Chinese bloggers shocked world media and those calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics this week with blog posts revealing a wide variety of Chinese opinions both independent from and more nuanced than that of the Chinese government on its relationship with Sudanese counterparts. Further surprise came when those posts were translated into English:
But the country's citizens feel no shame, and they will not engage in self-examination; rather, this affair will launch a patriotic movement to condemn Spielberg while proudly claiming that the Beijing Olympics will go on just the same with or without him. They'll even complain about the foreign ministry's few words on the subject—they're only increasing his visibility! Why should our grand nation of China care one whit for the comings and goings of a lowly artist? Scram, spiel-bork.
A small addition to the excellent round-ups linked to above is a researched post from the highly-read independent blogger He Caitou on February 16, ‘Spielberg, the Olympics, and oil‘, in which he takes it upon himself to explain the basics of the situation to his readers, something the Chinese government, Chinese media, Steven Spielberg and the Save Darfur Coalition have apparently all been unable to do:
斯大叔突然宣布不再掺和2008年北京奥运，外交部还专门做了回应，真是莫名其妙的事情。斯大叔给出的理由是什么“达尔富尔”，听都没听说过的名词，更是不明所以的事情。世界著名导演在世界人口最多的国家举办的奥运会上突然临阵脱逃，为的是一个非洲的什么地方，这事可闹得真够“全球化”的。
达尔富尔是怎么一回事？和中国有什么关系？和2008奥运又有什么关系？媒体上语焉不详，不谈这个问题。可能觉得不好谈，不方便谈，但是我觉得谈谈也无妨。反正周末无事，权且当作评书来听好了。
话说非洲，非洲这个地方很热。它的北部大家伙都知道，乃是一片黄沙，唤作撒哈拉沙漠。我国台湾女作家三毛曾经在那里工作、学习和生活过。南部还不错，比如南非，电视新闻里就从来没出现过骆驼。很多人坚持收看《动物世界》的观众也注意到，非洲还有草原和森林，动物们在赵忠祥老师浑厚的嗓音中追逐、嬉戏以及交配。中国人说起“非洲人”三个字，自然联想起面如黑檀木、头发打卷的黑人兄弟来。这种认识不错，但不能说是全对。
So what's up with Darfur? What does it have to do with China? Or with the 2008 Olympics? The media haven't been clear on the what and why, they don't talk about this issue. They might think it wise not to, or inconvenient, but I think I at least might as well. Anyway, I've got nothing better to do this weekend, so I'll try and tell the story so you better listen up.
Back to Africa, we all know where Africa is. And everyone knows that the north part is one long stretch of yellow sand. The Chinese Taiwan writer San Mao once worked, studied and lived there. The south part isn't bad either, like South Africa, which as we've learned from TV news, has no camels. A lot of people insist that those who have watched Animal World will have noticed that Africa also has veldt, forest and animals who frolic and copulate as Teacher Zhao Zhongxiang chases them with his booming voice. When Chinese people say the word “African”, they naturally think of their black brothers with faces like ebony and curly hair. Knowing that much is a good start, but it's not all there is.
看过《阿拉伯的劳伦斯》的影迷应该记得，非洲也有白皮肤的人。在非洲北部，那里是阿拉伯人的天下，骑骆驼骑马，住帐篷，是游牧民族。在南部，那里是黑人的土地，他们种地为生，是耕地的农民。苏丹是位于非洲的一个国家，达尔富尔是苏丹的一个地方。北部是阿拉伯游牧民，南部是非洲黑人农民。大家本来井水不犯河水，你玩你的沙子，我弄我的泥巴。
但是，从上世纪80年代开始，全球气候变暖。这种相安无事的情况随着气候的变更而发生了改变。气候变暖的结果是达尔富尔变得更加干旱，游牧的阿拉伯人立即受到了影响。他们的牧群需要水草，在骆驼和羊的眼中，农田里长满了饲料。于是，非洲黑人和阿拉伯人的友善关系被破坏了。阿拉伯人不可能改变游牧的生活习惯，而身为农民的非洲黑人绝对不允许任何人染指自己的田地。1987年，渴得冒了烟的阿拉伯人发表声明：阿拉伯人在人种上更优秀。然后集结成部队，开始抢夺黑人的土地。冲突全面爆发，两年之后才签署和平协议，代价是3000条人命和数百个村庄被毁。【1】
But then, starting in the 1980s, global warming began. With the weather, the peaceful co-existence situation also began to change. The result of global warming was increased drought in Darfur, and the nomad arabs were the first to feel the impact. Their herds need pasture, and what the camels and sheep saw, was farmland covered in feed. This is what destroyed the friendly relationship between the African blacks and the arabs. Arabs were not able to change their nomadic lifestyles, and the historically farming African blacks were absolutely not going to let anyone take away from their farmland. In 1987, the parched thirsty arabs issued a declaration, that arabs were racially superior. Then they built up an army, and began pillaging land from the blacks. Conflict fully erupted, and only two years later was a peace agreement signed, the price of which had been 3,000 lives and hundreds of destroyed villages. [1]
国内的人们彼此大打出手，苏丹政府又是怎么做的呢？苏丹政府倾向于阿拉伯兄弟，没事还发点武器弹药什么的，支持他们搞一搞。国际社会对这种苏丹内乱的判断是：种族冲突，是黑人和阿拉伯人两种不同种族之间的对立。但是，有学者指出，达尔富尔的冲突更多的是没有土地的牧民和有土地的农民之间的冲突，而不是什么种族冲突。一个明显的例证是2003年的苏丹的叛乱中，双方都以种族为口号，召集各自的兄弟。但是，那些拥有自己土地的阿拉伯人并没有参与到政府一边。所以，说苏丹是种族冲突是要打问号的。
在上世纪90年代，无论是说种族冲突也好，还是争夺土地资源的牧民农民战争也好，反正双方搞来搞去，搞了接近20年时间。2005年，平地一声雷，苏丹达尔富尔南部发现了石油！而且储量还不小，估计全面开采以后每天能产出20万桶原油。在这之前的二十年时间，根本没有中国什么事，但是打从这以后，苏丹、达尔富尔这两个词就和中国挂在了一起。
从1949年以后，中国和非洲就建立的良好的关系。现在怎么想我不知道，但是当时真是没把非洲兄弟当外人看。你们帮我们进联合国，我们就帮你们搞建设。中国在非洲有大量的合作项目，和非洲大部分国家的关系都很不错。那时候根本没想什么利益不利益的事情，工程队去援建，那是真的下苦力，做好事。医疗队过去做卫生服务，那真是活人无数。苏丹是中国的非洲兄弟之一，等打出了石油，老一辈无产阶级革命家心怀非洲兄弟的情谊现在就算结出了现实的果实：
Throughout the 1990s, whether you say it was an ethnic conflict or a battle over land resources between herders and farmers, both sides just kept on going at each other, and have been going for nearly twenty years now. Thunder boomed across the land in 2005 when oil was discovered in Darfur's southern region. And large reserves; after extraction got underway, 200,000 barrels a day by some estimates. The 20 years prior to this had absolutely nothing to do with China, but from that point on, the words Sudan and Darfur got stuck right next to China.
Since 1949, China and Africa had established positive relations. What the deal is now, I don't know. But at the time, the African brothers were definitely not treated as outsiders. You help get us into the United Nations, and we'll help you with infrastructure. China had large numbers of cooperative projects in Africa, and relations with most African countries were pretty good. There was no thought of benefits or advantages to this at the time; The engineering teams who went to aid in construction, now that was menial work, trying to do good. Medical teams went to provide health services, and saved countless lives. Sudan was one of China's African brothers, and now that oil has been discovered, the sense of brotherhood towards Africa that the old generation of proletarian revolutionaries carry is finally being realized.
中国是苏丹最大的贸易伙伴，苏丹出口中国的最重要物资就是石油。2007年，中国在苏丹的石油投资达到了150亿美金。始于1997年的中国苏丹石油合作，在十年的时间内已形成原油勘探开发、输油管线、炼油、石化等上下游一体的石油工业体系，苏丹石油合作项目是中石油公司在海外最大的合作项目，涉及苏丹一、二、三、四、六、七等区块项目及喀土穆炼油厂项目和聚丙稀厂项目。【2】
现在有点意思了吧？美国有沙特阿拉伯、伊拉克、科威特、尼日利亚等等石油大国做朋友（伊拉克本来不想做，萨达姆被吊死，现在做了。伊朗也不想，估计也挺不长），掌控了全球的石油生产和生意。但是，中国人冷不丁地在苏丹搞到了石油，一天20万桶，相当于尼日利亚的20%。卧榻之旁，中国人打起了小鼾，那还了得？【3】
正好，前面提到了2003年达尔富尔叛乱。这是怎么一回事呢？达尔富尔的黑人兄弟在2003年组织起来，成立了“苏丹人民解放军”等反政府武装力量，谋求自制。而阿拉伯人组织了军事组织金戈威德，和苏解对挑。造成了1万人死亡，100万人沦为难民。和1987年一样，苏丹政府支持阿拉伯人的金戈威德，提供武器弹药。小布什敏锐地抓住了这一点，宣称苏丹政府必须达尔富尔的危机负全部责任。并且，美国和它的盟友纷纷发话：喂，中国，说你呢！你的小兄弟搞出来那么大的事，你不去说一声？看中国不搭理，埋头运石油，于是大家一起喊：街坊邻居们都来看啊，小黑人被杀，完全是因为中国暗中支持苏丹政府啊！
就这样，中国和苏丹、达尔富尔的关系在最近几年剪不断，理还乱，倍受指责。
Quite something, eh? America is friends with several big oil countries: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria (Iraq actually wasn't much into oil, but then Saddam was hung, and now it is. Iran doesn't either. Like that'll last long.), which control the world's oil production business. But, China has suddenly struck oil in Sudan, 200,000 barrels a day, 20% of what Nigeria produces, in its own backyard, and this is somehow outrageous? [3]
By chance, there's the 2003 Darfur uprising mentioned above. How did that happen? Darfur's black brothers organized themselves in 2003, and formed the “Sudanese Liberation Army”, among other armed anti-government forces, striving for self-governance. Then the arabs organized the Janjawid militia and challenged the SLA. Resulting in 10,000 deaths and a million refugees. As with in 1987, the Sudanese government supported the arab Janjawid, supplying weapons and ammunition. Little George Bush shrewdly grasped onto this, declaring the Sudanese government wholly responsible for the Darfur Crisis. What's more, America and its allies one-by-one spoke out: ‘Hey, China, yeah you! Your little brother's gone and made such a mess, why aren't you saying anything?' Seeing China unresponsive, and continuing to ship oil, everybody started screaming at once: ‘everyone come look! The little black people are being killed, and it's all because China secretly supports the Sudanese government!'
And that's how, over the past few years, the connection between China, Sudan and Darfur couldn't be cut, with inconsistent reasoning and widespread criticism.
问题在于，站在中国的角度上看，谴责苏丹政府？那么中国还要不要石油的？中国已经转变为完全依赖石油进口的国家，每年烧掉的汽油柴油从哪里来？大庆，还是克拉玛依？当然，达尔富尔的黑人被攻击，被屠杀是个问题。那么，中国道路上汽车的油箱和车主的钱包也是个问题。本着人道主义的精神，应该谴责苏丹政府。但是，谴责完了以后，我们烧什么呢？说谴责苏丹政府，声援达尔富尔人民，估计人人都举手。但是，说为了达尔富尔人民，我们宁愿不要汽油，或者宁愿忍受高价燃料，忍受物价全面上涨，还会人人举手么？牵涉到切身利益，那么看待问题时的想法可能会完全不一样了。我们可以做到“宁可经济滞后三年，不让苏丹再死一人”么？
我不清楚对于这个问题的答案是什么。网上的聪明人多，有车的也不少，我想听听大家的意见。
I'm not sure what the answer to this question is. There's lots of smart people out there on the internet, and a lot of them own cars, so I'd like to hear what everybody thinks.
回过头来，再说说斯大叔的事情。斯大叔是犹太人，拍了著了名的《辛德勒的名单》。现在，斯大叔来中国协助搞奥运会，于是有人问他：那你不是变相支持苏丹政府么？为什么纳粹杀你们犹太人你拍电影，而苏丹政府在灭小黑人，你却要帮助苏丹政府的朋友呢？莫非你们犹太人才是人，黑人就不是人了？斯大叔不能回答，只好宣布退出。其实，斯大叔并不是第一面对这类问题的美国名人。巴菲特去年被迫卖掉中石油的股票，也是基于相同的原因。毕竟，人家还要在美国混，必须得顾及这一层关系。不过，现在走掉一个股神，一个名导，都是社会贤达，还不至于说像冷战时候一样西方国家联手拒绝参加苏联举办的奥运会，说起来中国还算幸运。
最后，对于心理有了阴影的各位车主，我想对大家多说两句。美国是自由民主的象征，这句话需要一个定语：在国内。而在国与国之间的关系上，可能并没有可贵的自由和甜美的民主，到今天为止，人类世界在国际关系上还是比谁的腿粗。美国人直言不讳地承认：最大限度地维护美国的利益。那么，除非美国的利益就是世界各国的利益，否则这中间总要冲突，总要有人死于自由民主的美国。今天，美国关怀达尔富尔，那么卢旺达大屠杀的时候美国人呢？再看索马里，美国军队死掉了几个人，于是就撤离了，把那里交付给上帝。而伊拉克呢？美国人在伊拉克死亡的军人是索马里的多少倍？为什么美国人不撤离呢？上帝真是不公平，没有赐予卢旺达、索马里、朝鲜人民以石油，否则他们也能得到美国军队的帮助，不至于被遗忘，任其自生自灭。
Finally, for those car owners with guilty consciences, I just want to say two things. America is the symbol of freedom and democracy, but this clause needs a modifier: domestically. But when it comes to relations with other countries, there just doesn't seem to be that same dear freedom and sweet democracy. To this day, there isn't anything that has more bearing on international relations than ‘the real world', and Americans admit it straight up: ‘to protect American interests to the greatest extent.' So then, aside from American interests, there's still every country in the world's interests, or else there would always be conflicts, and people dying for this free and democratic America. America today is caring over Darfur. Well, what about the America during the Rwanda massacre? Or Somalia, where after a few American soldiers died, it evacuated, and turned the place over to God. And Iraq? How many times more American soldiers have died in Iraq than in Somalia? So why haven't the Americans evacuated? God sure isn't fair, failing to bless the people of Rwanda, Somalia and Korea with oil, or else they've have gotten help from the American army, and not just have been forgotten about, left to fend for themselves.
现在，美国说我们支持苏丹政府不对。那么，屠杀库尔德人的萨达姆政府是谁支持的？鱼肉印度尼西亚的苏哈托政府是谁支持的？韩国的5.18事件中，韩国大学生和市民要求民主自由，又是被谁支持的军政府残酷扑灭？顺便说一句，伊拉克和印度尼西亚也都产石油。世界的真相是：
1、美国国内人民的确享受民有、民治、民享的生活，这是真的。
2、这种生活的代价是全力维护美国的利益，包括让愚蠢的沙特王室继续统治这个富裕的国家，让苏哈托、诺列加、萨达姆这样的暴君存在，为美国效力充当前驱。这也是真的。
3、当没有美国利益存在的时候，美国以外的任何地方死掉一百万人，可以当作根本不存在。这还是真的。我们生活在一个和5000年前一样残酷的世界上。在这个世界上国与国的关系视乎核弹头和经济总量的多少来确定彼此的位次。美国让美国公民过上美好生活值得诸国效仿，但是，这种国内原则并不能扩充到国际关系上去。如果你的确觉得对达尔富尔黑人心存愧疚，这种情怀值得赞扬，更加值得赞扬的是你放弃了自己的汽车，改骑自行车。如果你承认自己是自私的，需要廉价汽油甚于几万里以外的一群人的生命，那么也大可不必觉得惭愧。因为，世界就是这么无情，没有必要让自己去面对这种艰难的局面。相比之下，斯皮尔伯格只是做了一个最容易的选择。
1. The American people enjoy a life of ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,' this is true.
2. The price of this kind of life is all efforts necessary to maintain American interests, including letting the silly House of Saud rule over that prosperous nation, and keeping despots like Suharto, Noriega and Saddam who serve America in place, this is also true.
3. When American interests no longer exist, any million people who die somewhere that isn't America, might as well have never existed. This is still true.
We live in a world that's just as cruel now as it was 5,000 years ago. In this world it seems numbers of nuclear warheads and supply and demand determine rank between nations. How America lets Americans live such wonderful lives is an example set for all countries to follow, but, this kind of domestic policy isn't allowed to extend to international relations. If you honestly feel so guilty about the blacks of Darfur, that's commendable, but what's even more commendable is if you were to give up your own cars, and started riding bicycles. If you admit that you're selfish, and that cheap gas depends on the lives of a group of people tens of thousands of miles away, well then there's no need at all to feel ashamed. Because, that's just how pitiless the world is, and there's no obligation to put yourself in such a difficult situation. Spielberg, in contrast, only made one of the easiest choices there is.
资料来源：
【1】《达尔富尔问题的真正根源》
【2】《富尔达尔危机是怎么回事?》
【3】《达尔富尔：我的名字叫石油》
[1] “The root causes of the Darfur problem”
[2] “How did the Darfur Crisis come to be?”
[3] “Darfur: My name is oil”
Send this by E-mail
Let’s clarify this, it is not America that is pressuring Spielberg it is “Americans”. Americans who have individually been protesting Darfur whike participating in activism regarding the situation their for some time on an individual level.
Americans who despise much of what their government has done over the last years, but whose government as yet has not trampled to a large extent on their human rights.
I have no doubt that if we needed Darfur’s oil as badly as China needs it we too might be ignoring a Genocide and possibly arming those who are murdering the citizens of Darfur.
Spielberg made the only choice possible, the right choice.
[...] 作者：和菜头 翻译：冯三七 来源：全球之声在线 [...]
I understand why the Chinese bloggers would feel angered how the Beijing Olympics is being brought into the Darfur situation. China did not cause the Darfur conflict but they have an important role in helping the movement towards peace. The UN and many countries have been trying to help the Sudanese government with Darfur but it seems that the Sudanese government does not want peace to occur. China is the only voice Sudan will really listen because China is an important economic partner. I don’t believe people should target the Olympics as the “genoicde olympics” because that defeats the whole purpose of the Olympics. But I believe the Chinese people really do not know the extent of the disaster and deaths in Darfur.
[...] Feng37 Original Chinese source: http://www.hecaitou.net/?p=2566 Original English source: http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/02/18/china-spielberg-the-olympics-and-oil/ Source of this article: [...]
Thanks for He Caitou’s excellent analysis.
Interesting article, but I wondered how long it would take before the moral equivalence with the US would be brought onto what was already a weak (although entertaining) line of argument. Like the previous reply said, Spielberg is American, not America. Arguing that no humanitarian crisis should be addressed until all humanitarian crises are addressed is the argument of the naive.
[...] China: Spielberg, the Olympics, and oil [...]
Thanks for a wise comment Christina.
Most Chinese citizens don’t know what is behind the whole Spielberg, Darfur Olympics matter because, unlike in the US, they don’t have access to all sides f the story. They only get the read their governments’ official line on news. In many cases the spin the Chinese gov’t gives the news is not factual nor comprehensive. Chinese don’t have the ability to organize their own humanitarian movement - even if they knew the real truth.
Does anyone still remember the root cause of Darfur? There are plenty of blame to go around, starting with CIA’s support of the SPLA and John Garang 10 years ago - promptly after oil was discovered in Sudan:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Darfur+CIA+early+involvement
After so many years of inaction and indifference by the West, we suddenly want to blame Darfur on China?
At any rate the original Darfur mess we started has since been replaced with inter-tribal conflict and herdsmen fighting for territory. Neither Khartoum nor Beijing has much influence over that.
China is simply a scapegoat. And Mia Farrow is out of her mind.
don’t know why but i got this feeling that Spielberg took this job in order someday he can quit it.
Let’s clarify three things:
1. Is the conflict in Darfur really a genocide? Wikipedia explains this issue thoughtfully. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Darfur_conflict#Declarations_of_genocide]. I am not going to say that it’s absofuckinglutely not a genocide or nobody was killed in this war, but let’s face it, it’s a war between minority and the government there. I do agree the totalitarism and the censorship of the Internet are still everywhere in China, but trust me, as the Darfur thing isn’t/hasn’t related to anti-Big Brother behaviors, we Chinese people are still free to get the information about Sudan/Darfur.
2. China, unlike other countries, believes a principle in the external affairs, that is, never interfering with the internal business of other countries. To my knowledge, most Americans are holding the good willing to save the world, but for China, we’ve never been allied to any country after WWII, [again wikipedia explains why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement ] and according to principle 3 of Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchsheel], China won’t put any pressure on Sudan government.
3. Yes, I do agree that most of Chinese citizens don’t know what is behind the whole Spilberg but this is not the consequences of lacking of free speech in China. To the contract, most of the top websites in China discussed Sudan/Darfur conflict and you can find plenty of Chinese articles on the web with neutral pointviews.
well, most americans don’t know what is behind the spielberg/china olympics matter either. as a matter of fact, most americans don’t care about the olympics, and they hardly ever watch it on tv.
Well, what American people don’t care about is not only the olympics, but they don’t even care about the campus shooting with Americans down in the hall occured around them, like the NIU tragedy last week. I talked about this with people in my class, they showed no care! Where am I? Chicago, 60 miles east of NIU. What is Spielberg caring about? God knows.
If I were the propaganda Czar of Beijing regime, I surely would outsource the hit job to this ‘independent blogger He Caitou’, and lay off half of the state mouthpiece staff. Cynicism, not Marxism, is the modern day ideology of Chinese Communists (by name only) and major justification of their power.
If you can read the following-up comments of author’s blog, he has a statement there: ‘The last thing I need to worry about is morality’. Bingo, it’s just the zeitgeist shared by many fellow Chinese, but rarely in public discourse and in plain Chinese. The Darfur dispute, ironically, will strengthen Beijing regime’s claim to the power, not the other way around.
Thanks for Caitou’s analysis. Nothing endures but interests; crue but true. Blaming China is easy; however, definately untrue.
We can only do our own best to make a better world; it’s nothing to do with the politics or nations.
The Chinese public (at least the netizen public) has a healthy skepticism of government policies. And as such, in challenging the Chinese government position on Sudan, Darfur activist groups might have started a long chain of discussion and contemplation of this deeply significant issue by the Chinese public. I don’t think many Chinese have spent much time thinking about China’s growing influence on the international stage.
But these activist groups have successfully done precisely the opposite. Rather than raising interest and trigging deep consideration, they’ve incited hostility. Why? Because fact is, the Beijing Olympics are deeply personal for many Chinese.
Spielberg’s actions the Beijing Olympics is somewhat similar to the chaplin interrupting Jenna Bush’s wedding to pull out a political banner protesting the war in Iraq. It’s like the rabbi interrupt Spielberg’s grandson’s bris to lecture him about Beijing.
It’s a disgusting, counter-productive move that will justifiably raise the hackles of those you were hoping to convince.
I can second CCT’s observation. While Chinese people have been somewhat fed up with their ruling elite’s apathy and greed, they still need oil. The I-support-my-country-right-or-wrong sentimental is at all time high in response to Spielberg’s withdrawal. All of sudden, the usual disgruntled crowds are convinced that their government is doing a good service. On this life-and-death issue, said ‘He Caitou’, let’s drive along at the expenses of Darfur people, genocide or not. And he is echoed by many fellow Chinese netizens, if not all.
Basically Spielberg is trying to appeal to the most cynical on the basis of morality. At best he can only get shrugy shoulders from Chinese.
Is it possible to show the ruling partys ignorance any clearer than the statement of Caiton. Is this person uneducated/blind or both. With people like this ruling China it must make it easy to keep the people in the dark and totalitarianism running along with an uninformed public. Not that the political propaganda machine is running much slower in the USA than China but at least Im able to talk to other people in the world but not China brcause the political monster in control there blocks free exchange of information. The war mongers can only be brought under control by open discussion on the internet and China being brought out from behind the iron curtain.
Interesting to note that my comments on here,two of them, have,not,been,posted.The first one made it but after that my responses have been blocked.
Cooper, Global Voices has very strong spam filters and occasionally posts go missing. We don’t delete comments unless they are hateful or spam. I tried to recover your posts, but could not find them. Sorry about that. Best, Moderator.
CCT wrote: “Because fact is, the Beijing Olympics are deeply personal for many Chinese.”
You mean from a deeply nationalist viewpoint… right?
Fact is: All Olympic Games in history have been politicized. And to me, whoever classifies Spielberg’s actions as “disgusting move” (as you do above), seems to be a spoon-fed disciple of China’s party-state.
The Chinese netizens I know have a much deeper understanding of this issue and don’t need such short cuts of thinking.
I was born and raised in Shanghai, but educated in the US. Having the opportunity and ability to read perspectives from both sides makes me shake my head everytime I hear one-sided news reports commentaries on issues related to China.
People are so quick to reach their judgements relying on false assumtions and hasty generalization. What’s more disturbing is that, sometimes they don’t even bother to learn more about the issues before making any thoughtful arguments. For god’s sake, most of them don’t even understand Chinese language, let alone chinese culture and mentality.
When we discuss issues, let’s be fair and focused on the issue only. Do not mix the government with the people. American and Chinese people are both peace-loving, kind and intelligent people, no doubt about it. Let’s stop blaming each other’s integrity and stop those meaningless personal attacks.
To make this world a better place, takes more than blame games. Rampant accusations or blame games should not be our focus. We should all be thinking about solutions and talk about the effectiveness of those solutions.
Politicizing the Beijing Olympic games is one solution to the Darfur crisis, as Mr. Speilberg would argue. But how effective it is? What are the pros and cons of such tactic? Is it causing more antagonistic feelings or is it lifting and brining people together toward solving the problem? These are the questions we should be thinking about.
Rather than spreading the negativity of China’s hosting of the Olympic game, why don’t we take a positive approach and use Olympic as a platform to bring people together and show the world the beauty of the humanity without violence, politics and calculation. The power of hope is beyond your imagination, trust me.
Rather than putting the Chinese government on the defense regarding the Darfur issue, why don’t we remind China that it should no longer play a passive role in the world stage and encourage it to exert its hard-earned influence over the Sudanese government to actively resolve the issue. (Remember however, one hand doesn’t clap, Sudanese government is just one of the many facets of the crisis, there are other interests groups. It takes a world’s effort to end the humanitarian disaster, and China should step up and lead the effort)
Everyone wants the make the world a better place. Let’s quit accusing each other and start working together, until then, the Sudanese people will still suffer and nothing will get done.
Wu Di,
It doesn’t matters exactly from what viewpoint the Olympics are personal. For the purpose of this discussion, I think it’s simply enough to recognize that it *is* personal for many Chinese.
Very few Chinese have participated in any of these sports, and fewer still have ever paid to attend a sporting event. Few have anything to gain financially from the success or failure of the Olympics. But it’s a statement of fact that the Beijing Olympics are incredibly relevant, interesting, and an issue of concern for the vast majority of Chinese.
We could talk all day about reasons why the Olympics are important, and nationalism is certainly one issue. (Although the vast majority of Chinese I know don’t care if China ends up dominating the medal table; they just want a successful tournament.)
The fact that this is a “personal” issue is, of course, well known to the “Dream of Darfur” organizers and Mr. Spielberg. In fact, they’re counting on it. They realize they have a tool with which they can poke the Chinese masses, and they’re using this as leverage against the Beijing government.
C’mon, what’d you think was really happening here? If the Chinese people were disinterested in the Olympics, then why would Beijing care what Spielberg did with his career?
Dream of Darfur hasn’t tried reaching out to the Chinese people. There isn’t a Chinese version of their website; their statements have been released entirely in English. And that’s because their only concern, when it comes to the Chinese as a people, is how to better shape their stick to prod the Chinese into action. If Mia Farrow had a weather machine that could make it rain on every Chinese wedding over the next 12 months, she would use it. And yes, I find that attitude disgusting.
“Politicizing the Beijing Olympic games is one solution to the Darfur crisis, as Mr. Spielberg would argue. But how effective it is?”
Not to sound negative or to take away from your points, all valid, but when one is grasping at straws this is what happens. It is no less effective I imagine than what has been going on in regard to Darfur for…let’s say almost four years. I believe at this point in time the attitude is “anything goes”.
You can read a multitude of opinions, essays and attitudes, all different and all from people of varied bases of knowledge on the subject. So far what has been done has not worked, so I can’t imagine doing this is any less effective.
I also think that most people feel, maybe even Dream for Darfur, that the Chinese people have very little power in their country, given the human right violations China is often linked to, so feel it is useless to reach out to a powerless people.I’m not saying this is or is not a true fact but that is how many people view China.
what are we talking about here? State sponsered murder, power for the mentally unstable, war, hate and sick people. The olympics are a great institution and hould be held forever and without twisted little preverts behind iron curtins making money off them and not allowing there subjects freedom of expression/speach. If everyone would protest,at least those in countries that can without being shot in the head like China, than the world would be a better place over night. Thank you Steven for standing up and saying what is right and putting your self behind it and in front of the fight for freedom.
Hey folks lets get it together whoever is monitoring this sight. I placed a whole new comment and I got a message that said “duplicate” and erased my comment. Hello.
CCT, everything is personal. Everything is political. But enough of sweeping statements even if there’s a lot of truth in them.
Nice observation that Spielberg and Farrow use English to release their statements. May be that they don’t want to hurt Chinese people? May be that they care about their impact in western countries rather than hurting Chinese people? May be that the mainstream media is not “willing” to report on it in Chinese? Who knows.
Don’t forget, engagement with (later: retreat from) the Olympics is a personal issue for Spielberg too. Considering the way histories are written (and how easily artistic achievements give way to political undoings in those history books), do you think you would feel comfortable in his shoes? Maybe, maybe not. He apparently doesn’t. It’s his right.
Some of what you say makes sense, but please consider that there’s also another, larger perspective, and that perspective goes way beyond Spielberg’s and Farrow’s actions (after all, they’re entertainment people without much expertise, and expertise is quite important when it comes to informed political engagement). Anyway, that perspective considers the world as a whole.
Lots of people, including S. and F. are trying what’s in their powers to make it a better, fairer place. And instead of considering these attempts as harmful or evil from the outset, what we should do (and in particular, the Chinese government), is engage with them, have an open discussion, and use its own citizens’ input to improve their policies and the situation for everyone in China.
Don’t forget, there’s lots of Chinese who couldn’t even dream of attending the opening ceremony — even if they wanted to. But then, there’s those who can get lots of tickets to distribute among their “friends”. The latter are probably more interested in having the Olympics without any political change, whereas the former would feel better about the Olympics if the process would bring about more fairness and openness for them and the country.
An error in the translation, “Well, who supported the Saddam government in slaughtering Kuwaitis?” should read “…slaughtering Kurds” (库尔德人)
Great post, and great to see someone going against the grain and daring to grapple with such difficult issues.
@CCT
“Spielberg’s actions the Beijing Olympics is somewhat similar to the chaplin interrupting Jenna Bush’s wedding to pull out a political banner protesting the war in Iraq. It’s like the rabbi interrupt Spielberg’s grandson’s bris to lecture him about Beijing.”
No, no, no. This parallel is wide of the mark. The Olympics is not a profoundly private ceremony, but an unapologetically public, and hence political, ritual. The Chinese government has volunteered to arrange this year’s Olympics and it is only natural that its record will be put under close scrutiny, including its purported involvement with the regime in Sudan. We should trust that the Chinese government can respond to Spielberg’s action in a dignified way, and there is absolutely no need for people to throw themselves into a patriotic fit of anger to defend the actions of a government that is not accountable to them. If anyone think that the Olympics is something “private” they need to think again why they are equating their personal pride with the performance of this particular government and why people from the whole world - from very different political cultures - should be invited to a very public event and basically be told to shut up. “Disgusting” this, “disgusting” that. What is going on?
Thanks, Hen Sha, Hen Tian Zhen, correction made.
China should take over Sudan. like what the british did with India and other countries ( and maybe are still doing in secrets, (but this will be classified information and therefore not disctributed freely))
and like what the americans did with other countries.
China takes over power in sudan, changes its politics and institutions, then hand back power to sudan. all in the name of peace.
Wu Di,
Engage with whom? Have an open conversation with whom? The people who didn’t publish their statements in Chinese? Perhaps as a precursor to asking the Chinese to have “consideration” for the Farrow position, you should first ask her to have consideration for the (common) Chinese position.
Amban,
Beijing might have the right crisis management team in place, and maybe they’ll find some way to accommodate Farrow’s position. If they do, more credit to Beijing.
But none of that changes the fact Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg decided the best way they could achieve their political goals, was by pissing on an event that the vast majority of Chinese support in a very non-political way.
You said the analogue of a political protest at a “private” Bush wedding doesn’t work for you. Fine, let me give you a different analogy for a public event that gets the same point across. Farrow’s campaign is a little like NFL referees boycotting the Super Bowl because they don’t agree with American foreign policy in Iraq.
For those who’re unaware of the facts… Mia Farrow has laid out 4 specific actions she requires of China. All 4 are somewhat silly in their own way, but I’ll leave that discussion for another time.
I’ll focus instead on her request that China “immediately” provide half of the helicopters required by the UN nation in Darfur. This despite China’s developing-nation status, and despite the fact China has never deployed military forces at such a great distance from her borders. And that’s not an insignificant challenge… in 2007, PLA propaganda heavily celebrated its ability to merely transport land forces to participate in a Russia-led military exercise. Deploying a number of helicopters to Sudan would be a huge burden.
And when asked whether the United States should bear this military burden? Her answer was, no. She believes US military forces are occupied in Iraq, and shouldn’t be pulled out for this effort.
Says something about her world view, doesn’t it? Keep the United States military in Iraq, and instead pressure the Chinese government into sending troops to the “genocide” in Sudan.
I believe the maintenance and contracting support from the U.S. was part of that plan, though that seemed like the most unreasonable of the four of which the others are not unreasonable at all, and it isn’t Mia Farrow it is from my understanding the Dream for Darfur group advised by those such as Eric Reeves,Gail Smith and allied with such as “Genocide Intervention Network”, “Enough campaign”, “Physicians for Human Rights”, “Save Darfur Colaition”, “Stand”, and so on.
— this is the list:
1. Immediately provide half of the transport helicopters that UNAMID requires, with support from Europe and the United States for maintenance and contracting arrangements.
2. Support punitive measures, such as UN Security Council targeted sanctions, against Khartoum officials, until peace and security for Darfur is achieved. UN targeted sanctions should be imposed immediately against government, rebel, or militia officials who are responsible for undermining UNAMID’s deployment, the North-South peace deal, or regional stability, such as attempting to overthrow the government in neighboring Chad.
3. Verifiably suspend all military cooperation with the Khartoum regime, including weapons transfers, until peace and security for Darfur is achieved.
4. Work with the United States, France, and the United Kingdom in a quartet supporting UN and African Union initiatives in Darfur, Southern Sudan, and Chad. This cooperative work on the peace process needs to be comprehensive. The problems of Darfur, Southern Sudan, and Chad are intertwined, so unless peace is advanced on all of these fronts it will be unlikely to be achieved on any of these fronts.
@CCT: To answer your question: The Chinese government should engage with *its citizens*, should initiate/ support open and open-minded discussion about the issues related to S. and F. Or does that sound strange to you?
And about F.’s specific suggestions you mention above: I agree that she seems biased when suggesting that US forces shouldn’t bear any military burden as their forces are occupied in Iraq.
Of course the US should also help to prevent a genocide from happening, and so should other governments. Call it the Rwanda lesson. A lesson has NOT been learned as long as economic, geopolitical, or other considerations seem more important to the political/economic leaders of this world than helping those who need it.
It’s in a way related to the Iraq war: During the Bush regime, the US lost its authority (and the widespread respect that comes with it) as global superpower.
Instead of being on the defensive, China could see this as an opportunity, and step in. I think there are first signs that it does engage with Sudan now, but I think it could do more in terms of open engagement with this issue — this would get the Chinese people the international respect they deserve. An open discussion within China would also expose the problems of F.’s suggestions or world view.
Regarding your Super Bowl analogy: This is a purely U.S. — and not an international — event. And S./F. are hardly referees.
Africans don’t need China’s help. We don’t need the West’s help. Just get out of the way. The other black African nations are the ones that can and should stop this genocide. China wants oil from Southern Sudan, where the blacks live, a region that was due to be independent before the discovery of oil and foreign involvement incited the greed of northerners to maintain control of the south where most of the oil is. China will want oil from the newly discovered supplies in Ghana. So, China and the Chinese people should keep that in mind. Africans don’t Chinese help or pity any more than we need it from the west. But get out of the way. And if the Chinese people choose to support this regime they will find it harder to make deals in the future. It’s simple economics and international diplomacy.
Spielberg may aswell get out of the US for all its human rights abuses. Maybe move to Bhutan and get some happiness Spielberg
[...] a few Silicon Hutong Image Thief One Man Bandwidth - Mutant Palm - what Spielberg should have said Global Voices - includes translated comments from a Chinese blogger The Sri Lanka Guardian - includes translated [...]
[...] accusation and defense”, meryam pointed to a very interesting article on Global Voices called “China:Spielberg, the Olympics, and Oil”. John Kennedy translated a post from a famous Chinese blogger Hecaitou(和菜头）in which he [...]
Why China Won’t Save Darfur
By Morton Abramowitz, Jonathan Kolieb
Frustrated by the West’s failure to halt the slaughter in Sudan, Darfur advocacy groups are pinning their hopes on a country they see as genocide’s enabler in chief: China. But in pressuring an indifferent Beijing, activists are merely helping Western governments evade responsibility for a humanitarian crisis that they could do far more to stop.
After four years of tireless efforts, Darfur advocacy groups have had little success in pressuring the Bush administration or any other Western government to move decisively against the Sudanese government for its atrocities in Darfur. These groups are right to dismiss the Bush administration’s latest sanctions initiative as mere posturing; like all of the president’s efforts to date, it’s too limited in scope and lacks a wider, more holistic diplomatic strategy. These groups are focusing instead on the two C’s of humanitarian advocacy—China and celebrities—as a remedy for a crisis that has killed over 200,000 people and displaced more than 2.5 million. But in pointing the finger at China, proponents of stronger action on Darfur are merely helping the White House evade moral responsibility for a humanitarian disaster that it labels a “genocide.”
With its oil ties to the Sudanese regime and its resistance to U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Khartoum, China is a convenient whipping boy, and a cast of celebrities has signed on eagerly to lead the whipping. Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg, Mia Farrow, and George Clooney have come out in recent weeks to criticize the Chinese government for not responding to the cries of Darfur’s people, zeroing in on the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Earnest editorial writers have joined them enthusiastically.
The campaign has had some results. Beijing’s usual foreign policy approach—“non-interference” in Sudan’s domestic affairs—has been evolving under the pressure. China has become more active in trying to persuade the Khartoum regime to cooperate with the international community. China is willing to pursue a peace settlement, and indeed President Hu Jintao pressured Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on this issue and duly urged cooperation with the United Nations on his visit to Khartoum in February. Beijing has also appointed a full-time envoy tasked with assisting in resolving the Darfur crisis.
But threatening a “Genocide Olympics” alone will not bring peace (or peacekeepers) to that troubled region. No amount of criticism will convince Beijing to pursue a coercive strategy and a nonconsensual deployment of U.N. peacekeepers that Khartoum rejects. Yes, China has the economic leverage to gain the ear of President Bashir, but that hardly means it has the ability—or, more to the point, the will—to bully him into accepting a large U.N. peacekeeping contingent in Darfur. China’s multibillion dollar investments in Sudan’s petroleum industry are a much-needed source of energy for its mushrooming economy. Beijing may make tactical moves to pressure Sudan, but it will not choose human rights over oil, a matter of paramount national interest.
And, even if China were capable of delivering Bashir, the Sudanese government is not the only impediment to an effective peace process. Nowadays, more people may well be dying from tribal clashes than from marauding janjaweed or government forces. The infighting of fractured rebel groups and the sheer number of displaced people with no homes to return to are also immediate and significant obstacles to peace. But China has little influence over the rebel movements and is ill-positioned to act as a mediator between them.
Nor is China a good choice to be our moral compass. The West embraces human rights and international humanitarian law, but China emphatically does not. The continuing crisis not only threatens the lives of millions, but the weak Western response undermines those grandiose principles such as the “responsibility to protect”—hallmarks of our international moral code. Moreover, it is the U.S. government, not Beijing (nor the U.N., for that matter), that has invoked the label “genocide” to describe the Darfur crisis. Morally and legally, the responsibility to lead is America’s.
Ending the Darfur conflict requires much more than what China alone can offer. Rhetorical flourishes from world leaders, limited Western unilateral sanctions, and promises of firmer action at some indeterminate time in the future are also patently insufficient. Only a top-level, sustained, and aggressive multilateral mediation effort backed by the United States, the European Union, and African, Arab, and Chinese governments can stop the violence and reverse the massive displacement of people.
Advocacy groups deserve praise for bringing Darfur into the world’s collective consciousness and generating funds to care for millions of dislocated civilians. But their latest campaign lets the U.S. and others off the hook. Highlighting China’s woeful human rights record is important, but does little to resolve the conflict in Darfur. China is not going to do what the United States and Europe have been unwilling to do for the past four years.
Morton Abramowitz is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation and a former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Jonathan Kolieb is a research associate at The Century Foundation.
I’d like to post this comment, with your permission, as a post on our Darfur blog.
[...] a few Silicon Hutong Image Thief One Man Bandwidth - Mutant Palm - what Spielberg should have said Global Voices - includes translated comments from a Chinese blogger The Sri Lanka Guardian - includes translated [...]