How Hollywood cloaked South Sudan in celebrity and fell for the 'big lie'

[Jesus Malverde]

When violence erupted two weeks ago in the world's youngest country, one of the first voices to speak out, before the US president or the head of the United Nations, was that of the Hollywood actor George Clooney. There was nothing particularly objectionable about his counsel, which in any case was more likely authored by the American activist John Prendergast, with whom he shared a byline. It spoke of the need for a robust UN response and, even as tens of thousands of civilians fled ethnically motivated death squads, of the "opportunities" present in South Sudan.

This is a country, not yet two and a half years old, whose birth has been soaked in celebrity like no other. As well as Clooney, Matt Dillon and Don Cheadle have been occasional visitors who have tried to use their star power to place the international public firmly in the corner of this plucky upstart nation.

Unsurprisingly, the actors were highly effective at communicating a narrative about the new country that borrowed from a simple script. The south had fought a bloody two-decade battle for its independence against an Islamic and chauvinist north led by an indicted war criminal. The cost of that war, regularly touted as two million lives, meant that the south would need huge development support to lift it from the impoverished floor of every quality of life index published.

The great threat in this narrative was the vile regime in Khartoum, the capital of rump Sudan, which would seek to undermine its southern breakaway, or march back to war to reclaim some of its lost oilfields.

It was a seductive story that could be well told by handsome movie stars against the lavish backdrop supplied by South Sudan's superheated swamps and deserts and often beautiful people. But the narrative – part truth, part wilful misunderstanding – was deeply flawed. This would have mattered less if it had only informed public opinion, but instead it found its way into the building of a state.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/28/reality-of-south-sudan-and-hollywood-stars

[Igel]

1. Who'd have thought that tribal/ethnic divisions would matter?

No good solution to this kind of repressed conflict except to let it play out in ways that let it play out with as little collateral damage as possible.

Repressing them entirely is usually foolishness.

And even once a government appears stable, it can go wobbly. Rwanda is a case in point. Iraq is a more recent case.

Biafra is a good example.

Zimbabwe is another good example. Let's not even talk about the San being thrown into the ethnic mix. They've lost at the hands of pretty much everybody.

Etc. Etc. Etc.