Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by Review Asia on 04/01/2008

Steven Spielberg achieved China’s worst fears by opening a Pandora’s box on the genocide Dafur, but Beijing has the support of other friends, such as George W. Bush

On February 12, Oscar-winning film director Steven Spielberg withdrew from his role as artistic adviser to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, protesting what he felt is China’s unconscionable policy of ignoring genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region.

Since 2003, fighting in Darfur has killed more than 200,000 people, driving 2.5?million from their homes. China doubled its trade with Sudan in 2007, tightening its military relationship with Khartoum. China sways influence over Sudan’s regime as buyer of two-thirds of its oil exports, and as one of its main weapons supplier. While China has sent an envoy to the region along with 140 engineers in preparation for an expected hybrid peacekeeping force, Beijing has also defended Khartoum at the UN Security Council, where Sudan is being criticized for its actions in Darfur.

For China’s leadership, Spielberg’s announcement was a slap in the face. Beijing reacted predictably, cutting access to websites hosting the filmmaker’s statements and issuing the usual rejoinder: “The Olympics is a sporting event and should not be politicized.”

Beijing naively expects the Olympics to be a debut party for a new capitalist China, hoping for a torrent of praises from international media as the country enters the global club of shared consumption-driven materialist values. However, political leaders and activists from both the West and the developing world feel China’s new prosperity carries a certain responsibility, arguing that China must also share what they deem to be universal moral values.

In this context, global media descending on Beijing this year is keenly interested not just in athletic competitions but more so in China’s anticipated social and political transformation.

In his statement on why he was withdrawing from his role in the Beijing Olympics, Spielberg said: “I find that my conscience will not allow me to continue business as usual. At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur.”

Instead of spinning its own take on the news, Beijing’s propaganda machinery reacts in a knee-jerk fashion, creating a field day for foreign celebrities criticizing China’s policy and Western media covering the protests, on issues ranging from food hygiene and toy safety to diplomatic policies. Darfur, of course, tops the list.

American actress Mia Farrow, campaigning against China’s Darfur policies, led crowds in delivering a letter to China’s UN mission in New York.

“China hopes that these games will be its post-Tiananmen Square coming-out party. But how can Beijing host the Olympic Games at home and underwrite genocide in Darfur?” says the letter addressed to Chinese President Hu Jintao.

“We note with dismay that the Chinese government worked to weaken the resolution of the UN Security Council calling for deployment of a UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur before it passed.”

Another American celebrity, Jody Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her campaign against land mines, formed the Nobel Women’s Initiative in 2006 among fellow female laureates campaigning against mass rape being used as a weapon in Darfur and Burma. “In Darfur, and in the case of Burma, China is the eight-jillion-ton elephant in the room and needs to use some of its weight in a positive way,” Williams recently said.

Beijing adopts a policy of trade with everyone, securing resources from anyone. Some laud this as a departure from Washington’s using morality to achieve both, with military invasion as a second option. Others want China to use its economic weight to resolve international crises. But Beijing is only focused on one thing – the Olympics.

That’s why Save Darfur Coalition activists have staged protests in Britain, Portugal and Italy – with more planned in Nigeria, France, Australia and elsewhere –?calling for a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Spielberg has achieved China’s worst fears, opening a Pandora’s box on Darfur and a host of other issues.

However, China has friends. One international celebrity has dismissed Spielberg’s genocide concerns, personally confirming his own attendance at the 2008 Games. “I’m going to the Olympics. I view the Olympics as a sporting event,” said US President George W. Bush, associating his own global political morality with China’s. No American president has ever attended the Olympics overseas. So Bush besides Hu at the opening ceremony will set a new precedent in diplomatic relations.

Understandably, both the American and Chinese presidents have much in common. They respectively represent: the world’s only superpower and only possible emerging superpower; the largest consumer market in the world and the world’s largest potential consumer market; the world’s second-largest and biggest producer of greenhouse gasses. One administration adopts neo-conservative politics, the other neo-conservative economics. One nation uses moral authority, aid and threats of regime change to extort resources; the other – lacking any moral authority at all – just uses trade.

In commenting on the similarities, Reza Aslan, author and America’s leading Islamic expert, sees few differences between the working style of both America and China, at least on the diplomatic front. “Hu and Bush are the same,” he observes. “Only China does not use its military but economic might.”

Ironically, both administrations also share a similar paranoia over security. Bush used 9/11 to establish the Department of Homeland Security with authority to pry into every aspect of American lives, including what books people borrow from public libraries. It would make Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave. Hosting the Olympics has given Beijing both the excuse and the budget to wire cameras on every street corner and alley of the capital. Kang Sheng (Mao Zedong’s security tsar) would be exhilarated. Both governments are leading the world closer towards realizing the perfect Orwellian state.

Beijing is now spastic with paranoia just five months before the Olympics. Government departments desperately sniff for any sign of dissidence. Others are gauging public mood, asking how journalists will portray the Games. The Olympics have become that important to China’s leadership and people. But for some reason, this year, global media is less interested in sports than in politics.

Global activists are condemning Beijing for everything from genocide in Darfur to totalitarianism in Burma and, of course, the Tibet issue. Activists from Xingjian, who call their region East Turkistan, have threatened disruption. Britain’s Prince Charles refuses to attend the Games, while Icelandic pop celebrity Bjork ended her recent Shanghai concert screaming democracy for Tibet.

So, for China, the Olympics are going from public relations windfall to headache. Needless to say, global pressure in this sensitive year has prompted some response on Darfur. “We are willing to listen to any comments that contain reasonable elements,” said special envoy Liu Guijin. “But for those few who attempt to tarnish the Olympic Games on the pretext of issues totally unrelated to the Olympics, like the Darfur issue, we are firmly opposed to such attempts.”

Welcome Bush to the rostrum. Beijing embraces the US president’s decision to attend as recognition of China’s moral authority to hold the Olympics. But does it sideline activists? Beijing probably does not realize how Bush is despised in most corners of the world.

But whether Spielberg likes it or not, Beijing is ready for the Olympics. The new airport looks like a luxury shopping mall, tickets per Olympic event now sell at US$900 a seat, while opening-ceremony seats are going for 450,000 yuan each (US$63,000). All that says inflation is not bad if backed by high growth. And don’t worry about protesters – any squeak and they will be pulverized. The whole Beijing police force is ready. Shall we salute them?

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top