… then why is he shilling for the United Nations?
As Hollywood buffs and UN money-raisers already know, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has just named actor George Clooney as the UN’s newest Messenger of Peace, with a “special focus on UN peacekeeping.” Clooney, currently visiting Sudan, is expected to “receive his designation” Jan. 31st at UN headquarters in New York.
This would all be great if UN peacekeeping actually produced peace. But the illusion that the UN is a grand force for good in this world deserves to be catalogued somewhere between World’s Most Amazing Scams and Believe It-Or-Not Best-in-Special-Effects. The reality of today’s UN is more like a cross between “Animal House” (the movie, with John Belushi) and “Animal Farm” (the book, by George Orwell). Libya and Vietnam have just joined the Security Council, where China and Russia hold permanent seats. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has turned the General Assembly into its Manhattan clubhouse — which Iran’s mushroom-cloud-in-chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now uses every September as a base to parade around New York and lecture his audiences that Iran is a country of peaceful intentions and no homosexuals.
The Human Rights Council, with the eager help of Libya and Pakistan, is busy planning a “Durban II” reprise of its 2001 Durban I hate-fest against Israel and America. There is still no official UN definition of terrorism (which means that by UN lights, the Sept. 11 attacks were not committed by terrorists). And with assorted federal investigations going on in the U.S. into bribery, visa fraud and money laundering emanating from the UN (so, really, why did the UN Development Program in North Korea have $3,500 in counterfeit $100 bills in its office safe?), Ban Ki-moon — erstwhile chief administrator of the place — has been busy running around in a ski parka, and importuning on Bali, in his top priority campaign for massive transfers of wealth from democratic countries to dictatorships such as Cuba, China and Sudan, in the name of waging war on the weather.
In UN peacekeeping, which will be Clooney’s special focus, peacekeeper sex scandals continue to bubble up, with their own special focus on under-age locals the peacekeepers are supposed to be protecting (almost three years after the UN declared a zero-tolerance policy for such outrages). Peacekeeping has been one of the major areas of UN corruption, with even the UN itself finally acknowledging hundreds of millions worth of tainted contracts.
In Sudan, where Clooney has taken a special interest, the UN has been dithering and talking and negotiating and re-negotiating for years, and the vaunted peace is still no where in sight. Meanwhile, the government of Sudan enjoys a seat on the 72-member executive committee of the UN Refugee Agency, or UNHCR; while complicit in genocide the Sudanese government had a seat on the former UN Human Rights Commission; and of course Sudan from its General Assembly seat finds itself entitled to vote along with such countries as Saudi Arabia and Iran to use millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to bankroll such ventures as Durban II. (For more on one of the latest UN Sudan money-related peacekeeping flaps, here’s Matthew Russell Lee of Inner-City Press wondering about a $250 million no-bid no-transparency UN contract… )
Anyway… enter George Clooney, UN Messenger of Peace.
Is anyone surprised that one of the first activities his UN handlers have scheduled for him in NY on Jan 31 is attendance at a “meeting of the countries that contribute to United Nations peacekeeping efforts” –? Translation: Step one in the UN cookbook is, if it’s not working, bang the drum for more money, more per diems, more conferences, more procurement contracts…
The UN “Messengers of Peace” program was set up by Kofi Annan, whose talents deserve to be remembered in the context of Oil-for-Food, genocide in Rwanda, massacre at Srebenica, and endless ways of finagling more money for the murky UN system … not peace for the planet. The UN web page for “Messengers of Peace” tells us (highlighting is mine) the messengers “volunteer their time, talent and passion to raise awareness of United Nations’ efforts to improve the lives of billions of people everywhere.” Is that really what the UN does? Improve the lives of billions? … Or does it use billions to improve the lives of select UN special interests, of the kind sketched out above.
There’s nothing wrong with ER’s former Dr. Ross calling attention to genocide in Darfur. It’s better for the world than if Clooney were instead spending the time filming, say, “Son of Syriana.” But “Messenger of Peace” seems an odd title for a movie star enlisted (along with Spiderman) to help polish up the image of UN. Maybe Ban should appoint some Messengers of Transparency and Accountability. That might be less attractive to a Hollywood hot property like Clooney. But if the idea is truly to help Darfur, it’s not a UN-tinsel-town partnership that’s needed; it’s an honest, or at the very least, competent, institution (that rules out the UN on both counts) — able to come to the rescue.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
25 Comments
Rob Meldrum:Clooney, ive seen u in action, please come and have a drink with me. i promise u won’t b disapointed. Molly. x.
Jan 20, 2008 - 11:55 am Denis Eugene Sullivan:Greetings:
One of the things that impressed me in an enduring way was the inscription on the Bronx County Courthouse, down near Yankee Stadium, that read “Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Freedom.” It seems to have much mitigated my “willingness to suspend disbelief.”
I continue to be nonplussed by the public’s fixation with celebrity representatives, especially actors and actresses. There is something about having someone, whose skill in life is portraying feelings and reciting speeches of others, that is, at best, cognitively dissonant.
I supposed they could be doing worse things, but I have pretty much come to the conclusion that, in Hollywood, moral superiority has become the cocaine of the 21st Century.
Jan 20, 2008 - 2:45 pm Bill Bradley:Umm … because GC is a very smart guy who wants the best for the world?
Trick question, right?
Jan 20, 2008 - 3:18 pm Brian H:Bill;
Backing a dysfunctional and anti-liberation hyperbureaucracy is “very bright”?
Hudda thunk it?
Jan 20, 2008 - 4:11 pm Mark William Paules:At least this august body has the right initials, as in UN-elected, UN-accountable, and UN-principled.
Jan 20, 2008 - 5:03 pm Bill Bradley:There is one forum.
The UN.
Deal with it.
Or not.
Jan 20, 2008 - 5:08 pm dick:Bill Bradley,
Really I would rather not. I prefer my organizations to have some form of ethics that is honest. UN loses on that one big time.
Jan 20, 2008 - 5:27 pm Marc:Bill,
deal with an unelected and unrepresentative world government? hmmm…No. Why has your revolutionary zeal waned? Bill- the Spirit of 1776- catch it! It’s heady stuff and scares the bejeezus out of totalitarians, dictators, tyrants, and the toadies who tolerate them.
Jan 20, 2008 - 6:04 pm Maggie45:Seriously,- aren’t you reluctant to cede your rights to a system even less accountable to it’s constituency than a national governemnt?
Ms. Rosett, thank you for not giving up. I am in awe of your tenacity. I keep all your columns to show my friends who think the UN is the answer to every problem. They have NO idea what is really going on, and I’m sure you’re exposing just the tip of the iceberg. Thanks again.
Jan 20, 2008 - 6:11 pm alan:Rebels in the Niger Delta yesterday called on the actor, George Clooney, to visit the region in his new capacity as UN messenger of peace.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/21/wclooney121.xml
Since he is the UN Messenger of Peace, if the rebels decide to hold him hostage its the UN’s problem not ours, right?
Jan 20, 2008 - 6:41 pm Mark:Why does the UN only promote leftist, blame America hacks?
Jan 20, 2008 - 6:55 pm Little Much:GC diplomatic immunity, man! The do-not-accuse-convict-jail pass for any one of “chosen people” being inconvenienced by anything from rape and murder to parking tickets for the UN elite “useless that be”. Hell, I wanna be one a chosen useless elite.
How useless do i have to be to sign up?
Jan 20, 2008 - 8:20 pm Little Much:GC diplomatic immunity, man! The do-not-accuse-convict-jail pass for any one of “chosen people” being inconvenienced by anything from rape and murder to parking tickets for the UN elite “useless that be”. Hell, I wanna be one a chosen useless elite.
How useless do i have to be to sign up?
Jan 20, 2008 - 8:21 pm Chris Smith:I think that the Untied Nations falls under Redmond’s Law: three versions until useful.
1. The League of Nations
2. Untied Nations
3.
The UN need to be ridden until countries are prepared to replace it. Hopefully, the negative effects of centralized power shall have been made clear enough that version #3 is minimalist.
Jan 20, 2008 - 8:36 pm Dave S.:“Why does the UN only promote leftist, blame America hacks?”
Because the UN is composed only of leftist, blame America hacks?
Jan 20, 2008 - 9:11 pm Don Meaker:It is no accident that an association of Government Executive branches is supportive of Government Executive Power. Most governments only have, if that, a functioning Executive branch. The Judicial Branch is normally controlled by the Executive. Legislatures are holding grounds for the friends of the executive, until such a time that they are deemed reliable enough to get a position in the Executive or Judicial branches.
For a worthy iteration of what ever comes after the UN, there should be a branch with representation based on population, a branch with representation based on GDP, and a branch elected by the people of each nation. The second branch would block the “soak the rich” efforts. The first would block enslavement of large nations by the small. The third would be the only branch permitted to initiate laws.
Jan 20, 2008 - 10:37 pm Sam:(UN) “Messenger of Peace”
This title is actually a Badge of Dishonor, much like the Nobel Peace Prize has become.
Clooney has a chance to distinguish himself by using his designation to be loudly critical of UN shortcomings and misdeeds in an effort to improve it. He should reject the easy road, bowing to the UN and becoming the standard fund-raising Famous Face the UN wants him to be and make a real difference by rocking the boat.
If he does so he will earn my respect and my movie attendance; if he takes the path of least resistance I wont change my current refusal to see one of his movies nor award my respect. I hope someone who knows him alerts him to this article and he reads it and the responses.
Jan 20, 2008 - 11:38 pm VRWC:Let’s all remember this about Clooney; In 2005 he won an Oscar for some film he did attacking Joe McCarthy. His acceptance speech was all about how brave Hollywood, i.e. Clooney, was, essentially patting himself on the back for bravely attacking a Senator who had been dead for fifty years. Meanwhile, completely ignored was the murder by an islamofascist of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for making a film critical of islam, the “religion of peace”. Clooney is a self aggrandizing tool.
Jan 21, 2008 - 3:03 am MojoJojo:Maybe because all of the right wing hacks would rather insult the UN rather than try to do good through it.
Jan 21, 2008 - 8:56 am william:It seems to me that artistic talent and political maturity are inversely proportional. Has anyone rented a Ronald Reagan film recently? Tom Cruise has made any number of really terrific films, but I think even George Clooney would agree that Reagan had better judgement than Cruise. The ability to make an entertaining movie is an enviable and lucrative skill, but like, say throwing a 90mph fastball, it has no carryover to the larger world of politics.
Jan 21, 2008 - 10:47 am tanstaafl:Clooney’s appointment is in keeping with “The UN’s” succession of vapid and meaningless gestures.
I’d hoped Ban Ki-Moon could ratchet the place up a few notches, maybe undo some of the self-serving dithering (and probably outright corruption) of his predecessor.
I swore not to condemn Moon for his first year in office. It was very hard to bite my tongue (keyboard, actually) when Moon uttered his near brain dead observations on global warming.
But the gloves are off, and now I’m just for moving “The UN” to Antarctica.
Jan 21, 2008 - 12:21 pm shockcorridor:Sure MojoJojo, not like the UN has earned any of those “insults.”
Jan 21, 2008 - 12:38 pm J.D. Silentio:Claudia, as usual, you’re right on the mark. Clooney’s celebrity only serves to distract from the myriad obvious failures and allow the UN to escape scruitiny.
This reader wishes that the UN and US support of it would become an election issue. I highly doubt that the UN would last very long if it received half the scruitiny given to Presidential candidates for a solid week. But I won’t be holding my breath!
Jan 22, 2008 - 10:25 am johnbrown:During the fifty-odd years of my life, there have been a number of positive developments: The liberation of Europe and Asia from Soviet Communism; the removal of the apartheid regime in South Africa; the fall of dictatorships in large parts of Latin America, and the spread of successful food-production and disease eradication techniques. Of all of these events, the United Nations has played little or no part (with the exception of the WHO, but only in a limited capacity). (I should probably include the economic development which has added some twenty years to each human being’s expected lifespan, to which the UN has added nothing.)
Jan 22, 2008 - 2:43 pm WR Jonas:On the negative side of the ledger are the genocides in Biafra, Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans, Ethiopia, East Timor, Cambodia, the Sudan, and a few other places; the spread of AIDs; organized Islamofascism, and the recent resurgence of dictatorship in Russia and Asia. The United Nations has made efforts to prevent most of these things, with no success whatever; indeed, their ineffective interventions have furnished the nations of the world with an easy excuse to ignore such crises.
I have no trouble with the UN elevating Mr. Clooney to the post of messenger of peace, or lizard king, or whatever: it’s the only thing it can do, and may even keep it from intervening in affairs in the real world. But do we need to grant respectability to such activities? It would be easy for the United States to formally withdraw from the UN, while maintaining its ties with such internationanl bodies as the WHO that actually do accomplish something. There’s no reason to believe that such organizations as NATO or the EU would disappear; indeed, they would become stronger, as they pick up responsibilities which now belong to the UN (and so are not now being handled). As an added bonus, there would be less of a parking problem in Manhattan. Let’s get out of the damn thing, and let it die of the irrelevance
it so richly works for.
Two great efforts. Claudias’ column and John Browns comment. I heartily agree with Mr.Brown. Let the UN perish of its own irrelevance.
Jan 23, 2008 - 4:53 pm