In the Hutong
Asking for a "do-over" for my CNY break
1035 hrs
This morning brings us another noble but empty gesture in the long history of political activism in Hollywood.
I regard Steven Spielberg as as one of the greatest filmmakers in the history of the craft, a fine humanitarian, and, really, one of the good guys. I understand what motivated him to turn down the invitation of the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games to join Zhang Yimou's team charged with creating the opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympics. I applaud him for following his conscience in the matter.
At the same time, I cannot help but wonder if his gesture, however noble the intent, will do any real good.
A Little Trouble with Big China
If there is a single lesson to be drawn from history, it is that the Chinese government has a passive-aggressive streak that is both wide and deep. 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.
There are cultural, historical, and political reasons for this. One need only review with a measure of empathy the past two centuries of China's international relations, its serial humiliations at the hands of the European powers, Japan, Russia, the United States and even, briefly, Vietnam to understand why no Chinese leader, government, or party could be seen to cave to a foreign demand.
And it is not that the Party will not stand for it - the Chinese people will not. A little time in Internet chat rooms in China or actually speaking to people here would tell you as much.
None of this, of course, a justification of unconscionable policy - a history of conquest and oppression or a national or cultural inferiority complex does not excuse bad behavior in any form.
But it calls into question the competence - or sincerity - of self-appointed diplomats who ostensibly set out to change such behavior when they do so without considering the medium, the messenger, and the delivery as carefully as they do message. Failing to do so may make good copy, but it does not lay the groundwork for change.
The Spielberg Ultimatum
For the sake of argument, let us grant Mr. Spielberg, Mia Farrow, and the other well-meaning luminaries of the Save Darfur Coalition the highly questionable assertion that the warlords in Khartoum would play the lickspittle toadies and do whatever Chinese diplomats told them to do.
Building the necessary consensus within the Chinese government and among Chinese policy-makers in order to get China's envoys to issue those orders requires navigating not only the currents of international relations, but more critically the byzantine politics of the Communist Party and the Chinese government.
Either Mr. Spielberg, Ms. Farrow, and the Save Darfur Coalition do not know any of this - which calls into question their competence as activists and public advocates - or they are ignoring it, which makes them insincere and suggests other motives are at work. I believe in these people, so I think the problem is the former.
Mr. Spielberg certainly deserves credit for making an effort: for sending a letter (publicly - oops) to Hu Jintao; for stepping out of his director's chair long enough to meet with China's special envoy to Sudan and the Chinese Ambassador in New York last September; and once again with diplomats in Los Angeles a few weeks ago.
Alas, Mr. Spielberg's prodigious talents as a filmmaker and his huge compassion for the suffering people of Darfur are not matched with talent in international relations. Ten months later, things are still bad in Darfur, so in Mr. Spielberg's assessment, the Chinese carry the full blame. No credit for the effort, mind you. No appreciation for efforts followed by encouragement to do more. This is Hollywood, folks. If you can't make a miracle in 10 months, you're out.
A pity, then, that the world does not work by the rules that govern filmmaking.
As a result, all of Mr. Spielberg's efforts with Beijing have come to so much less than they might have. 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.
It could have worked that way. But that won't happen now. Instead, Mr. Spielberg has slammed the door on China.
And, rather than rethink their position, the Chinese will certainly return the favor. In fact, it is entirely possible that Mr. Spielberg's gesture will undo much or all of the good that has been done to date.
The Third Way
It is useful to remember that the implicit in the concept of diplomacy - whether conducted by governments or activists - is the idea that reaching a mutually agreeable outcome need not entail either appeasement or coercion.
Making strident pronouncements and issuing public ultimata is as odious - and, ultimately, as ineffective - as being nice to the big dragon (or bear, or falcon) and hoping that it will do what you want. Effective diplomacy demands determination, but it also requires tact.
I am a great admirer of Mr. Spielberg, Ms. Farrow, George Clooney, Don Cheadle, and many of the people involved with the Save Darfur Coalition. I sincerely hope they understand that if things are worse there now than they were a year ago, perhaps a change in tactics is in order, because pumping up the volume is certain not to work, despite the great hopes of those good people to the contrary.
And I sincerely hope that whoever replaces Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Dr. Rice, and Mr. Gates next November understands that as well.
For the sake of the people of Darfur.
