connel707 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Thai mothers.All your kids came back home from school today? And one little girl in Chang Mai will never go home again, thanks to Burmese illegals, if you believe the reports.... Africanteacher- get your facts right, lets hope you are not a teacher in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconutmonkey Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Thai mothers.All your kids came back home from school today? And one little girl in Chang Mai will never go home again, thanks to Burmese illegals, if you believe the reports.... Africanteacher- get your facts right, lets hope you are not a teacher in Thailand. African teacher has a point which is just different from yours, and you greatly misunderstand what he/she is intending to present; and being a teacher in Thailand has nothing at all to do with it. Back to the topic connel707 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 These UNHCR 'goodwill ambassadors' are an invention of the west that I believe started with the late Princess Diana. Because she sort of 'came from royalty', she had a certain respect from various governments, even ones not aligned with the west. For her part, she made her statements but for the most part they were generally about non-confrontational and non-political issues like anti-personnel mines. That nous and respect just isn't there when the role is foisted on some Hollywood star that most refugees worldwide wouldn't recognize from Eve, or Adam for that matter. The UN should show diversity in who it names as 'goodwill ambassador' and rotate the job around a bit between various ethnicities and nationalities. And not just movie stars; what about some academics, sportsmen/women and some 'retired' statesmen/women? No, the latter are too busy on the public speech trail cash cow to get up close and personal with possible atrocities in the third world. This government spokesman's comments although appearing insensitive and damaging to the western, politically-correct ear, drew many comments here alluding to Thai xenophobia and bigotry. These traits are not uniquely Thai. They are uniquely Asian. The Thai's don't need a division of the UN (which is notably headed by a Korean) telling them what to do in their own back yard. The same way as the Malaysians would take umbrage at (say) a Japanese statesman telling them what to do on internal issues. Look at ASEAN, a bunch of lower echelon politicos masquerading as a 'consensus' of southeast Asian opinion and policy. Principally conceived as a 'home grown' option to US, Australian, Japanese and now Chinese military and commercial encroachment on the Pacific rim. However, the ASEAN mandate specifically states that each member country can not make public judgment or statement about a fellow member country's politics. The Philippines recent solitary voice against Burma was refreshing but I will wager that they have a hard time getting their ASEAN brothers and sisters to pay attention when it's their turn to be headmaster, particularly the Thai children. With their future gas supplies heavily dependent and closely entwined with the future of the military junta in Burma, better not to rock that boat no matter how many Rohingya refugees are in it. It's the military and Prem that wear the pants in this house, everyone else; and I do mean everyone, is just a supporting act. The current PM and his appointees should be aware of that. Marching time, marching time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Jolie ran her mouth after visiting ONE refugee camp. i'm sure there's lots of actual Thai people living in worse housing and with less food. why doesn't she donate a couple million baht to the refugee situation?? she needs it for 1st class airfare and hotels?To be fair to AJ, she does indeed spend significant amounts of her own money, supporting development in Cambodia, as widely reported in the press. just enjoy the privilege of being in this country and <deleted>. Perhaps all these farangs, who like to stand up for civilised behaviour, should be encouraged to go home ? Or at least allow crimes against humanity to go unremarked, in the interests of good manners, to their hosts ? my comments in red above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaiWai Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Every country in the world seems to face global economic and financial crisis and so is Thailand. It stemmed from a few mistakes that only very few people started for their personal gain in the first place. Every taxpayer in every country is now affected by such a.s.s.hol.ism. Everyone and every government is also affected somewhat by real crisis and somewhat by the mere pretense of it!While a number of people have claimed their rights to criticize or blame anyone in Thailand, starting from the monarchy down to the Prime Minister, Government and perhaps to everyone existing in this Kingdom, they are so pathetic not looking at the real sides of things but putting up emotional bull.shit to achieve their own selfish mindless goals. Wow, what a masterpiece of invention. You guys are so rich and so willing to spend big bucks on airfares flying across the globes here and there to lecture our people without realising what big problems we are being affected by with all these immigration problems and accential force of mistery from multiculuralism as people from unwanted grades keep escaping into this kingdom. We spend countless amount of our taxpayers money solving this problems and you or your parents can't even realize what we are going through. Isn't it time to look down at your dimmed shadows and admit that you are running out of time to carry out this compregensive manipulation? The Americans are so good at practising solving the problems from their causes and take preventive measures from them. Ain't it time for Jolie and UNHCR to return to those prestigious lucrative schools to get enlightened instead of coming here and painting wrong colours on our Kingdom. We all know what caused Rohingya and the illegal immegrants to come to this country. You therefore should ask the Thais why not so many of them illegally migrate to another country and perhaps learn what we do to look after our people instead of trying to outperform our wisdom and refinement by exercising your compregensive manipulation scheme... needless to say! In going to any land or staying in any country, one ought to respect their laws and understand what burdens they are carrying otherwise it would be one's ignorance to open one's mouth inventively with critics. .................................................... Great post and welcome to the forum. Agreed!!! Jin, hope you will write often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbkudu Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The long post above is missing the point. The Rohingya are not stray puppies that can be put in a sack and dumped in the river; they are human beings like the rest of us. As for the official at the Myanmar consulate in Hong Kong, the man should be put in a sack and dumped in the river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkdawg Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Rather than taking the opportunity to take a swipe at the Thai approach to the problem of the Rohingya people can anyone suggest an alternative? These are an Islamic people. They were heading for an Islamic nation. Send them to Malaysia or Indonesia? Do they want them?Do you want them going to the UK, Australia, US etc? No I thought not. So, what to do? Send them on? Send them to the Muslem insurgents in the south of Thailand? Send them back? How many Brits would like to send teh Muslems in the UK back to Arabic states? See, it isn't as clear cut as you think. Might as well send them to the U.K so they can be with their brothers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bussell Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I think it would be polite to address conserns to Thai Government First. Before opening a public debate on the issues as UN representitive. But then again she has just been droped for a younger actress to play Lara Croft? Public Stunt? Is it an over the hill actress trying to stay in the spot light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellington Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Obviously disrespectful and not in accordance with the Thai and Asian need for public comments to be about as far way from the truth as possible.Who does she think she is and from a woman too.!!!!! Another American Woman interfering with the affairs of countries other than America When will the Americans learn they are not wanted They should Get their own house in order They have virtually ruined the worlds economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairwayJack Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) "As for Angelina Jolie, she is an actress, whose job is to learn lines and repeat them whilst acting a part in a piece of fiction" Well said...what qualifies her to be a UN spokeswoman ?? Maybe we should appoint her UN truckdriver or UN dancer on a pole...I mean she's got the tattoos already. BTW...my psychic powers tell me Brad Pitt will slip out the back jack ...hop on the bus gus...1 - 2 years tops. Edited February 12, 2009 by FairwayJack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuian Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) Rather than taking the opportunity to take a swipe at the Thai approach to the problem of the Rohingya people can anyone suggest an alternative? These are an Islamic people. They were heading for an Islamic nation. Send them to Malaysia or Indonesia? Do they want them?Do you want them going to the UK, Australia, US etc? No I thought not. So, what to do? Send them on? Send them to the Muslem insurgents in the south of Thailand? Send them back? How many Brits would like to send teh Muslems in the UK back to Arabic states? See, it isn't as clear cut as you think. Spot on! It is MADE a "Thai Problem" as it is on of the closest Nation and one of the wealthiest in the Region! Why it is forgotten how many of these "Boat People" have been dealt with already - why are people so quick with blaming Abhisit and the "new Government" for it, taking a swipe at "the Military" without any genuine grounds? Statement from the Government has been already that the resources are limited..... and the real Culprit is the Military Junta of Myanmar! It will be a hot issue at the ASEAN Conference, shortly! Why nobody asks if the Thai Government maybe may need some very urgent international (UNHCR) help with this burning issue? Instead bash, bash, bash! Do not make me laugh. The last ASAEN summit the only ones that objected over the head bashing and of the killings of Burmese Monks was the Philippines. The Thai foreign minister at that time congratulated the Burmese junta for a job well done. That was in The Nation and picked up by the NY Times I don't wanted to make anybody laugh, but funny though that you come up with the matter that at ASEAN ONLY the Philippines objected about the killings of monks (even they are no buddhist majority country) but NO word about WHO should take matters in their hands! Which government was in charge when the "Thai FM" made such comment? If the UNHCR is stepping into the limelight they should ruffle feathers with the military junta of Myanmar and have Brat Pitt and his spouse look after the refugee camps, they got the money to do so, the guts to use this event to come into the limelight but no heart for the plight of the refugees! Yuk! Edited February 12, 2009 by Samuian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mobi Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 These UNHCR 'goodwill ambassadors' are an invention of the west that I believe started with the late Princess Diana. Because she sort of 'came from royalty', she had a certain respect from various governments, even ones not aligned with the west. For her part, she made her statements but for the most part they were generally about non-confrontational and non-political issues like anti-personnel mines. That nous and respect just isn't there when the role is foisted on some Hollywood star that most refugees worldwide wouldn't recognize from Eve, or Adam for that matter. The UN should show diversity in who it names as 'goodwill ambassador' and rotate the job around a bit between various ethnicities and nationalities. And not just movie stars; what about some academics, sportsmen/women and some 'retired' statesmen/women? No, the latter are too busy on the public speech trail cash cow to get up close and personal with possible atrocities in the third world. Sorry, my friend, but you're a bit off the mark on this one. UN Goodwill Ambassadors have been around for decades, and have always been celebrities, movie stars, and other famous people. I recall Danny Kaye being one in the 50's and Audry Hepburn in the 60's/70's. Several different depts of the UN have appointed their own goodwill ambassadors through the years, with UNICEF being the most prominent. But The UNHCR is no slouch either: "UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors are celebrity representatives of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) who use their talent and fame to advocate for refugees." Current UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors, and the year they were appointed: * Barbara Hendricks (classical singer), 1987 * Adel Imam (actor), 2000 * Angelina Jolie (actress), 2001 * Giorgio Armani (designer), 2002 * Julien Clerc (singer), 2003 * Osvaldo Laport (actor), 2006 * George Dalaras (singer), 2006 * Muazzez Ersoy (singer), 2007 Past Ambassadors * Đorđe Balašević * Richard Burton * Justus Frantz * Udo Jürgens * Sophia Loren * Princess Märtha Louise of Norway * James Mason * Riccardo Muti * Arja Saijonmaa * The Schürzenjäger * Jack Thompson * Duraid Lahham There seems to be a reasonable cross section of nationalities involved here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuian Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) These UNHCR 'goodwill ambassadors' are an invention of the west that I believe started with the late Princess Diana. Because she sort of 'came from royalty', she had a certain respect from various governments, even ones not aligned with the west. For her part, she made her statements but for the most part they were generally about non-confrontational and non-political issues like anti-personnel mines. That nous and respect just isn't there when the role is foisted on some Hollywood star that most refugees worldwide wouldn't recognize from Eve, or Adam for that matter. The UN should show diversity in who it names as 'goodwill ambassador' and rotate the job around a bit between various ethnicities and nationalities. And not just movie stars; what about some academics, sportsmen/women and some 'retired' statesmen/women? No, the latter are too busy on the public speech trail cash cow to get up close and personal with possible atrocities in the third world. Sorry, my friend, but you're a bit off the mark on this one. UN Goodwill Ambassadors have been around for decades, and have always been celebrities, movie stars, and other famous people. I recall Danny Kaye being one in the 50's and Audry Hepburn in the 60's/70's. Several different depts of the UN have appointed their own goodwill ambassadors through the years, with UNICEF being the most prominent. But The UNHCR is no slouch either: "UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors are celebrity representatives of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) who use their talent and fame to advocate for refugees." Current UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors, and the year they were appointed: * Barbara Hendricks (classical singer), 1987 * Adel Imam (actor), 2000 * Angelina Jolie (actress), 2001 * Giorgio Armani (designer), 2002 * Julien Clerc (singer), 2003 * Osvaldo Laport (actor), 2006 * George Dalaras (singer), 2006 * Muazzez Ersoy (singer), 2007 Past Ambassadors * Đorđe Balašević * Richard Burton * Justus Frantz * Udo Jürgens * Sophia Loren * Princess Märtha Louise of Norway * James Mason * Riccardo Muti * Arja Saijonmaa * The Schürzenjäger * Jack Thompson * Duraid Lahham There seems to be a reasonable cross section of nationalities involved here. And except bathing in the public limelight, making THEM feel good being such extraordinary good doers, what have they accomplished for the worlds poor and refugees? I wonder, all these millions and millions of stardom money...... P.S. Which star, VIP or ambassador is "The Schürzenjäger", please? Edited February 12, 2009 by Samuian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabaijai Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I find it amazing that the last few governments of this country where conflict-avoidance and keeping face means so much has so little clue of public relations and such an abundant ability to make themselves like complete idiots.Trying to reprimand the UNHCR and a goodwill ambassador so obvious in the center of the public eye without backing it up with hard facts that nothing bad happened to the boat people must be one of the stupidest things the Thai government currently can do. I nearly get the impression they actually try to sabotage their country intentionally, as with the airport closure. PM Thaksin started the trend of flaunting international criticism, making similar statements throughout his admistrations, eg, 'The UN is not my father,' 'Don't listen to foreigners,' etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonobo Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I posted something similar on another thread, but I think it can go here, too. I was the military liaison to USAID in Iraq, and as such, I spoke to many people who have worked with NGO's and USAID around the world. Many of these people seem to sneer at the majority of the celebrity do-gooders who would fly first class to some corner of the world, stay at a 5-star hotel, come out with their entourage for a few minutes of photos at the camps, then scurry back to the hotel for the receptions. And all of this at UN or NGO expense. Not so Jolie. She pays her own way and really seems to care. At one camp, after she was scheduled to leave, she changed the plans and stayed to change diapers of orphans for a number of hours. At another camp, she stayed to work, sleeping in a hammock for several days. Every person with whom I talked was impressed with Jolie, and that is good enough for me. I don't give a person any deferential treatment becuase he or she is in movies. But I don't castigate them, either. If Angelina Jolie is truly a caring person who willingly gives her time for causes in which she believes, I have to respect her for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mijan24 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 These UNHCR 'goodwill ambassadors' are an invention of the west that I believe started with the late Princess Diana. Because she sort of 'came from royalty', she had a certain respect from various governments, even ones not aligned with the west. For her part, she made her statements but for the most part they were generally about non-confrontational and non-political issues like anti-personnel mines. That nous and respect just isn't there when the role is foisted on some Hollywood star that most refugees worldwide wouldn't recognize from Eve, or Adam for that matter. The UN should show diversity in who it names as 'goodwill ambassador' and rotate the job around a bit between various ethnicities and nationalities. And not just movie stars; what about some academics, sportsmen/women and some 'retired' statesmen/women? No, the latter are too busy on the public speech trail cash cow to get up close and personal with possible atrocities in the third world. Sorry, my friend, but you're a bit off the mark on this one. UN Goodwill Ambassadors have been around for decades, and have always been celebrities, movie stars, and other famous people. I recall Danny Kaye being one in the 50's and Audry Hepburn in the 60's/70's. Several different depts of the UN have appointed their own goodwill ambassadors through the years, with UNICEF being the most prominent. But The UNHCR is no slouch either: "UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors are celebrity representatives of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) who use their talent and fame to advocate for refugees." Current UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors, and the year they were appointed: * Barbara Hendricks (classical singer), 1987 * Adel Imam (actor), 2000 * Angelina Jolie (actress), 2001 * Giorgio Armani (designer), 2002 * Julien Clerc (singer), 2003 * Osvaldo Laport (actor), 2006 * George Dalaras (singer), 2006 * Muazzez Ersoy (singer), 2007 Past Ambassadors * Đorđe Balašević * Richard Burton * Justus Frantz * Udo Jürgens * Sophia Loren * Princess Märtha Louise of Norway * James Mason * Riccardo Muti * Arja Saijonmaa * The Schürzenjäger * Jack Thompson * Duraid Lahham * JMcK -PNG * Brian Edward Fletcher past & present There seems to be a reasonable cross section of nationalities involved here. I posted something similar on another thread, but I think it can go here, too.I was the military liaison to USAID in Iraq, and as such, I spoke to many people who have worked with NGO's and USAID around the world. Many of these people seem to sneer at the majority of the celebrity do-gooders who would fly first class to some corner of the world, stay at a 5-star hotel, come out with their entourage for a few minutes of photos at the camps, then scurry back to the hotel for the receptions. And all of this at UN or NGO expense. Not so Jolie. She pays her own way and really seems to care. At one camp, after she was scheduled to leave, she changed the plans and stayed to change diapers of orphans for a number of hours. At another camp, she stayed to work, sleeping in a hammock for several days. Every person with whom I talked was impressed with Jolie, and that is good enough for me. I don't give a person any deferential treatment becuase he or she is in movies. But I don't castigate them, either. If Angelina Jolie is truly a caring person who willingly gives her time for causes in which she believes, I have to respect her for that. bonobo I must second what you have put forward she certainly displays a caring attitude/approach in these matters and you can only call it as you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mobi Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 And except bathing in the public limelight, making THEM feel good being such extraordinary good doers, what have they accomplished for the worlds poor and refugees?I wonder, all these millions and millions of stardom money...... P.S. Which star, VIP or ambassador is "The Schürzenjäger", please? Well I'm not about to defend these overpaid, jumped up celebrities. who no doubt revel in the publicity their ambassadorships entail, but the UN clearly appointed them with the specific purpose of bringing to the world's attention the plight of refugees, children's suffering (in the case of UNICEF) etc. In this regard, who can argue that they haven't succeeded in doing just that. Whenever a famous star visits a refugees camp or a children's mission, it is covered by the world's press and on TV news everywhere. This brings these issues to the attention of the general public, and may bring pressure on their governments to do more, and, of course to solicit donations etc. The UN is far from perfect, but I think they know exactly what they are doing with their Goodwill ambassadors, and they rely on the celebreties' own vanity and publicity machines, to get important news coverage. With all due respect to NL, I somehow doubt whether a retired statesman would have the same pulling power as a sexy actress at the peak of her fame. (As a kid, the first time I ever heard or became aware of UNICEF was through the activities of Danny Kaye, which even in those days was widely publicised). PS: The Schürzenjäger, formerly Zillertaler Schürzenjäger, are one of the most successful bands of Austria. It was founded in 1973. "Schürzenjäger" is a German term for "Heartbreaker", which was first used in the early 1900s. According to the band history they were named "Schürzenjäger" by a female bartender in Austria during a concert, when they didn't have a band name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The UN doesn't have an official position on Rohingyas and Thailand, it doesn't assign blame and doesn't ask Thais to treat them better. The UN did not put those lines in Jolie's mouth. She was speaking her own mind and Thais righfully reminded her that she should stick to her official duties while speaking as UN official. She was way out of line commenting on Rohingyas and how Thailand should deal with them. I hope Thai handlers have given her a copy of Arakan project report saying that much of the alleged mistreatement is lies told by traffickers themselves. Even in a personal capacity she should wait until the facts in this case are clear and not jump on a bandwagon saying popular things for the sake of saying them. I hope she doesn't slide into a status of a preacher to the West - they appointed her, they listen to her, they admire her, they cheer her on, but it's Thais who have to deal with the mess, and her "goodwill" has managed to piss them off already. There's a reason the UN doesn't officially condemn Thailand for Rohingyas already and Jolie's premature shooting her mouth off might make matters only worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddiefunk Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The UN doesn't have an official position on Rohingyas and Thailand, it doesn't assign blame and doesn't ask Thais to treat them better. The UN did not put those lines in Jolie's mouth. She was speaking her own mind and Thais righfully reminded her that she should stick to her official duties while speaking as UN official. She was way out of line commenting on Rohingyas and how Thailand should deal with them. ..... There's a reason the UN doesn't officially condemn Thailand for Rohingyas already and Jolie's premature shooting her mouth off might make matters only worse. What exactly did she say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuian Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 And except bathing in the public limelight, making THEM feel good being such extraordinary good doers, what have they accomplished for the worlds poor and refugees?I wonder, all these millions and millions of stardom money...... P.S. Which star, VIP or ambassador is "The Schürzenjäger", please? Well I'm not about to defend these overpaid, jumped up celebrities. who no doubt revel in the publicity their ambassadorships entail, but the UN clearly appointed them with the specific purpose of bringing to the world's attention the plight of refugees, children's suffering (in the case of UNICEF) etc. In this regard, who can argue that they haven't succeeded in doing just that. Whenever a famous star visits a refugees camp or a children's mission, it is covered by the world's press and on TV news everywhere. This brings these issues to the attention of the general public, and may bring pressure on their governments to do more, and, of course to solicit donations etc. The UN is far from perfect, but I think they know exactly what they are doing with their Goodwill ambassadors, and they rely on the celebreties' own vanity and publicity machines, to get important news coverage. With all due respect to NL, I somehow doubt whether a retired statesman would have the same pulling power as a sexy actress at the peak of her fame. (As a kid, the first time I ever heard or became aware of UNICEF was through the activities of Danny Kaye, which even in those days was widely publicised). PS: The Schürzenjäger, formerly Zillertaler Schürzenjäger, are one of the most successful bands of Austria. It was founded in 1973. "Schürzenjäger" is a German term for "Heartbreaker", which was first used in the early 1900s. According to the band history they were named "Schürzenjäger" by a female bartender in Austria during a concert, when they didn't have a band name. Alright then, we will see the impact, the change "Ms.Tomb Raider's" stunt will bring about the Rohingiyas ordeal! P.S. Thanks for clearance of "the Schuerzenjaeger", afraid that they get a nice deal of exposure through this "ambassador" UN Limelight program. The UN doesn't have an official position on Rohingyas and Thailand, it doesn't assign blame and doesn't ask Thais to treat them better. The UN did not put those lines in Jolie's mouth. She was speaking her own mind and Thais righfully reminded her that she should stick to her official duties while speaking as UN official. She was way out of line commenting on Rohingyas and how Thailand should deal with them. I hope Thai handlers have given her a copy of Arakan project report saying that much of the alleged mistreatment is lies told by traffickers themselves. Even in a personal capacity she should wait until the facts in this case are clear and not jump on a bandwagon saying popular things for the sake of saying them. I hope she doesn't slide into a status of a preacher to the West - they appointed her, they listen to her, they admire her, they cheer her on, but it's Thais who have to deal with the mess, and her "goodwill" has managed to piss them off already. There's a reason the UN doesn't officially condemn Thailand for Rohingyas already and Jolie's premature shooting her mouth off might make matters only worse. Spot on - Plus! Spot on! My words, my thoughts, my feelings about this "problem" She can change diapers, sleep in a hammock for years, as long es nothing really changes for the people the publicity stunt is supposedly all about - it doesn't matter at all, who the heck jumps around in front of the media, doing their PR work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryalleman Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 These UNHCR 'goodwill ambassadors' are an invention of the west that I believe started with the late Princess Diana. Because she sort of 'came from royalty', she had a certain respect from various governments, even ones not aligned with the west. For her part, she made her statements but for the most part they were generally about non-confrontational and non-political issues like anti-personnel mines. That nous and respect just isn't there when the role is foisted on some Hollywood star that most refugees worldwide wouldn't recognize from Eve, or Adam for that matter. The UN should show diversity in who it names as 'goodwill ambassador' and rotate the job around a bit between various ethnicities and nationalities. And not just movie stars; what about some academics, sportsmen/women and some 'retired' statesmen/women? No, the latter are too busy on the public speech trail cash cow to get up close and personal with possible atrocities in the third world. Sorry, my friend, but you're a bit off the mark on this one. UN Goodwill Ambassadors have been around for decades, and have always been celebrities, movie stars, and other famous people. I recall Danny Kaye being one in the 50's and Audry Hepburn in the 60's/70's. Several different depts of the UN have appointed their own goodwill ambassadors through the years, with UNICEF being the most prominent. But The UNHCR is no slouch either: "UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors are celebrity representatives of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) who use their talent and fame to advocate for refugees." Current UNHCR Goodwill Ambassadors, and the year they were appointed: * Barbara Hendricks (classical singer), 1987 * Adel Imam (actor), 2000 * Angelina Jolie (actress), 2001 * Giorgio Armani (designer), 2002 * Julien Clerc (singer), 2003 * Osvaldo Laport (actor), 2006 * George Dalaras (singer), 2006 * Muazzez Ersoy (singer), 2007 Past Ambassadors * Đorđe Balašević * Richard Burton * Justus Frantz * Udo Jürgens * Sophia Loren * Princess Märtha Louise of Norway * James Mason * Riccardo Muti * Arja Saijonmaa * The Schürzenjäger * Jack Thompson * Duraid Lahham There seems to be a reasonable cross section of nationalities involved here. Justin henin Goedele Liekens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Jolie said she hoped Thailand would be "just as generous to the Rohingya refugees who are now arriving on their shores." What does it even mean? Set up permanent camps for them? Just like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey11 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I posted something similar on another thread, but I think it can go here, too.I was the military liaison to USAID in Iraq, and as such, I spoke to many people who have worked with NGO's and USAID around the world. Many of these people seem to sneer at the majority of the celebrity do-gooders who would fly first class to some corner of the world, stay at a 5-star hotel, come out with their entourage for a few minutes of photos at the camps, then scurry back to the hotel for the receptions. And all of this at UN or NGO expense. Not so Jolie. She pays her own way and really seems to care. At one camp, after she was scheduled to leave, she changed the plans and stayed to change diapers of orphans for a number of hours. At another camp, she stayed to work, sleeping in a hammock for several days. Every person with whom I talked was impressed with Jolie, and that is good enough for me. I don't give a person any deferential treatment becuase he or she is in movies. But I don't castigate them, either. If Angelina Jolie is truly a caring person who willingly gives her time for causes in which she believes, I have to respect her for that. Isn't it possible that Thailand cannot afford to hold the world's refugees?IF Jolie & Pitt truly care about all the illegals trying to flee into Thailand, they should spend some of their millions and feed, clothe, and house them. Time for them to put their money where their big mouths are. All types of crimes will continue to escalate in Thailand as long as the wealthy and the government are giving these Burmese illegals jobs. One doesn't have to look to far in order to see how the flood of illegall Mexicans coming into the U.S. has helped bankrupt it & crime is tripling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddiefunk Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Jolie said she hoped Thailand would be "just as generous to the Rohingya refugees who are now arriving on their shores."What does it even mean? Set up permanent camps for them? Just like that? As you noted, her intentions are ambiguous. The quote you provided is hardly inflammatory at face value. Why not take your own advice and wait until all the facts are known until making a rush to judgement with regards to AJ's intentions? This would be more productive than making cynical and insulting comments such as: She was way out of line commenting on Rohingyas and how Thailand should deal with them...There's a reason the UN doesn't officially condemn Thailand for Rohingyas already and Jolie's premature shooting her mouth off might make matters only worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I stand corrected Mobi but how come the only name that rings a bell with me regards all these UN[insert any letters here] goodwill ambassadors is Lady Di? I mean Georgio Armani <deleted>???!!!! Since elder statesman aint got bling or are remotely photogenic (sorry Jimmy Carter), why is Tony Blair some 'global ambassador' to the sh!tstorm that never ends? Maybe give The Schürzenjäger a crack at that? Are they sexy enough? All about the sound bite and the media moment... blink and it's all forgotten, including Angelina's admittedly more ardent efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonobo Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I posted something similar on another thread, but I think it can go here, too.I was the military liaison to USAID in Iraq, and as such, I spoke to many people who have worked with NGO's and USAID around the world. Many of these people seem to sneer at the majority of the celebrity do-gooders who would fly first class to some corner of the world, stay at a 5-star hotel, come out with their entourage for a few minutes of photos at the camps, then scurry back to the hotel for the receptions. And all of this at UN or NGO expense. Not so Jolie. She pays her own way and really seems to care. At one camp, after she was scheduled to leave, she changed the plans and stayed to change diapers of orphans for a number of hours. At another camp, she stayed to work, sleeping in a hammock for several days. Every person with whom I talked was impressed with Jolie, and that is good enough for me. I don't give a person any deferential treatment becuase he or she is in movies. But I don't castigate them, either. If Angelina Jolie is truly a caring person who willingly gives her time for causes in which she believes, I have to respect her for that. Isn't it possible that Thailand cannot afford to hold the world's refugees?IF Jolie & Pitt truly care about all the illegals trying to flee into Thailand, they should spend some of their millions and feed, clothe, and house them. Time for them to put their money where their big mouths are. All types of crimes will continue to escalate in Thailand as long as the wealthy and the government are giving these Burmese illegals jobs. One doesn't have to look to far in order to see how the flood of illegall Mexicans coming into the U.S. has helped bankrupt it & crime is tripling. Uh, Jolie does put her checkbook where her mouth is. She first gave $1,000,000 to an Afghan Refugee organization, then she and Pitt have given many, many millions more to various groups for projects as small as putting in a well for a vilalge to $5,000,000 to Cambodia to set up a wildlife refuge. Disparage her all you want for her views, but don't disparage her for not "putting her money where her mouth is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mobi Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 She can change diapers, sleep in a hammock for years, as long es nothing really changes for the people the publicity stunt is supposedly all about - it doesn't matter at all, who the heck jumps around in front of the media, doing their PR work! You don't seem to get it do you? I hold no brief for all these so-called stars. But they do exactly what the UN wants them to do - "jump around in front of the media" and bring the world's attention to these issues. I can't say whether it does any good, but as the UN has been doing this kind of thing for the past 50 years, I can only assume some benefit does accrue. Who are you, or ,I to say that it doesn't do some good, or how much worse their plights may be in the absence of the media circus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vahack Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Jolie ran her mouth after visiting ONE refugee camp. i'm sure there's lots of actual Thai people living in worse housing and with less food. why doesn't she donate a couple million baht to the refugee situation?? she needs it for 1st class airfare and hotels?To be fair to AJ, she does indeed spend significant amounts of her own money, supporting development in Cambodia, as widely reported in the press. just enjoy the privilege of being in this country and <deleted>. Perhaps all these farangs, who like to stand up for civilised behaviour, should be encouraged to go home ? Or at least allow crimes against humanity to go unremarked, in the interests of good manners, to their hosts ? my comments in red above. thanks for the comments. 1. Cambodia is not Thailand. Why doesn't she push Cambodia to accept the refugees then? 2. exactly. as was said, there isn't a single western country without blood on their hands. check today's news. how many people around the world have US and NATO forces killed or abused this year already? Thailand is just trying to protect their culture and limited resources. bleeding hearts go home and make noise in your own country. you don't understand this place. i don't see thousands of Thais protesting the refugee treatment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 As you noted, her intentions are ambiguous. The quote you provided is hardly inflammatory at face value. Why not take your own advice and wait until all the facts are known until making a rush to judgement with regards to AJ's intentions? She said what she said and was clearly out of line. Thais told her it was inappropriate, that's all there is to it. She didn't mean any harm, just a careless remark, but she should stop talking out of ther ass, it's good for great many other things. Another issue was that they visited camps run by the Interior Ministry, not the UN, thus she had no mandate, as UN's goodwill ambassador, to comment on them. Again, no harm done, but she should mind her business while performing her official duties. Overall, it's not so easy to jump right in and solve all the worlds problems. Talks is cheap, she can talk all she wants but not as UN representative. There's a limit to what the UN can do and she should be aware of it. Hope it doesn't discourage her forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 As you noted, her intentions are ambiguous. The quote you provided is hardly inflammatory at face value. Why not take your own advice and wait until all the facts are known until making a rush to judgement with regards to AJ's intentions? She said what she said and was clearly out of line. Thais told her it was inappropriate, that's all there is to it. She didn't mean any harm, just a careless remark, but she should stop talking out of ther ass, it's good for great many other things. Another issue was that they visited camps run by the Interior Ministry, not the UN, thus she had no mandate, as UN's goodwill ambassador, to comment on them. Again, no harm done, but she should mind her business while performing her official duties. Overall, it's not so easy to jump right in and solve all the worlds problems. Talks is cheap, she can talk all she wants but not as UN representative. There's a limit to what the UN can do and she should be aware of it. Hope it doesn't discourage her forever. Plus --- What did she say EXACTLY that was out of line? And if she was as you say "performing her official duties" why should she mind her own business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now