Indiana Jones and the Temple of Heaven

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.

Comments

[davesgonechina]

my take

http://tenementpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-spielberg-should-have-said.html

[Charles Liu]

Mia Farrow is out of her mind.

After so many years of inaction and indifference by the West, we suddenly want to blame Darfur on China? There are plenty of blame to go around, starting with our support of the SPLA and John Garang 10 years ago:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Darfur+CIA+early+involvement

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.

[francis]

So, the continuing problems in Darfur are in some way the fault of the activist for not being sensitive enough to poor old China's history of oppression? (rather than a government that sells arms to one set of bad guys in darfur, feeds their economy with cash and opposes UN resolutions designed to relieve the suffering).

Is that what is being said here?

And out of interest, just what strategy should Spielberg have followed to really make a difference? Say nothing - that timelessly successful method of international diplomacy?

Or perhaps he should have brought up the subject to BOCOG members over canapes and private screenings of jaws? And then go home happy as the toothless mandarins smile and tell him China does not interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation (except when to provide arms, buy oil and oppose UN sanctions).

Come on David, what exactly is this third way you refer to but then don't elaborate upon? Just how can the 'incompetent' activists actually make a difference?

[Charles Liu]

Francis, here's a comment I read on Times UK:

Holding China accountable for events in Darfur is like holding the United State accountable for events in Chechnya. The trouble in Darfur is caused by too many people (herders and farmers) chasing too few resources (available land). As long as that situation persists, there will ALWAYS be trouble. When an exploding population decides not to manage itself or its resources, hunger, civil war and genocide occur. This is a repeated theme in all societies throughout human history. For the situation in Darfur to be resolved quickly, the area must be depopulated. Either the international community can take in a few million refugees and give them education and job training, or mother nature can take it’s course and let them all die.

[flotsam]

@ francis - What tactics should Spielberg have followed? There are no shortages of [constructive] suggestions available on the blog and the amazing thing is they are not too difficult to grasp. Why didn't Spielberg get it?

Also, did he say anything about Iraq, or the 101 other places of troubles? Why hold China solely responsible for a war it does not conduct?

[Charles Liu]

Mike, if Mia Farrow wants to end the Darfur genocide, she should be focusing on our, not mere complacency, but fueling of the conflict.

Here are two articles, one by Keith Snow:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=447&Itemid=1

And by William Engdahl:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eur asia/Oil_in_Africa/oil_in_africa.html

[Juan Carlos]

I was looking for Mark Seven bag originally used in WW2 by Britians. This is same of its kind used in all Indiana Jones Movies. Finally I ordered from http://indianajonesbag.com but not sure of strap included it, it is too short. Have someone idea to find some larger size? Any suggestion will be great help.