SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home U.n. Chooses Clooney To Save Darfur

THE SPINE JANUARY 19, 2008

U.n. Chooses Clooney To Save Darfur

I don't know exactly what
this means.  But an article by Chuck Bennett in Saturday's New York Post reports
that George Clooney "has been tapped to
serve as the UN's new 'messenger of peace'."  The UN has failed so utterly in its rhetorical efforts to bring not so much peace but an end to
the mass killings in Darfur that it has anointed People magazine's two time choice for "sexiest man alive" to do the hard lifting in the effort
to end the murders.

As for Clooney, his acceptance of this role is either stupid or cynical:
"I look forward to working with the United Nations in order to build public support for its critically important work in some of the most difficult, dangerous and dire places in the world."  But the truth is that the
UN cooperates with the murderers by pretending that it is an efficient tool for peace when it is -and not only in Darfur-
an instrument of war and warfare.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 3 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

3 comments

Judging by what I see on the TV these days, we shouldn't send Clooney but Stallone.  Apparently he's going to stop human rights abuses in Burma by killing everyone in Burma.  

- Crock1701

January 19, 2008 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, Obama disappears from Marty's radar when Darfur comes up.  So let's review (and for the record, HRC is only a little better, but given how Marty considers Obama a saint and HRC the devil...)

First, Obama ignored Darfur.  Only when -- surprise! -- George Clooney took it up (and showed up on Oprah to talk about it) did Obama show an interest.  But it was a weak interest -- TNR criticized Obama and Sam Brownback for not being forceful enough.

Then the fun starts: Obama anounces for President and promptly shuts up about Darfur.  Until he's asked about Iraq -- would he really pull all troops if our experts said a Sunni genocide would result?  Genocide "isn't the criteria" for intervention Obama says.  In another interview he says that "people who care about Darfur" don't want unilateral western action.  Never mind that most (but not all) people in the Save Darfur movement have asked for just that, such as no-fly zones over the region.  Then the silence returned.

Now if the U.N. had appointed Mia Farrow, who has done more on Darfur than all the candidates of both parties combined, that would have been interesting.  Because Farrow is willing to call people out.  Unlike some pundits I know.  

- Lymon1

January 20, 2008 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm just reminded of the entry in The Onion's "Our Dumb World" concerning Sudan: "And although it seemed like the violence in Sudan would never truly stop, it did shortly after George Clooney mentioned during a red-carpet interview that it should."

- bcbaird

January 21, 2008 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close