February 15, 2008
Spielberg boycotts Beijing (Gebrselassie, too?)
Steven Spielberg's decision to withdraw from arranging the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics caused press around the world (except for China) to rub their hands with glee this week at the prospect of China's dirty laundry being flown from the flagpoles of Beijing.
Citing China's tacit support of genocide in Darfur, the director claimed that his conscience no longer allowed him to continue business as usual, and that the hosts "should be doing more to end the continuing human suffering".
Following his work on Munich, Spielberg is no doubt aware that the Summer Games have long since been used to make a political point, and with the situation in Sudan having been around for quite some time it seems surprising that his conscience has taken this long to kick in.
China meanwhile, can dry their eyes with a quick look back through the history books, at the Olympic boycotts of the cold war, when "Nyet" really did mean "No":
- Moscow 1980: A US led band of brothers- including China- boycotted the Moscow Olympics in protest over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
- Los Angeles 1984: A tit-for-tat walk out saw Moscow twist the arms of Cuba, East Germany, Poland and a rash of other Eastern Bloc countries to leave LA in the lurch, and Krusty The Clown severely out of pocket.
In other Olympics news, the world record marathoner Haile Gebrselassie has said that he may have to pull out of the grueling event due to heat and much-discussed Beijing pollution. A concern echoed by athletes during the 2004 games in Athens.
|
Great way to mix entertainment with politics. I guess China had valid reasons for banning US movie imports after all.
The Games have always been about politics and badirty China does not deserve to host them.
We really don't care. Beijing has never even signed any contract with him. It is organized and prepared by Zhang Yimou, a Chinese director.
Good for him. Everybody has the rights to express their own opinions. So does he. But China and CHinese also have rights to keep our own stance. No foreign government has said China's presence in Sudan is a crime. neither UN. That proves that China has never done anything wrong with its presence. So it is our freedom and rights to say NO to Mia Farrow, a hypocritical American who never calls her own country's government as " Genocide government" even her country has been literally killing thousands of Iraqis.
From Richard Lee above "No foreign government has said China's presence in Sudan is a crime. neither UN. That proves that China has never done anything wrong with its presence."
Oh, wow. That's the most absurd leap of logic I've seen in these comment areas. And I've seen a lot.
Because foreign governments and the UN have never said the Chinese government is committing a crime, it's not guilty? Really?
" a hypocritical American who never calls her own country's government as " Genocide government" even her country has been literally killing thousands of Iraqis."
Good. Attack the messenger. What about her message? That Sinopec (and by extension the Chinese Government) is at least complicit in the Sudanese genocide (and I think you need to look up 'genocide' in your dictionary - whatever mess is happening in Iraq - and it's a huge mess - it's not genocide) via oil money and arms sales. Are you going to defend that?
Here's something you can learn - you can be both patriotic . .. and disagree with something your country does. Stop being so thin skinned about criticism. China DOES have the power to affect the slaughter in Sudan. And they SHOULD do something. If China is always looking for approval on the world stage (and they are - look how much they are anticipating the Olympics - to show the world what they can do) then they should also do something positive in Africa.
From Richard Lee above "No foreign government has said China's presence in Sudan is a crime. neither UN. That proves that China has never done anything wrong with its presence."
Oh, wow. That's the most absurd leap of logic I've seen in these comment areas. And I've seen a lot.
Because foreign governments and the UN have never said the Chinese government is committing a crime, it's not guilty? Really?
" a hypocritical American who never calls her own country's government as " Genocide government" even her country has been literally killing thousands of Iraqis."
Good. Attack the messenger. What about her message? That Sinopec (and by extension the Chinese Government) is at least complicit in the Sudanese genocide (and I think you need to look up 'genocide' in your dictionary - whatever mess is happening in Iraq - and it's a huge mess - it's not genocide) via oil money and arms sales. Are you going to defend that?
Here's something you can learn - you can be both patriotic . .. and disagree with something your country does. Stop being so thin skinned about criticism. China DOES have the power to affect the slaughter in Sudan. And they SHOULD do something. If China is always looking for approval on the world stage (and they are - look how much they are anticipating the Olympics - to show the world what they can do) then they should also do something positive in Africa.
To his credit, Spielberg has brought up the issue from the beginning.
And Richard Lee, keep fighting the good pro-genocide fight.
whatever mess is happening in Iraq - and it's a huge mess - it's not genocide
----------------Genocide or not always comes out of you mouth and dictionary. Maybe you should start looking up Chinese ones?
China is always looking for approval on the world stage (and they are - look how much they are anticipating the Olympics - to show the world what they can do) then they should also do something positive in Africa.
------------ A strong China will get approved automatically. China doesnt have to sumbit a bill for approval to US congress, you know? And China is doing positive things in Africa.
Good. Attack the messenger. What about her message? That Sinopec (and by extension the Chinese Government) is at least complicit in the Sudanese genocide (and I think you need to look up 'genocide' in your dictionary - whatever mess is happening in Iraq - and it's a huge mess - it's not genocide) via oil money and arms sales. Are you going to defend that?
------------
Iraq is not genocide? Are you serious? You must be kidding. US government invaded Iraq and has been bringing death to Iraqis. You are using your weapons and killing the people!!!the people!!!Now do you still insist on it is not a genocide? Maybe you have different dictionary, your double standard dictionary.Fortunately, I don't have this kind of dictionary.
Whatever you say, the Olympics will be a huge success. You will have enough time to savor your feeling as a LOSER. so does Mia Farrow
Good. Attack the messenger. What about her message? That Sinopec (and by extension the Chinese Government) is at least complicit in the Sudanese genocide (and I think you need to look up 'genocide' in your dictionary - whatever mess is happening in Iraq - and it's a huge mess - it's not genocide) via oil money and arms sales. Are you going to defend that?
------------
Iraq is not genocide? Are you serious? You must be kidding. US government invaded Iraq and has been bringing death to Iraqis. You are using your weapons and killing the people!!!the people!!!Now do you still insist on it is not a genocide? Maybe you have different dictionary, your double standard dictionary.Fortunately, I don't have this kind of dictionary.
Whatever you say, the Olympics will be a huge success. You will have enough time to savor your feeling as a LOSER. so does Mia Farrow
It's sad that the word genocide has become the whore of the week. Tossed around every which way. Sadder that I have to define it:
genocide: the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
As for China and Sudan, Spielberg is one of many out there trying to send a message to the Chinese people. In the U.S. there are non-governmental pressure groups that influence companies not to do business with regimes that assist or are blind to mass killings within their sovereign territory. There are also laws that limit what American businesses can do in those countries. Lawmakers pass those laws because: 1) they sometimes have a conscience; and 2) they know that it will please the voters.
Corporations are very powerful in America, but they still face sanction for doing business in Sudan. Shareholders will sometimes even dump a stock because of the company's unethical practices (though I admit, this is rare and shareholders and their Boards of Directors are usually only in it for the money).
In China there are not so many checks on unethical practices... hmm, maybe that's a massive understatement. There are almost NO civil society groups here that can put pressure on companies, very little freedom to speak out against them, and the government seems to change policies based on money, national security or whims, rather than because of conscience. And they don't have voters to face up to other than their own Party comrades.
Conscience: The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong.
I would soften my tone above by saying that in general, the Chinese government is gradually becoming more responsible for its actions (and inactions) and starting to see the positive role it can play in the world. But this is all just starting. Does the average Chinese person care that Chinese companies that do business in Sudan help support a rather sketchy regime? Steven Spielberg hopes they will.
T 1 : O richadlee
Full time
Yes, this is correct. The invasion of Iraq is NOT a genocide. Ask the UN, since you seem to use them as basis of argument. It's not a double standard - in fact, genocide has a very very narrow definition. I'd paste the definition, but Feds has already done so. If you want to argue that it's an illegal war, it's an unjust war - hey I'm right there with you. But it ain't genocide.
I'm not concerned about the success of the Olympics. I hope they're successful. Hell, that's one of the reasons I'm in China. In fact, as a Chinese person I really hope they're successful. (in fact, if they are successful it will bring a lot of personal success for me - so I'd be a winner, no not a loser . . to be an MC is what I choosa - the ladies love me, guys. . .oh sorry. Too much Rob Base)
But it still doesn't address the point - China is complicit in the Sudanese genocide. Whether it's Sinopec or the Chinese arms dealers. Answer that question Richard Lee. I'll gladly tell you all about the US corporations which are bad bad news - Blackwater, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin. These corporations have profited off blood and illegal underhanded dealings. If you say they should be out of Iraq. I'll agree with you - in fact, I have demonstrated outside of Halliburton headquarters (downtown Houston 2003). What have you done except post nonsensical arguments?
Richard Lee, from today's MSNBC News:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23196291/
Speaking in Cotonou, President Bush reiterated U.S. backing for the African Union/United Nations peacekeeping force being deployed in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, where political and ethnic conflict since 2003 has killed around 200,000 people.
"No question, Sudan is a real difficult situation which we have labeled a genocide ... We are sanctioning some, rallying others to provide aid in the hopes there will be a robust U.N. force in Darfur to help relieve the suffering," Bush said.
He added the U.S. was ready to "help facilitate" the movement of the peacekeeping force for Darfur.
Bush said he had also been speaking with President Hu Jintao of China — the main backer of oil-rich Sudan — about "the need for us to act collaboratively on Darfur."
Richard Lee, from today's MSNBC News:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23196291/
Speaking in Cotonou, President Bush reiterated U.S. backing for the African Union/United Nations peacekeeping force being deployed in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, where political and ethnic conflict since 2003 has killed around 200,000 people.
"No question, Sudan is a real difficult situation which we have labeled a genocide ... We are sanctioning some, rallying others to provide aid in the hopes there will be a robust U.N. force in Darfur to help relieve the suffering," Bush said.
He added the U.S. was ready to "help facilitate" the movement of the peacekeeping force for Darfur.
Bush said he had also been speaking with President Hu Jintao of China — the main backer of oil-rich Sudan — about "the need for us to act collaboratively on Darfur."
Miss Teen South Carolina has already solved the problems you're debating here.
"I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries"
There you have it, it's fundamentally up to the U.S. to help others. So leave China alone with their Sudanese oil and their olympics.
When the U.S. invades Iraq for oil it's called "liberation". When China deals Sudan it's called "assisting genocide". This would be a great case-study for those students majoring in Western Hypocrisy.
The Iraq comparisons MIGHT be relevant if the Iraq war was popularly supported (hint - it isn't) and celebrities didn't protest against it (they did).
However, it's a strawman argument - how come no one is addressing China and Sudan? Genocide? The only answer anyone can give is "western hypocrites" or "look at Iraq."
We're trying to currently elect a President - and many many many of us are selecting a president who will pull us out of that quagmire. A great majority of Americans are unhappy with our involvement in Iraq.
Where are the Chinese protesting their own country's involvement in Sudan? Why is the only answer for what's happening in Sudan to say "look other countries are just as bad" instead of "let's clean up our own mess"?
T, I think you're missing the point here completely. All you're focusing on is the word "genocide".
The underlying principle here is that Countries and their governments will do whatever it is neccessary to secure their interests. That's just the way it is. So stop crying about it.
Every country does it, but no one talks about it as much as the U.S. when it comes out condemning others for doing the SAME things. What's that called? HYPOCRISY!
Meanwhile all you're doing is passing the blame and proclaiming that you and your fellow "good hearted" Americans are righteous and just because you're "opposing" the actions of your government (8 years down the road). How much is that worth? You tell me.
Yet you still wonder why others don't take you seriously...
"The underlying principle here is that Countries and their governments will do whatever it is neccessary to secure their interests. That's just the way it is. So stop crying about it."
That's right, dipshit. And the point of shaming China on Darfur is to make it China's interest to stop the genocide in Darfur because the deliberate, systematic extermination of 100,000s of innocent men, women and children simply isn't enough.
If you want to call the American's actions the "same thing," then you obviously don't know what you're talking about or are simply willing to deny the incredibly vast number of factors that make it "not the same thing." For one, the US is involved in a war and China is not. Two, China is hosting the Olympics and the US is not, but if the US were host, you can be sure that protests would occur (as they should) and would be permitted.
The Iraq comparisons MIGHT be relevant if the Iraq war was popularly supported (hint - it isn't) and celebrities didn't protest against it (they did).
------ Do you know that Spielberg has been a support of Iraq war from day one? and now he starts to care about human rights in Sudan?
We're trying to currently elect a President - and many many many of us are selecting a president who will pull us out of that quagmire. A great majority of Americans are unhappy with our involvement in Iraq
----------would this matter? Millions have died, you got your iraq oil. Would your new president resurrect those dead people? Where is the justice for these poor Iraqis? Who is to stand trial? Will your oil companies pull out of Iraq?
The answers to abover questions probablly no. So why dont you just shut up and wait for China for a few years?
T, I think you're missing the point here completely. All you're focusing on is the word "genocide".
Sorry - I thought I was focusing on China's efforts in Sudan to support a regime that is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Sudanese. My bad. Anyways I think YOU'RE missing the point. China supports a horrible regime in Sudan.
Every country does it, but no one talks about it as much as the U.S. when it comes out condemning others for doing the SAME things. What's that called? HYPOCRISY!
The US might be hypocrites - but are they wrong in condemning China for involvement in Sudan?
Yet you still wonder why others don't take you seriously...
Who are these others?
Do you know that Spielberg has been a support of Iraq war from day one? and now he starts to care about human rights in Sudan?
Again, why does this matter? You can't change your mind about an issue? You can't be educated about an issue and realize you were wrong in the past?
So why dont you just shut up and wait for China for a few years?
Ah, a wonderful idea. Hey Dr. King, why don't you just shut up and wait a few years for the US to implement civil rights? Hey Mandela, why don't you just wait a few years and wait for South Africa to end apartheid on its own? Hey US college students, why don't you just shut up and wait for the US to leave Vietnam on their own? Hey Gandhi, why don't you just shut up and wait for the British to leave?
mtt, do you understand the stupidity of your argument? Do you realize that the actions of other do not in any way legitimate China's failure in Darfur? The bottom line is that US actions do not prevent conscientious citizens, organizations, governments, and NGOs from legitimately combating the horrific situation in Darfur.
The actions of the US in Iraq are completely separate from Darfur, so your constant references really just show your own cynical ignorance and simple-mindedness. It is laughable the way that so many in this forum constantly employ this childish, school-yard logic.
Fact 1 : Japan imported 39 million barrels from Sudan in last year Source : http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/IB21Dh01.html
Fact 2 : China imported 25.8 million barrels from Sudan this year. Source : http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHLe3XipH8so&refer=home
Fact 3 : 39 million > 25.8 million
Fact 4 : No one protests against Japan.
Fact 5 : Hollywood is the greatest peddler of lies on this planet.
Fact 6: Japanese firms are currently divesting from Sudan over the genocide, along with the Japanese ministry of trade. i.e. They are responding to international pressure.
http://www.ourpledge.org/japanse-firms-cut-sudan-oil-imports-trade-ministry-to-consider-total-country-ban
But. . .thanks for playing.
If you people really believe that you're destined to make a difference in this world, go save a whale or start off by hugging some trees.
I mean seriously, are you really this sensitive towards what happens to groups of people you don't know anything about half a world away? Do you really feel disgusted every time you start your car knowing that the petro in your tank is stained with innocent blood? I highly doubt it, but good try arguing a point which you don't fully understand or truly believe in.
That's rather...hypocritical.
Callipers, fyi, the U.S. never formally declared "war" on Iraq. The invasion is a military engagement authorized by Congress (US Congress). Dipshit!
Howie, I agree with you. I'm sure I could paint a turd in rainbow colors, or vice versa. But you have to admit, it is funny to see people overreact with blatant moral relativism and non sequiturs.
Fact 7: I can define any word to mean anything I want.
Fact 8: Disagreement is wrong.
Fact 9: Nuts on your chin.
Yep, I especially enjoy the name calling here, because talking crap in person is dangerous.
Funny that no one mentioned Unocal and all its assets in Myanmar, a bloody dictatorship of the worst kind.
Genocide eh?
Why dont you talk about September 11th 1973 Mr. T?
Oh. You dont know what happened this day?
Surprise surprise.
Let me recap it for you:
In 911 1973 a coup d'etat happened in Chile, a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED president was killed
("suicide") and a brutal regime that murdered thousands ruled the country for decades, all backed by our pal Henry Kissinger (ironically the word Chile is not mentioned in his book Diplomacy...interesting isnt it?)
Or wait, why dont we talk about Timor Leste's invasion by Indonesia and Ford and Kissinger's talks with Suharto, greenlighting the whole operation with glee? Shall we talk about the thousands killed in Timor Leste (with american weapons) ?
Wherever there is oil and weapons money to be made, Uncle Sam will play hard ball and fight for its share, by all means necessary, including as we can see, a pathetic media campaign orchestrated by the usual suspects.
Further, dont give that crap of America cares about Sudan. If America really cared about Sudan and humanitarianism it wouldnt have invaded Iraq, it would not have withdrawn AIDS support for countries that dont subscribe to Bush religious agenda, and it would have a higher share of aid-to-GDP (currently second lowest of the OECD).
Face the facts.
Of course when a media campaign is constructed to disguise this and pretend to care about things intellectual featherweights like some here will all carry the flag of being the white knights against the evil Chinese with black shoes and white socks.
Not really surprising actually.
@Coincidence
All (somewhat) factual, all deplorable, and all completely irrelevant to Darfur.
These kinds of arguments are just cynical, nihilistic and childish.
Well done Callipers, thanks for proving you have little understanding about geopolitics.
I noticed you carefully avoided any point that makes it obvious how hypocritical this situation is.
What almost everyone forgets is that due to its past of raping democratic ideals, financing dictators (Saddam, Pinochet, ...) and double standards across the board, any US led initiative will have little traction. And that's what's happening. The influence that was granted post WW2 (and which was exercised and started to decline with our man LBJ and the symbolic Tomkin), is gone.
The US lost its ability to lead, the US will only be taken seriously if its threats are militarily backed, which ceased to be an option considering its stretched armed forces.
No one was talking about the US. The reason why no one mentioned it is because this is a blog called Shanghaiist, about Shanghai and sometimes China. It's not called USist, Propaganist, Historyist, Rantist, Revisionist, or anything else. Who forgot these things? Who cares? Say I agree with you on citing these historical events regarding the US. YES, LET'S ASSUME THE US HAS DONE THESE THINGS. What bearing does that have on the issue under discussion? Do you have anything to say regarding the ACTUAL issue, mentioned above several times. Why don't you talk about that or go the hell away with your white socks (whatever the hell that means) and feast on your meager allocation of government cheese.
Honestly, I don't give a shit either way, but I don't appreciate the type of people that think the louder they yell, the more right they are. Go back to Montessori.
I agree with Coincidence, some of these guys loudly voicing their opinions have, at best, a community college 100 course level understanding of geopolitics (or economics). Yet they're always the first ones to jump out and shout "stop this" and "anti that", while the real intellectuals are quietly digesting ALL the RELEVANT information.
F*cking sheeps...
"What bearing does that have on the issue under discussion? Do you have anything to say regarding the ACTUAL issue, mentioned above several times."
I cant believe I have to explain this, but anyway...
Dude, you cant talk diplomacy and geopolitics and economics without taking into consideration the environment surrounding the issue. It's not like you are discussing one point in time, you are discussing a complex machinery in motion.
Nobody cares about what the US thinks in Darfur because the US itself has done worse many times before. If the US was the example of moral rectitude China would be in a different position.
I am by no means saying what China is doing is right or wrong, I am just saying that to say it is wrong without observing the context of who is saying it and what is being said is very naive, hence Spielberg being a complete twat.
What you guys claim China is doing is the Standard Operating Procedure of the United States of America. And to throw something else in the pile of things the US did that completely discredits their Darfur position: TO THIS FKNG DAY there are still hundreds of children being born in Vietnam with birth defects because the United States of America, Leaders of the Universe, did not clean up the Agent Orange mess they did in Vietnam.
Yes, exactly, Agent Orange, a highly carcinogenic element that was spread throughout Vietnam (and illegally in Cambodia as well). What has been done to help the victims? Little. Thank you Monsanto.
Thank you Uncle Sam.
Now get back to your soap box and teach the rest of the world how they should really behave.
Oh, I get it Spielberg=the US government. Mia Farrow=the US government. Monsanto=US government. That part is clear. And if my neighbor beats his wife, I should also do it and can do it with impunity. Finally, I would like to walk away from your kicking of a dead horse with just one more historical nugget Can you give me another? Although I don't disagree with you, I gladly mock you with every breath I take. Nobody cares what I think, except you. Hahaha! Sad. Hope you get paid well for this, cuz I do it for free just to piss you off.
Wait, I'm still not clear. Are you responding to me or just letting fly the canned arguments from your red cyber-wars manual? Not that you'll answer anything directly...
FACT 9 : The dalfur compaingers have already been caught out for lying in the UK for their advertising campaign by the advertising standards authority there. Everything they have to say and everything their apologists have to say is suspect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6951672.stm
Actually Monsanto was paid by the US government to manufacture Agent Orange, but of course you didnt know about that. Doh.
Good post rainbow.
I doubt it will be understood by anyone here though.
@paintingrainbowsblack
That's right: defend China, you brainwashed little clown!
SAVE DARFUR WAS NOT "CAUGHT LYING." That itself is a lie, and if you read the article that you posted, it simply states that there is some dispute as to the actual number of people who have been exterminated and they were told to state their numbers as an opinion.
"The UK's advertising watchdog recently said that the claim, made by the Save Darfur Coalition in an advert, should have been stated as opinion, not fact.
Most experts put the figure as at least 200,000; Sudan's government says 9,000.
The Save Darfur Coalition has said it accepted the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling, but argued in a statement that 'history tells us that the size of genocides are rarely understood contemporarily', Reuters news agency reports."
I havent heard Spielberg talk much about the Iraq war. I wonder how much money the US war machine is making from selling weapons there.. or the oil fields that are currently underproductive..
Oh, I forgot that Iraq was about democracy..
Turning to China and the Sudan, compare the $ value of this relationship with the one I mentioned above.
Shouldnt Spielberg be concerned about the US war effort as well ? or instead ?
I am sure it was all expected anyway by the PRC..