Leave the politics to the elected, Steven!

I once read that Bono during a concert in Scotland managed to quieten the entire audience and started slowly clapping his hands. He then announced to the audience that every time he clapped his hands a child in Africa died. So why didn't he just stop clapping? Evil Ba*tard!

@Rat Bait:

Haha! When will these people learn!!!

"Oh, and for the record, I do believe that China should be doing more to stop the genocide in Darfur, and it will take politicians to make that happen! "

And, for the record, that putting pressure on politicians to do that is wrong, and can only have selfish and monetary reasons!!!

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 many countries to blame, starting with US 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 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.

Hey Paul, excellent post - and I couldn't agree with you more.

I'm generally the last person to be a China apologist, but I think Charles is right - China is being painted as the villain because China is in the media the most at the moment.

I wonder what would have happened if the US had been occupying Iraq and warring with Afghanistan just prior to the Atlanta games. Would Mia have been on her high horse then?

@Charles L: I think if you look back through history, you'll find that a lot of countries, particularly the United States, will throw their support behind various leaders for it's own interests. But the point of the Darfur situation now is to get it cleaned up. Should China be doing more. Yes. Should the EU, AU and US be doing more. Yes. But, I agree that to simply start directing all of the attention on China is scapegoating for the rest of the world's lack of official response. The AU (African Union) should be taking a lot more heat on this issue, in my estimation.

And by the way, Mia Farrow is a nut job!

@The Humanaught: Thanks for the comments. And that is a good point about the situation in Atlanta. But the problem is that there still remains, on the global level, this cold-war era mentality of 'good vs. evil' within the media, particularly in North America (though it's not confined there) As such, the US wouldn't have taken nearly as much heat in that scenario because the US media sources like CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, etc, are dominant around the world, and would likely have given the US a lot of slack on the issue if it came up. And, of course, Mia Farrow wouldn't have said boo...because it wouldn't have been politically advantageous for her! My recommendation to Mia is to take a page out of Jane Fonda's history book, and make sure you don't get on that anti-aircraft gun!

Paul, yes Darfur is real. However there's a huge distinction between "China could do more", and "China is responsible".

Mia Farrow's "genocide olympics" has ignored this distinction, and her hypocrisy in not holding Denver's 2007 Junior Olympics hostage for our own indifference over Darfur, speaks volumn.

Don't the Chinese have their own national perogative to do nothing, as we had done? This IMHO is yet another example of the West's animosity towards China.

He did it for the money and the moral reasons are window dressing? Based on what evidence? Consider a few things, one thing is he’s not exactly hurting for money, his fortune is in the hundreds of millions of dollars and he’s one of very few people who can make virtually any movie he wants… but even if he weren’t, what possible profit would be involved in attempting the publicly humiliate the Chinese? Do you think there are American movie-goers just waiting to buy more tickets to movies directed by a guy who hates China? Regarding trying to not alienate this mass of Americans you imagine who would avoid his films if he did work on the Olympics… well he could just have quietly quit and not risked alienating all of China – then protected his precious dollars in both countries. And what did you think, he never heard of Dafur until after he took the job and then he worried American leftists would boycott his films?

Here’s another possibility. It’s simpler – which makes it a bit more likely. And it’s what Spielberg says. He took the job because he thought it would be a great experience. He admires plenty of Chinese and who wouldn’t want to work on the Olympic ceremonies? He thought he could do good for Darfur in private conversations. The Chinese gave him the run around. He thought he could do good by going public. That’s it.

One piece of evidence that he could actually be telling the truth is pretty much every film he has made his life’ work. In Schindler’s List he follows a man who couldn’t sit by silently while his country slaughtered people. I’m sure Spielberg was able to make parallels to the holocaust in what is happening in the Sudan. And he couldn’t live with himself and be silent.

Perhaps if more people spoke up when the US supported Garang the current situation could have been avoided. Personally, I say Kudos to people who don’t leave it to the politicians.

@Cam

Honest question here:

Why do you place so much stock in western politicians? Or the system in which they work?

It seems to me that in the last thirty years or so the United States has had very few politicians, presidents included, who have held China's feet to the fire regarding it's dismal human rights record. I've seen saber rattling, blatant negligence, and hiding behind the United Nations, but I haven't yet seen explicit and specific condemnation of Ding, Zhang, Hu, et al, much less a foreign policy that would require rapid and authentic acquiescence to international standards of economic and social justice. Outside pressure was good for Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, but somehow China gets a pass. Hmm, I wonder why?

Of course, one need only follow the money to discover the reasons. Politicians have been embarrassingly complacent with China, all the while lining the pockets of the robber-baron elites who are currently pillaging Chinese resources to their black hearts' content. American politicians especially, be them democrats, republicans or other, have all been pathologically infatuated, I feel, with the absurd neo-liberal mythology surrounding China's recent changes--the so-called "economic miracle." (A misnomer if ever there was one.) Everyone of them has bought into the idea that now that China has a Starbucks human rights will surely follow. Ridiculous.

Mind you, I don't personally agree with Farrow and Spielberg regarding China and the Olympics, and I understand your frustration with such hubristic posturing. But the idea that these two public citizens shouldn't spend their social capital for significant global issues that aren't really being addressed through traditional means is somewhat foolish. You're setting up a catch-22 for the engaged citizenry. You say doing something from the sidelines won't work, so go do what's always been done... even though that clearly doesn't work either.

Historically, when politicians stand up and really lead (an admitted rarity) spectacle-prone activists tend to stand down. But until we have sincere civic leaders, who don't fall in lock-step with the global capitalists, and who seriously consider the ramifications of allying themselves with the current totalitarian state in China, Farrow and Spielberg remain legitimate advocates for those in Darfur and beyond. It's ugly, I know. But what choice do they have?

You can't honestly suggest they go into American politics? Really? Is there no place for a grassroots campaign? Isn't this a foundation of democracy? Bottom-up, not top-to-bottom, no?

@rynsa:

As you may have gathered, I was not the author of this post. It was Paul.

For the record (sorry, Paul!) I tend to disagree with it somewhat. While I'm not fan of Hollywood speaking out in American politics (largely because every citizen in America gets a say, anyway), interfering overseas is sometimes necessary because democracy here doesn't exist. You are correct that foreign governments (elected officials) are contemptuous of their stated duties to uphold human rights, dignity, and free speech. When this happens, pressure from those who seem to genuinely care is welcomed.

One example is Angelina Jolie, who has worked tirelessly in her role as UN Goodwill Ambassador for Refugees. We need to be able to tell the difference between celebrities that care, and celebrities that just like to get more attention to themselves.

Again, as for your poor assessment of western politicians, I agree, and I've stated it repeatedly when I've been a guest on foreign radio shows. They have done very little to change the human rights situation here, or even speak out about it.