Was George Clooney’s UN security pulled over fears he would talk genocide?

george clooney 260109
On Wednesday, we reported on George Clooney’s visit to Chad and Sudan, a “fact-finding” mission to visit Darfur and the refugee caps on the Chad-Sudan border. While there, Clooney visited some Irish peacekeepers stationed close to the refugee camps, which was nice. But as it turns out, there’s much, much more to the story.

Clooney is traveling with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, a two-time Pulitizer Prize winner and a foreign policy expert, someone who has traveled to Sudan and Chad many times. Ann Curry is also traveling through the area, and has done special reports for the NBC Evening News and The Today Show – on Friday morning she’s showing an exclusive interview with Clooney in Chad.

The scandal broke via Kristof’s column in the NYT. On Thursday, Kristof reported that Clooney’s UN-provided security detail was non-existent. Clooney is a UN Messenger of Peace, and when he travels as an official UN goodwill ambassador to a war-torn, violent region, the UN should provide him with security. But there was the catch – Clooney was, according to the UN, traveling unofficially, not as part of any UN-backed mission, therefore was not entitled to a security detail.

But there’s more to the story – Kristof claims that Clooney’s security was pulled out of a fear that Clooney would make negative remarks about genocide and Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who might be facing a possible ICC indictment for war crimes. E! has a full report:

George Clooney’s freedom of speech may have cost him his safety.

The United Nations announced that it was looking into allegations that the world body pulled the actor’s security detail while he was—and still is—traveling through a lawless region of Chad. The move was alleged to be a preemptive measure to prevent Clooney from voicing critical, and potentialy inflammatory, opinions of the region’s leadership.

While Clooney is a U.N. “messenger of peace,” he has been traveling unofficially in the African nation with New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof and, on and off, with NBC News’ Ann Curry.

Kristof noted the security abandonment in his published yesterday, though U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas was quick to address the claim, saying that the U.N. did not provide security for anyone in the region and instead relied on local organizations for assistance.

She also noted that Clooney did not go to Chad as part of any U.N. initiative, instead traveling to the dangerous, humanitarian-weary area of his own accord, though she added that they are “still trying to ascertain the facts.”

It seems the ones spelled out by Kristof weren’t clear-cut enough.

The reporter claimed that the U.N. issued what amounted to a (potentially life-threatening) gag order in an attempt to keep the peace. With the International Criminal Court working up to a formal indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the man deemed most responsible for the Darfur crisis, the region is at a flashpoint.

“Apparently concerned that Mr. Clooney might say something strongly critical of Mr. Bashir—perhaps come down on genocide?—the United Nations called me on Wednesday to say that effective immediately it was pulling Mr. Clooney’s security escort as he traveled these roads along the border,” Kristof wrote.

“Now that did seem petty and mean-spirited…the U.N. requires a military escort for its own vehicles here,” he continued, before leveling a particularly harsh criticism against the organization.

“If the U.N. is too craven to protect its own goodwill ambassadors—because they might criticize genocide—it’s not surprising that it and the international community fail to protect hundreds of thousands of voiceless Darfuris.”

From E! Online

I agree with Kristof – Clooney criticizing al-Bashir is a kind of a non-issue. I mean, who’s going to disagree with statements like “Genocide is bad” and “War criminals should be prosecuted.” I don’t really know if the UN would pull one its goodwill ambassador’s security details as a way to limit their speech, but I think that under any circumstances, leaving Clooney unprotected is a big mistake. Especially considering he was traveling with a NYT journalist who would report everything in detail.

According to Reuters, “…the ICC is expected to announce imminently whether it is going to indict Bashir for war crimes in Darfur, western Sudan, where up to 300,000 people have died in a six-year conflict between the Khartoum government and rebel groups… [there is] anxiety in Chad that Bashir could retaliate for an indictment by using a proxy force to invade Chad. Sudanese and Chadian officials have exchanged accusations of backing rebel groups in each other’s countries.”

George Clooney is shown on 1/26/09 in Washington, DC “at the Newseum and the American University School of Communication with Bill Small, chairman of news and documentary Emmys at the National Television Academy in a discussion and screening of the 2005 film ‘Good Night, and Good Luck.’ Journalist-in-residence Nick Clooney, George Clooney’s father, moderated the conversation.” Credit: WENN

george clooney 260109

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

16 Responses to “Was George Clooney’s UN security pulled over fears he would talk genocide?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. geronimo says:

    I’d say storm in a teacup. He’s travelling unofficially, he’s done it before without official UN protection. it doesn’t mean he’s left unprotected, he’ll have his own security personnel with him, ones easily as efficient (if not more so) than UN sanctioned ones. Doubt very much if they’ll let him actively put himself in danger or that the UN would want Clooney’s blood on their hands.

  2. Kaiser says:

    G – The Reuters piece that I linked to has more quotes from the UN spokeswoman, and she really seems like she’s washing her hands of Clooney. I really wonder if his UN passport will be revoked in the future.

  3. kiki says:

    he and Ann Curry are having a wild affair while they are both in Danfur.. just kidding but then you never know

  4. geronimo says:

    Ann Curry’s report and interview is now up on the MSNBC site. Guess we’ll have to wait and see, interested to see what Kristof’s next NYT report will have to say about it.

  5. Mairead says:

    Hmm – it IS very curious though, as my understanding is that UN Messengers of Peace are even more high-status than Goodwill Ambassadors and are personally backed by the Secretary General.

    I’ve note read the NYT article yet, but sounds like the UN found out that George was going to take a pot-shot at a particular ruler (who presumably hasn’t as yet been convicted as a war criminal) and the UN couldn’t officially sanction his trip further, probably thinking he’d head back out of the country rather than staying and visiting Camp Ciara (pronounced Key-ruh, in case anyone was wondering)

    As I said, it’s just a guess, a lot could depend on the timing of when the security detail was pulled.

  6. Annie says:

    Still.

    It’s an extremely dangerous region over there, personal security or personal security+UN protection.

    Although in all seriousness, he’d be protected by the UN regardless. Or the very least, protected by the backing of the United States. Our economy might be in the slumps, but we’re still one of the most powerful nations in the world.

    I understand the ICC’s need for a certain type of discretion and tact, but at the same time, I’m really saddened by the fact that the Darfur Genocide has been going on for so long now, with only a handful of voices speaking out about it. Millions of people were murdered/displaced before the countries have moved towards a path of stopping it.

  7. Baba says:

    I’ve seen Three Kings. Dude can handle himself just fine.

  8. Because I Say So says:

    Lol, Baba.

    Africa seems like such a mess. The only thing that prevents it from becoming a Middle East (to the US) is the lack of known oil to be drilled/exported. It seems like western governments prefer to not get involved and instead issue sanctions. In all this time, has any of it helped?

  9. Goddess711 says:

    *sigh* *hearts* That’s our George!
    Wish there were more stand-up, speak-out, courageous mortals like him out there!

  10. Ned says:

    George Clooney should tell the world what he saw.

    It is very troubling that the UN might be somehow involved with corrupt and murderous regimes or help to coverup a genocide.

    I think it is absolutely laudable that he is actually studying, investigating and so serious about justice and truth.

  11. emeraldcity says:

    The Sudan has a lot of oil, that’s the reason the genocide started, one of the main reasons the native Africans are being systematically, wiped out and driven from their land is because the government wants to drill for more oil. The Sudan is a major supplier of oil to China. This war has nothing to do with religion as many people think, they are all Muslim.

  12. Ned says:

    Emeraldcity- do you think that someone in the UN profits from that oil, that there is some sort of incentive for them to make sure that people won’t talk about what is going on too much?

    Is it corruption at the high levels?

    I wonder what George Clooney think about the way the UN didn’t want him to see what’s going on (or talk to more people and hear what they think).

  13. geronimo says:

    Update from Kristof – intriguing and very questionable UN behaviour –

    http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/the-un-and-george-clooney/

  14. posterboy says:

    UN=Useless Entity. Same goes for Clooney.

  15. 88modesty88 says:

    There is definitely many oil-rich nations here in Africa. It’s just happening under the radar — syphoned being an apt description.

  16. At first, before I read this blog, i thought it’s about George Cooney is getting escorts service. But actually is about the military escorts.