FP contributes to the superficial commentary that dominates coverage of countries like Sudan. There are plenty of serious journalists and scholars in Africa (and I'm not talking about the American expat Maggie Ficks of the continent) who could provide magazines like FP with serious coverage and analysis. But as of yet, FP seems not to be interested. Only the Middle East and Europe get serious political scrutiny. The rest of the word ends up superficially analyzed by twenty-somethings with no real long-term insider credentials. FP could really lead the way in changing how the United States begins to discuss so many regions of the world. In doing so, you would distinguish yourselves from the Clooney-hounding hoards.... After all, it's one thing to criticize George Clooney in a blog post. It's another thing to implicitly criticize him by offering up an intellectual alternative.

 

WONK4873

7:42 PM ET

January 10, 2011

Well said Enriqueta. I

Well said Enriqueta. I expected more from Foreign Policy

 

PCARINO

9:54 PM ET

January 10, 2011

armchair editor

I believe the word you want is "unimpressed" not "nonplussed." "Nonplussed" would mean the journalist was stunned into silence.

 

K.SOLOMON

10:21 PM ET

January 10, 2011

allow me to explain . . .

Enriqueta and Work, you’re missing the point.
Keating questions whether or not Clooney’s presence is helpful. He concludes that at present Clooney may not be doing any harm, but in the near future he should leave this matter to people who know what they’re doing. Why? Because this is outside Clooney’s expertise, the issue is more complex than good guys (Juba) v. bad guys (Khartoum), and “in international negotiations, a certain degree of obscurity can often be just as helpful as the media spotlight.”
It’s not about who is or isn’t “doing” something. It’s about whether or not his actions are ultimately doing more harm than good.
You expect more from FP? Maybe you’re not ready to even be reading FP if you can’t see that he raises some good points here.

 

ENRIQUETAT

1:26 AM ET

January 11, 2011

First of all was article

First of all was article actually meant to be taken seriously, because from a readers perspective it was glib writing and quite condescending. I didn't see any straight lines that actually reported something inciteful if that is Keatings style of reporting, it is noted.

As for Expertise...you don't think working directly in-country provides expertise?

Arm chair quarterbacking is what got us into a mess in Iraq-

*to note I don't exactly feel persuaded to defend Mr. Cloony (artist) but I am compelled to note Mr. Cloony humanitarian who has done his homework.

If you follow the Enough Project, there working in the Sudan through our also if you follow the legislative process you would know there is quite a bit already done and being worked on behind the scenes via he and his team. In fact meetings at the highest levels have been reported in lesser known policy briefs that detail the work.

Admittedly my note was to point out the sheer glibness of article and your points are noted but don't underestimate individuals who actually organize and do the work.

Just because he doesn't sit in some think tank in DC doesn't mean he lacks the knowledge base to know what is actually going on...or is part of solution as opposed to quacking about him sitting on some yaht...which frankly I found to be drivel.

Lastly I can't speak for the wonk but I do appreciate your looking out for me about what I should be reading...nice backhanded slight.

Personally I prefer communicating directly without the snark to me it shows an inabilitly to communicate as a mature adults.. particularly on message boards. This is Foreign policy not Doctrine Man. ..but given the glibness of the article I am sure you fit in. As I am someone who keeps an open mind, thank you for the suggestion.

Interesting to note...Solomon ended up losing his wisdom as he over reached his authority...

Best,
Enriqueta Turanzas

 

USAMA2

7:36 AM ET

January 11, 2011

Clooney is a Pawn in a Real Life Story.

Clooney is the modern face of Western global imperialism.

America has been fomenting the fractionalization of Sudan for decades by arming various rebels along with support from Israel, Uganda, and Ethiopia.

Clooney seems ignorant of how he is being used by American regional interests as well. The underlying interests are to fractionalize Sudan for multiple reasons: including to weaken any Islamic political causes, to weaken Arab nationalism, to strengthen Sudan's adversaries in order to balance out power, to change ownership of the mineral rights of Sudan so as to allow American and Western companies access to resources, to give victory to secular humanist liberal ideology within the developing world so as to bolster Western global power.

Clooney has used up all the good will he built up in my book. He's nothing but a pawn now.

And very quickly, the new country will be controlled by an oligarchy of tribal and warlord elites. Already the largest property owned is by a Wall Street investor. And Dinka oppression of others, including Muslims, is already evident. But this story has been told dozens of times already.

 

KIRBANG

11:29 AM ET

January 14, 2011

Clooney

Do you think the average American cares about Sudan, let alone can find it on the map? We are dominated by celebrities and most publications now mention Sudan not because of the conflict (we have our own problems) but because of Clooney et al. Do you think money is raised because of his efforts and profile? Will the Sudanese return the money if they disagree with his involvement? (assuming it gets there at all, but another story lies therein). This is an argument about nothing. Why should anyone be criticized for trying to help. Oh the sat images are too small; Oh he can't speak Arabic; Oh he is not a professional diplomat. Oh he is anonymous to the Sudanese MOS. So What. Get a grip and appreciate him for his good intentions while you sit on your ass and carp.

 

ANN GARRISON

2:42 PM ET

January 14, 2011

The money Clooney raises

Most of it goes into lobbying the federal government, as does that raised for the Save Darfur Coalition. "What's the matter with the Save Darfur Coalition?", http://goo.gl/O9zwH.

 

ANN GARRISON

12:44 PM ET

January 14, 2011

I'm a proud member of the Global Snark Brigade

Somebody's gotta do it. Joshua Keating says, " . . . it's hard to see how Clooney's presence as a cheerleader is really hurting." But global theatre, starring George Clooney, including an hour's preview on NBC Dateline, is not produced for no reason.

So I'm a proud member of the Global Snark Brigade, as I explained here on Open Salon:

Bono Bashers, Clooney Patrols, and the Global Snark Brigade,
http://open.salon.com/blog/ann_garrison/2011/01/13/bono_bashers_clooney_patrols_and_the_global_snark_brigade

 

ALLENELI

1:15 PM ET

January 15, 2011

But Josh...

One can easily argue that FP contributes to the superficial commentary that dominates coverage of countries like Sudan. There are plenty of serious journalists and scholars in Africa (and I'm not talking about the American expat Maggie Ficks of the continent) who could provide magazines like FP with serious coverage and analysis. But as of yet, FP seems not to be interested. Only the Middle East and Europe get serious political scrutiny. The rest of the word ends up superficially analyzed by twenty-somethings with no real long-term insider credentials. FP could really lead the way in changing how the United States begins to discuss so many regions of the world. In doing so, you would distinguish yourselves from the Clooney-hounding hoards.... After all, it's one thing to criticize George Clooney in a blog post. It's another thing to implicitly criticize him by offering up an intellectual alternative.

 

DAVE BASSETT

11:49 PM ET

January 15, 2011

Clooney

George Clooney, wants to save the world! Is he the new Bono?
I heard the fire sprinklers went off in his hotel .

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More