What Spielberg did, less to Darfur, more to China

Recent news about Darfur and China have generated a lot of media attentions on the 2008 Olympic games, and what Beijing can do to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Knowing about this connection was not new to me. Last year at Providence, there was a "Photojournalism Record of Life and Death in Darfur" organized by groups at Brown university. Giant images of the escalating crisis in Sudan were displayed on big walls in the reception hall. Later the lecture attracted thousands of people, although I am not sure whether I was the only Chinese there. Speakers included Mia Farrow, the UNICEF’s goodwill ambassador who has pushed Steven Spielberg's resign from the Olympic artistic adviser. That was one year ago. It was clearly pointed in the lecture, China can do more, and we should push Chinese government to do more to stop the genocide.

Another time at Brown, when the Chinese ambassador came for a talk, the Darfur was brought up in the QA session. After coming to this orange country, we also came across a lecture on human rights issues in China. Certainly, Darfur was one of the issue. It is really not a easy task for a Chinese living in China to accept the fact that Beijing's Olympic is connected with the Darfur genocide. However, there are some understandings that might be useful in sharing.

The common reaction to China's role in the African countries are, US and European countries did worse in Africa in terms of exploitation and slave trade in the history. It seems to be an easy argument to make. One made a mistake, and hope that cursing someone else who made similar mistake would make his own mistake less blamable. It is important to know that mistake is always mistake. It is impossible to justify one's mistake by the other's mistake. One criminal kill a person. It doesn't mean that you can also go and kill someone.

So here is the point I want to make: what China is doing in African countries have some impacts that China is ignoring but other countries are worrying. It is very likely that their worries are reasonable. China's development aid in Africa most of the time are for the exchange of natural resources, without any extra condition that western foreign aid would most of the time restrict with. Chinese are good at making things done, build the road, build the factory, with the whole crew sent from China, including farmers planting Chinese favored vegetables in Africa. This kind of aid is questionable because it just give rather than teach the locals how. When this aid is removed, there is no sustainable impact left in the local community.

How can Spielberg help then? In fact I do not think Spielberg's resign will have much to do with China's behavior. China has tried to help in the Darfur issue, and its help is limited. What China can do is to put some pressure, but whether the pressure works or not is out of China's control. However, what Spielberg did, generated a great voice, to act as China's conscience. It push the government to think about its actions in Africa, more carefully and more responsive. China knows that China can not act in a vacuum, and has to be responsible in the international community. Being responsible is important for the government of China as well.

China and Chinese will argue, it doesn't make sense to mix sports with politics. Spielberg might have to face a big entertainment market that might stay hatred to his films in the future. But the important task is done, China will act more cautiously in the future, avoiding leaving any tails for others to blame upon. That is enough.

If we believe that politics should not be mixed with other things, Chinese should not boycott Spielberg's movie in the future. If we do that, then we are making the same 'mistake' that Spielberg made. Politics are everywhere.

The picture is from here.