[DEBATE] : Brad, Angelina and the rise of 'celebrity colonialism'

[Russell]

Tuesday 30 May 2006



Brendan O'Neill
Brad, Angelina and the rise of 'celebrity colonialism'
What gives two Hollywood actors the right to shut down an African nation so 
that they can have a special experience?


Printer-friendly version Email-a-friend Respond
Over the past six weeks a Western security force has effectively taken over 
the small African nation of Namibia. A beach resort in Langstrand in Western 
Namibia has been sealed off with security cordons, and armed security 
personnel have been keeping both local residents and visiting foreigners at 
bay. A no-fly zone has been enforced over part of the country. The 
Westerners have also demanded that the Namibian government severely restrict 
the movement of journalists into and out of Namibia. The government agreed 
and, in a move described by one human rights organisation as 'heavy-handed 
and brutal', banned certain reporters from crossing its borders.
However, this Western security force is not a US or European army plundering 
Namibia's natural resources or threatening to topple its government. It is 
the security entourage of one Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, the celebrity 
couple better known for living it up in LA than slumming it in Namibia. They 
reportedly wanted their first child to be born in Namibia because the 
country is 'the cradle of human kind' and it would be a 'special' experience 
(1). And it seems that no security measure is too stringent in the name of 
making Ms Jolie feel special. Welcome to the new celebrity colonialism.
Pitt and Jolie went to Namibia, a small and largely impoverished nation of 
1.8 million, six weeks ago. Their daughter - Shiloh Nouvel - was born on 
Saturday night. As they awaited the birth they reportedly surrounded 
themselves with their own personal security detail and armed Namibian 
police. According to the Independent there was even a no-fly zone, enforced 
by the Namibian government, over the luxurious Burning Shore beach resort 
where Pitt and Jolie were holed up.
Apparently, the stars also got to dictate which reporters could and could 
not enter the country. According to one report, the Namibian government 
'bowed to pressure from the duo and granted them the right to ban foreign 
journalists from entering the country - a remarkable move for the government 
of any sovereign state'. The government is said to have granted this 
extraordinary veto to Brad and Angelina after the couple told ministers that 
they would be 'forced to quit the country unless allegedly intrusive 
journalists and paparazzi were brought to heel' (2). Namibian ministers hope 
that a trip by two Hollywood bigwigs to their shores will do wonders for 
their tourism industry, and thus have done everything they can to keep the 
couple happy (3).
The Pretoria News newspaper in South Africa reports that the 'Namibian 
embassy in Pretoria has told journalists seeking visas for Namibia to [cover 
the birth] that they must have permission from Pitt and Jolie in writing 
before they will be allowed into the country' (4). The Namibian Embassy in 
Washington confirmed to one American reporter that 'the government has 
decided that it will issue visas to journalists to go to Namibia and cover 
Angelina and Brad if they have consent from the parties' (5). Even the Prime 
Minister of Namibia, Nahas Angula, who surely has better things to do than 
worry about Brad and Angelina (or Brangelina, in tabloid-speak), has weighed 
into the debate. 'The lady is expecting', said Angula, shortly before Jolie 
gave birth. 'You guys are harassing her.... Harassment is not allowed in 
Namibia.' (6)
We've heard of stars like Michael Jackson and the late Princess Diana 
demanding that London stores such as Hamley's and Harrod's close their doors 
to the public so that they can browse toys and jewellery without having to 
breathe in the fumes of the shopping masses. But celebs effectively shutting 
down national borders so that they can give birth in peace? As the 
Washington Post said, 'Surely Hollywood stars can't dictate who enters and 
leaves a sovereign state' (7). The Philadelphia Daily News wondered if, 
instead of posting thousands of National Guard troops along the US-Mexico 
border, as President George W Bush recently suggested, 'we should just make 
illegal immigrants seek permission from Brad and Angelina' (8).
Brangelina's security posse, in cahoots with the Namibian government and 
police, created what it called a 'paparazzi-free zone' around the Burning 
Shore resort. Some journalists have complained of harassment, including of 
the physical variety. It is reported that, in the run-up to the birth, some 
foreign photographers were warned to leave Namibia or face arrest. Namibia's 
National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) complained that 'freedom of 
expression was being compromised'. The NSHR condemned the 'heavy-handed and 
brutal tactics selectively directed against local and certain foreign 
journalists' as the 'security personnel of Pitt and Jolie and Namibia police 
members conducted unwarranted door-to-door searches of the homes of local 
residents for paparazzi and other media workers' - actions which are only 
constitutionally 'allowed on the grounds of inter alia national security, 
public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country' (9).
Leon Jooste, Namibia's tourism minister, explained to the UK Independent on 
Sunday how Brangelina's diktats work: 'What we've done is that every time 
they've got an appointment with a photographer or a journalist they contact 
me and tell me that "Mr So-and-So" is coming, and I contact the Ministry of 
Information and Broadcasting, and they contact the Ministry of Home Affairs, 
and they inform the immigration department.' (10) That is a quite 
extraordinary position for two actors to be in: to not only have the ear of 
Namibian officials but also their support in deciding who can and cannot 
enter the country. It is as if two absolute monarchs had arrived for a state 
visit to Namibia, rather than a couple of actors who haven't even made a 
good film between them for at least five years.
Perhaps the most depressing thing is that Namibian officials reportedly feel 
they have to cater to the couple's whims in order to keep them happy, in the 
hope that the international fuss created by Brad and Angelina's visit will 
increase tourism to the country. Tourism minister Jooste said: 'For a small 
country like ours, with a small economy and a growing tourism industry, this 
is of major marketing value for us.' (11) In an online poll conducted by one 
of Namibia's main music radio stations, 48 per cent agreed that Pitt and 
Jolie's decision to have their baby in Namibia was a 'major PR boost for the 
country' (12). (More hearteningly, perhaps, 16 per cent of respondents said 
the couple's decision to give birth there was 'a chance for sycophantic 
losers to seek fulfillment....')
Here we can see how celebrities, whether knowingly or not, can easily 
exploit the weaknesses of small impoverished states. If the reports are to 
be believed, then Brad and Angelina used their decision to stay in Namibia 
as leverage in getting what they wanted from the Namibian government. And 
they also seem to have got the government to do the kind of things that 
would be frowned upon in the West, such as ban journalists from entering the 
country and deporting others. The Namibian government feels itself reliant 
upon the patronage of two internationally known actors, while those actors 
take refuge in the Namibian government's apparent willingness to enforce 
draconian measures. It is an unholy marriage of today's celebrity-obsession 
with the backwater politics of a small African state.
It may sound shocking, but in truth Pitt and Jolie's trip to Namibia is 
really only a more extreme version of today's 'celebrity colonialism', where 
celebs go to Africa (or some other poor part of the world) to make 
themselves feel 'special'. Africa in particular has become a stage for such 
moralistic poseurs - and their posing can have a detrimental impact on the 
people who live there. How many Western celebs or wildlife-watchers have 
visited Africa to 'raise awareness' about the problem of elephants, rhinos 
or gorillas being hunted by uncaring locals? This has led to international 
laws restricting Africans' ability to hunt wildlife, and a situation where 
some ex-US soldiers have set up something called Green Knight Ltd, a company 
'aimed at mobilising environmentally-minded former soldiers to fight the 
threat to African wildlife'.
Elsewhere, Bob Geldof and Bono's campaigning over African poverty has 
reduced the continent's problems in many people's minds to a simple morality 
tale, where all Africans need is some 'focking money'. And it isn't only 
celebs. Politicians, too, continually partake in moral posturing over 
Africa. UK chancellor Gordon Brown has tried to revamp his image by becoming 
'Mr Africa', the man who cares. As Mick Hume has argued on spiked, 
'Campaigning over Africa...offers our isolated, unpopular leaders a rare 
opportunity to connect with popular goodwill' (13). It also allows them to 
connect with celebs. Last month Brown held a media conference call with 
Angelina Jolie, then awaiting the birth of her child in Namibia, in which he 
praised her 'good work', which is known in 'every continent...' (14).
Of course Africa still has vast problems of under-development and poverty - 
but they will not be helped by the kind of campaigning or patronage offered 
by Brown, Bono, Bob or Brangelina. Rather, this brand of moral grandstanding 
suggests that Africa has become a kind of plaything for some campaigners, a 
backdrop against which they can make themselves feel good and 'special'. 
They are searching for personal meaning and purpose in the deserts and 
grasslands of Africa, not kickstarting a meaningful debate about how to take 
Africa forward. Africans might be better off telling Brangelina and the rest 
to get lost, instead of indulging their wacky whims.
Visit Brendan O'Neill's website here.
(1) Angelina Jolie's Namibian connection, Hindustan Times, 13 April 2006
(2) To Brad and Angelina: a C-section (and the keys to a hysterical nation), 
Independent, 28 May 2006
(3) To Brad and Angelina: a C-section (and the keys to a hysterical nation), 
Independent, 28 May 2006
(4) Pitt, Jolie decide who gets Namibian visas, Pretoria News, 26 May 2006
(5) Hey, media types: no messing with the movie stars, Baltimore Sun, 29 May 
2006
(6) Namibia gives Brangelina a unique, all-inclusive package, Canada.com, 30 
May 2006
(7) To Brad and Angelina: a C-section (and the keys to a hysterical nation), 
Independent, 28 May 2006
(8) Pitt-Jolie pix by permission only, Philadelphia Daily News, 25 May 2006
(9) The Pitt Factor: Paparazzi Seek Brad Pitt, Not Angelina Jolie, National 
Ledger, 6 May 2006
(10) To Brad and Angelina: a C-section (and the keys to a hysterical 
nation), Independent, 28 May 2006
(11) To Brad and Angelina: a C-section (and the keys to a hysterical 
nation), Independent, 28 May 2006
(12) Pitt, Jolie - and Permission Slips, E-Online, 24 May 2006
(13) See Africa: a stage for political poseurs, by Mick Hume
(14) And finally the good news: Jolie loves Brown, Daily Telegraph, 27 April 
2006