So Steven Spielberg has given up on trying to sway the Chinese government to make things happen in Darfur, and resigned (he never signed his contract) as an advisor to the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies.
Mr. Spielberg, it can safely be assumed, has the best of intentions and tried in his own way to work within the system as a voice of “moral authority”, sending a letter to Hu Jintao and trying to get a meeting to discuss his concerns. He did get to meet the Chinese special envoy to Darfur at the UN, but obviously wasn’t satisfied.
So far there seem to be two sides to this. One is Mia Farrow and others who are “jubilant”. Ms Farrow, who started the “Genocide Olympics” campaign, said “His voice and all of the moral authority it gives, used this way, brings a shred of hope to Darfur, and God knows, rations of hope are meager at this time”.
On the other side we have opinions like that shared at Silicon Hutong: “Public efforts by governments, organizations, or individuals from outside of China to coerce or embarrass Beijing into a policy change on matters either foreign or domestic do not work. Instead, they consistently provoke a visceral negative response that is often seen by outsiders as disproportionate or even extreme.”
As SH points out, its not even clear if the Chinese government has enough pull with Khartoum to get them to end the crisis in Darfur. Silicon Hutong argues that “effective diplomacy … also requires tact”, and that Spielberg would have a better chance of success by working discreetly. “How wonderful it would have been to have Mr. Spielberg as a genuine public ambassador, someone with credibility and real pull in China who could help make things happen. Or, indeed, to see China active in the resolution of the Darfur situation, finding out later that Mr. Spielberg and Ms. Farrow played critical roles in driving the process.”
I think there’s another way that no one is talking about here. In a discussion with Feng37, the question was raised about whether the belief that you must work in secret is actually a tactic used by the Chinese government to prevent public embarassments. In other words, if Spielberg worked silently (and not publicized his letter to Hu Jintao or other efforts), he may have simply been strung along with the promise of slow progress until the Olympics were over, only to be ignored afterwards. But one thing that no one, not Mia Farrow, or Spielberg, or the Free Tibet crowd, are not trying, and that’s addressing the Chinese people directly. The assumption on both sides, the idealist Save Darfur campaign and the realist perspective of Silicon Hutong, is that for any movement on the issue you must petition the Chinese government. What about petitioning the Chinese people?
Imagine Spielberg’s statement on Darfur was not in English, and not delivered to Western media and the Chinese government. Imagine, instead, his first and perhaps only statement was in Chinese, and emailed and posted throughout the Chinese Internet. It could’ve read something like this:
Dear Citizens of China,
My name is Steven Spielberg. Some of you may know my name because you’ve seen some of the American movies I’ve directed. Some of you may also know that I have been working with Zhang Yimou planning the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. I want to tell all of you, the Chinese people, why I’m resigning from my post, because ultimately, the Beijing Olympics belong to you, the people of China, and as my employers, you deserve an explanation.
For the past several years, horrible atrocities have been occurring in the African nation of Sudan, and the world has not been doing enough to stop it. UN peacekeepers and aid workers have been expelled from the country, while thousands have been killed. I dearly wish to see peace in Sudan, and I know that the Chinese people feel the same, as they know all too well the horrors of war. The atrocities in Sudan share many similarities to the atrocities brought by the Japanese to China, just as the Nazis committed similar crimes across Europe.
More can be done to prevent these horrors in Sudan today. The Chinese government last year appointed a special envoy to Sudan and made an effort to end the violence, but attacks continue. China has a great deal of influence in Sudan, through its strong economic relationship with the government of that country. I emphatically reject any idea that China is responsible for these tragedies, as some Westerners have suggested. But I do think that China is in a unique position to lead the world in stopping these crimes, by threatening to break off all trade with the government of Sudan. Indeed, did China not naturally wish the same when foreign countries continued to trade with the Japanese Empire?
China is rapidly taking its rightful place among the great nations of the world, and you should be proud. I was and still am truly honored to be associated with the Beijing Olympics. But I have been unable to convince the leaders of China to punish Sudan for its crimes. I am not a diplomat, I am afraid. I have little talent for it, as I am only a film director. But I ask you, the Chinese people, to act on your love of peace and stability, and sever your relationship with Sudan until it stops the violence. Let the Olympics be a symbol of China’s reverence for peace and life that inspires the world. And I will continue to let the world know that the Chinese people stand, always, against the evils of war.
Your humble friend,
Steven Spielberg
I’m sure there are better ways to write such an open letter, and no doubt in Chinese there would some perfect phrases to use. But even if it was received as obnoxious or arrogant, Spielberg would have accomplished something new: he would’ve have spoken to the people, not the leaders.
Add: Along the same lines, the Nobel Laureate Open Letter to China at the Save Darfur Campaign could use a Chinese version, couldn’t it? And maybe instead of addressing Hu Jintao, address the Chinese public?
I think Stephen should speak first to his home country. What is the US doing in Iraq? Why is the US still maintaining trade links with Saudi Arabia? All this is just trying to make news…Rubbish!
Dave, there are plenty of blame to go around, starting with our support of the SPLA and John Garang 10 years ago.
After so many years of inaction and indifference by the West, we suddenly want to blame China for Darfur?
China is simply a scapegoat, and Mia Farrow is out of her mind.
@Anonymous: a valid criticism. My point is that Spielberg’s goal is to change the Darfur situation, and he believes China can do it. He could be wrong, but that’s not what I’m addressing. I’m talking about how he could do it more effectively.
@Bobby Fletcher: dude, as I just told Anonymous, my point here is that the Spielbergs and Farrows could be using better tactics to accomplish their goals. I’m not really interested in whether they’re right. I do agree with you, however, that Save Darfur people need to make a clearer distinction between saying “China could do more” and “China is responsible”.
What Spielberg did was right, if right only based on his own point of view. I know that is tough for China expats to swallow because most have long ago sold off and/or buried their values in the name of “business with China”.
Appealing to the people of China would have been pointless because he would have had to use the internet, which is teaming with fen qing who have drowned out and possibly tracked down any voices of reason.
It is typical of the pro-China panda licking ankle grabbers to point out past wrongs of other countries to justify China’s current bad behavior.
dave
you have made a great point. maybe, one of the reasons (i am not saying this is all the reasons) these people are doing this is for the english speaking audience, i.e. spielberg for the americans. what the chinese people think is only secondary (some of them may not even care) in their objectives.
therefore, some of them (perhaps most are not, but just some part of them) are aware of what you write here, but they have still chose their way.
Gee, people, don’t hold back, write what you really feel.
I’d appreciate it if comments focused on the topic re: Spielberg speaking to a mainland audience directly instead of a global one at the expense of ignoring Mainland Chinese citizens. This point can be extended to FLG, Save Darfur, Free Tibet and most other Western campaigns aiming to change China in one way another that exclusively focus on pressuring the Chinese government and not communicating with the Chinese people. I took particular pains to avoid judging whether Spielberg or anyone elses position on Darfur is right or wrong. The medium is the message.
I’m deleting any comments that have either mistakenly or, as I believe, willfully ignored this point. Bobby, Jana, take your fight outside. Further sniping irrelevant to my post will be deleted. This issue at hand is not the legitimacy of FLG or any particular commenter.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Taking the message to the Chinese really should start with listening to what the Chinese has to say.
Instead, Mia Farrow decided to self-righteousely denigrate a billion people and blackmail 2008 Olympics with the “Nazi” political tall hat.
Is that anyway to ask for help? Especially after America have repeated failed Darfur over the years?
@Bobby: agreed, speaking to the Chinese people without any knowledge whatsoever of their various thoughts and opinions would be a bad idea.
But at least it’d be a start.
I, as a Chinese citizen with something approaching a global conscience, actually tried emailing the Darfur organization when they first started their “genocide Olympics” campaign.
I told them that I believe Darfur is a campaign worth fighting for, that something all of humanity should unite around, that the Chinese as a people should know more about.
I also asked, rhetorically, if they realized that their campaign targeting the Beijing Olympics (and that’s what this “linkage” really is) is based on the theory that by *hurting* the Chinese people, they could force the Chinese government into action. That threatening and hurting the Chinese on this personal issue is hardly a constructive act.
It’s a little like protesting the war in Iraq by threatening George Bush’s daughter. You may get your point across, and if you’re harsh enough, you may even get your way… but in the process, you will only create a new enemy that detests your cruelty.
I agree with you. Spielberg (and Mia Farrow) would’ve served their cause much better by writing a respectful, personal appeal.
I guess that Mr. Spielberg’s movies won’t be making the state approved list for showing in China for the next 5 years at least. I imagine the studios are all furiously backpedaling from any connection with him.
Of course, I understand they aren’t showing any western movies this year anyways…
re:Taking the message to the Chinese really should start with listening to what the Chinese has to say.
The Chinese people generally dont have a voice nor do they have the freedom to hear the real news other than what the Ccp wants them to know and hear.
Diluted versions right down to out right propoganda and lies. Thats why the Chinese people are showing outrage or indifference at this issue because they dont know what the Ccps involvment has been in Sudan and Darfur.
It would not have mattered what Steven Spielberg had said openly or directly to the Chinese people it would have been modified to suit the Ccps version.
So this line of disussion is unreal and futile.
Re: Jana
The Chinese are smart enough to set up the “Great Firewall”. In the same token, many of them, intellectuals in particular, have their ways to get hold of voices from outside the firewall. Do you really believe that the Chinese government is running a mute nation? That’s your own wild imagination, I’m afraid.– I AM writing this in a village in China.
If, as you imagined, the Chinese people can’t hear any voices from outside, what are you people doing out there? Gossiping with your next door neighbours for fun?
Wake up and learn from Dave, woman! If you really want to get your message across, do it in a right way!