After Steven Spielberg’s announced withdrawal as advisor to the Beijing Olympics ceremony, the attention was on China’s involvement, or lack thereof, in Sudan. Below is a response from Professor Ling-chi Wang, retired from University of California, Berkeley:
Reports on the Spielberg decision gave the impression that what little China had done with Darfur was the result of Spielberg’s pressure. This is definitely not true.
It is true that China, unlike the U.S., is opposed to any interference in the internal affairs of other countries, but if necessary, it prefers doing it through the UN.
In fall 2006, long before Spielberg agreed to consider joining the Zhang Yimou team in Beijing, Wang Guangya, UN ambassador, helped secure Sudanese government acceptance of the Kofi Annan’s UN-AU peace-keeping plan.
President Hu Jintao also spoke directly with President Omar al-Bashir in Beijing in November and again in Khartoum in early 2007.
China had also planned to send Zhai Jun, Assistant Foreign Minister, to Sudan before the campaign against the “Genocide” Olympics began in April last year. Zhai toured the refugee camps and within a week Sudan agreed to the deployment of UN troops, including a Chinese component.
Later, Liu Guijin, a special envoy, was appointed as a special envoy for African affairs. In July, China voted for deployment of a 20,000 UN-AU force for Darfur and an end to aerial bombings by government forces.
See reaction from China.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Might as Well Cancel the Olympics, Spielberg is not Coming
A slightly different version can be found on New America Media
Hollywood’s bigger-than-life celebrities enjoy a privileged bully pulpit and they never shrink from using it to advance their pet causes.
Such is the case with Steven Spielberg and his high profile withdrawal as artistic advisor to China’s 2008 Olympics. Ostensibly, Spielberg is protesting that China is not doing enough to stop the human suffering at Darfur.
It’s hard to know the extent China will be devastated by Spielberg’s non-participation--if at all.
Too bad, Spielberg took the typical unilateral American approach, i.e., the Bush doctrine of my way or the highway. Had he genuinely been interested in exerting an influence on China, he would have signed the contract that sat on his desk for months.
He could have seized the opportunity of regular Beijing visits to exchange points of view and express his concerns about Sudan. With growing rapport, the Chinese officials might have explained to him of their long standing foreign policy of non-interference and the nature of quiet initiatives they may have undertaken with the Sudanese government.
The Chinese officials might also explain to Spielberg the limits to what China can do to influence matters in Sudan, and that Beijing subscribes to working within the confines of the United Nations. Crimes against humanity, whether in Sudan, Iraq or by the Al Qaeda, are issues no one nation can correct--except possibly the U.S.
Not every government behaves like Washington and believes that it has a divine mandate to rectify wrongs around the world. In a less diplomatic moment, the officials might even point out to Spielberg that American involvement in Iraq has not exactly lessened human sufferings.
The Olympics is the most celebrated sporting event around the world. It’s regrettable that Spielberg decided to use the spotlight intended for Olympics on Sudan.
Some Americans may celebrate Spielberg’s astute grandstanding on behalf of a worthy cause. Perhaps he did not go far enough. China is America’s most important trading partner and holder of more than $1 trillion in dollar reserves. Arguably, China should have more influence with the U.S. than with Sudan.
Why not ask China to intercede with Washington to demand the cessation of waterboarding for interrogation, indefinite incarceration of prisoners from around the world, and random killing of civilians in Iraq?
Rest of the world is just going to scratch their collective heads trying to understand the connection between international athletic competition and killings in Darfur. But then unlike America, others are not so ready to blame everything that is wrong in the world on China.
Perhaps China will continue to be awe struck by Spielberg’s artistry and overlook his insult. However, his lack of sincerity in dealing with the Chinese Olympic Committee will surely tarnish his image as an international icon.
Some speculated that Spielberg was not being insincere but just caved-in to Mia Farrow’s pressure. She has been looking to launch a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in the name of stopping genocide.
Using the same logic, we would wonder if Spielberg will lead a boycott of FIFA World Cup, the one sporting event dear to Europeans, on the grounds that the EU is not doing enough to get the U.S. to stop committing human rights abuses. Certainly a strong case can be made that the Europeans have more influence on Washington than China has on Sudan.
The EU president, Milan Zver, by the way, did say in response to Spielberg’s withdrawal that sports is too important to be used as a political instrument.
Ultimately, from the opening to the closing ceremony in Beijing this August, will anyone notice that Steven Spielberg is missing in action?
------------------------
See also accusation of Spielberg as chauvinist in humanitarian drag.
Comment below by bobby fletcher points to early U.S. involvment.
Hollywood’s bigger-than-life celebrities enjoy a privileged bully pulpit and they never shrink from using it to advance their pet causes.
Such is the case with Steven Spielberg and his high profile withdrawal as artistic advisor to China’s 2008 Olympics. Ostensibly, Spielberg is protesting that China is not doing enough to stop the human suffering at Darfur.
It’s hard to know the extent China will be devastated by Spielberg’s non-participation--if at all.
Too bad, Spielberg took the typical unilateral American approach, i.e., the Bush doctrine of my way or the highway. Had he genuinely been interested in exerting an influence on China, he would have signed the contract that sat on his desk for months.
He could have seized the opportunity of regular Beijing visits to exchange points of view and express his concerns about Sudan. With growing rapport, the Chinese officials might have explained to him of their long standing foreign policy of non-interference and the nature of quiet initiatives they may have undertaken with the Sudanese government.
The Chinese officials might also explain to Spielberg the limits to what China can do to influence matters in Sudan, and that Beijing subscribes to working within the confines of the United Nations. Crimes against humanity, whether in Sudan, Iraq or by the Al Qaeda, are issues no one nation can correct--except possibly the U.S.
Not every government behaves like Washington and believes that it has a divine mandate to rectify wrongs around the world. In a less diplomatic moment, the officials might even point out to Spielberg that American involvement in Iraq has not exactly lessened human sufferings.
The Olympics is the most celebrated sporting event around the world. It’s regrettable that Spielberg decided to use the spotlight intended for Olympics on Sudan.
Some Americans may celebrate Spielberg’s astute grandstanding on behalf of a worthy cause. Perhaps he did not go far enough. China is America’s most important trading partner and holder of more than $1 trillion in dollar reserves. Arguably, China should have more influence with the U.S. than with Sudan.
Why not ask China to intercede with Washington to demand the cessation of waterboarding for interrogation, indefinite incarceration of prisoners from around the world, and random killing of civilians in Iraq?
Rest of the world is just going to scratch their collective heads trying to understand the connection between international athletic competition and killings in Darfur. But then unlike America, others are not so ready to blame everything that is wrong in the world on China.
Perhaps China will continue to be awe struck by Spielberg’s artistry and overlook his insult. However, his lack of sincerity in dealing with the Chinese Olympic Committee will surely tarnish his image as an international icon.
Some speculated that Spielberg was not being insincere but just caved-in to Mia Farrow’s pressure. She has been looking to launch a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in the name of stopping genocide.
Using the same logic, we would wonder if Spielberg will lead a boycott of FIFA World Cup, the one sporting event dear to Europeans, on the grounds that the EU is not doing enough to get the U.S. to stop committing human rights abuses. Certainly a strong case can be made that the Europeans have more influence on Washington than China has on Sudan.
The EU president, Milan Zver, by the way, did say in response to Spielberg’s withdrawal that sports is too important to be used as a political instrument.
Ultimately, from the opening to the closing ceremony in Beijing this August, will anyone notice that Steven Spielberg is missing in action?
------------------------
See also accusation of Spielberg as chauvinist in humanitarian drag.
Comment below by bobby fletcher points to early U.S. involvment.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Do Chinese Americans still face a glass ceiling today?
The answer is yes and no. See here for a more detailed discussion.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Asian Shoppers Not Welcome at Hollister
The sales staff at the Hollister store located in the Westfield Valley Fair Mall in San Jose has been known to be rude to Asian shoppers.
According to a recent report in the World Journal, an ethnic newspaper, the store manager said to a Chinese couple that "We don't sell to people like you."
A team of local Chinese American activists could not believe this could be happening in Silicon Valley and went to the store to investigate. They overheard another salesman refusing to accept an Asian woman's check for merchandise she picked out. He gave "brand protection" as the reason for no sale.
Hollister stores are wholly owned subsidiary of Abercrombie & Fitch. The parent firm earned national notoriety a few years back for offering racist tee shirts depicting stereotypic images of Asians, before withdrawing them from sale in face of a storm of public opinion.
The Hollister website features buffed images of young male and female, black and white models called "dudes" and "bettys". Apparently Asians are not regarded as dudes and bettys, so why would any Asian want to shop there?
According to a recent report in the World Journal, an ethnic newspaper, the store manager said to a Chinese couple that "We don't sell to people like you."
A team of local Chinese American activists could not believe this could be happening in Silicon Valley and went to the store to investigate. They overheard another salesman refusing to accept an Asian woman's check for merchandise she picked out. He gave "brand protection" as the reason for no sale.
Hollister stores are wholly owned subsidiary of Abercrombie & Fitch. The parent firm earned national notoriety a few years back for offering racist tee shirts depicting stereotypic images of Asians, before withdrawing them from sale in face of a storm of public opinion.
The Hollister website features buffed images of young male and female, black and white models called "dudes" and "bettys". Apparently Asians are not regarded as dudes and bettys, so why would any Asian want to shop there?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Nanking, a Documentary Changing World Perception
Ted Leonsis’ documentary film, Nanking, was not among the recently announced list of nominees for Academy awards, but he and the film had already won appreciative reception from millions around the world. At least 20 million in China have already seen this film. In the U.S. favorable reception from first limited release has now encouraged more general release across the country.
He did this by presenting the history of the Japanese occupation of Nanking (now called Nanjing) in a particularly persuasive way on especially shocking crime against humanity that has been largely unknown outside of Asia.
Leonsis happened to read the obituary of Iris Chang and became curious about her best seller, “The Rape of Nanking.” The book led to his decision to tell the story on the silver screen.
In December 1937, Japanese Imperial forces laid siege and then occupied Nanking, at the time the capital of the Chinese republic. According to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal conducted at the end of WWII, over the next six weeks of occupation, the troops slaughtered 200,000 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war and raped around 20,000 females from babies to elderly.
The film tells the story of atrocities from the eyes of a handful of Americans and Europeans that elected to stay in Nanking. They organized a safety zone to protect civilians fortunate enough to have reached them.
The film employed professional actors to narrate excerpts from the diaries and letters they left behind. These eyewitness accounts were intermixed with tearful interviews of actual Chinese survivors recalling the horror and pain along with detached recollections of elderly Japanese men that were once soldiers occupying Nanking.
Spliced between these oral histories were actual movies and stills taken by the organizers of the safety zone, a zone subsequently credited with saving some 250,000 lives. Fortunately, the priceless materials were smuggled out of China undetected by the Japanese soldiers.
Depiction of the more hideous acts of beheading, live burial and gang rape relied more on verbal descriptions than visual images, a barrage of which would have nauseated the audience. The overall effect proved to be such a moving experience that only a storefront mannequin could have remained dry eyed.
The widely acclaimed documentary has won many awards and received 4 star accolades from every major reviewer.
Most importantly, the film takes the Nanjing massacre debate out of the bilateral tug of war between the Chinese and the Japanese. Leonsis personally financed and initiated this project to tell this historical event from the third party’s vantage point.
The matter of fact treatment of the subject coming from white non-combatants will render the film hard for anyone to repudiate.
The documentary film was released in December 2007, just in time to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Japan’s siege and occupation of Nanking. The renovated Nanjing Massacre Museum also reopened in the same month.
Museum officials at the reopening ceremony indicated that their goal is to raise the world awareness of the museum so as to be on par with Auschwitz, Hiroshima and other world heritage memorials reminding humankind of the brutal consequences of war.
The Nanjing Massacre Museum is built on one of the killing grounds used by the Japanese Imperial troops. Visitors can see open trenches exposing random stacks of human remains.
Multi-colored leis of paper-folded cranes have been left by visiting Japanese school children as tokens of regret and respect. The accumulated leis showed that some schools make regular sojourns to this site. One can conclude that not all the people of Japan are blind to history.
Some still living members of the imperial troops have publicly expressed remorse and guilt over their conduct in Nanjing. To do so took great courage as they immediately became targets of hate mail and death threats from Japan’s right wing extremists.
One Japanese filmmaker claiming that the Nanking Massacre never happened is planning to introduce his rebuttal on screen. It will be interesting to see what “truths” he will unearth.
Japan’s Consul General from Shanghai has already visited the reopened museum. He complained to Chinese officials that the exhibits were overwhelmingly one sided and he expressed concerns that the exhibits will inflame emotions and disrupt peaceful development of relations between the peoples of the two countries.
By all indications, the current government of Japan has foresworn its military, aggressor past and is a government of peaceful intentions. Unfortunately, the government is also hobbled by its inability to openly seek reconciliation with the world.
The Nanking documentary will make it that much harder to ignore the past but perhaps will convince the Tokyo government to finally face history squarely.
Only by knowing the lessons of history, can humankind avoid repeating the error.
He did this by presenting the history of the Japanese occupation of Nanking (now called Nanjing) in a particularly persuasive way on especially shocking crime against humanity that has been largely unknown outside of Asia.
Leonsis happened to read the obituary of Iris Chang and became curious about her best seller, “The Rape of Nanking.” The book led to his decision to tell the story on the silver screen.
In December 1937, Japanese Imperial forces laid siege and then occupied Nanking, at the time the capital of the Chinese republic. According to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal conducted at the end of WWII, over the next six weeks of occupation, the troops slaughtered 200,000 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war and raped around 20,000 females from babies to elderly.
The film tells the story of atrocities from the eyes of a handful of Americans and Europeans that elected to stay in Nanking. They organized a safety zone to protect civilians fortunate enough to have reached them.
The film employed professional actors to narrate excerpts from the diaries and letters they left behind. These eyewitness accounts were intermixed with tearful interviews of actual Chinese survivors recalling the horror and pain along with detached recollections of elderly Japanese men that were once soldiers occupying Nanking.
Spliced between these oral histories were actual movies and stills taken by the organizers of the safety zone, a zone subsequently credited with saving some 250,000 lives. Fortunately, the priceless materials were smuggled out of China undetected by the Japanese soldiers.
Depiction of the more hideous acts of beheading, live burial and gang rape relied more on verbal descriptions than visual images, a barrage of which would have nauseated the audience. The overall effect proved to be such a moving experience that only a storefront mannequin could have remained dry eyed.
The widely acclaimed documentary has won many awards and received 4 star accolades from every major reviewer.
Most importantly, the film takes the Nanjing massacre debate out of the bilateral tug of war between the Chinese and the Japanese. Leonsis personally financed and initiated this project to tell this historical event from the third party’s vantage point.
The matter of fact treatment of the subject coming from white non-combatants will render the film hard for anyone to repudiate.
The documentary film was released in December 2007, just in time to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Japan’s siege and occupation of Nanking. The renovated Nanjing Massacre Museum also reopened in the same month.
Museum officials at the reopening ceremony indicated that their goal is to raise the world awareness of the museum so as to be on par with Auschwitz, Hiroshima and other world heritage memorials reminding humankind of the brutal consequences of war.
The Nanjing Massacre Museum is built on one of the killing grounds used by the Japanese Imperial troops. Visitors can see open trenches exposing random stacks of human remains.
Multi-colored leis of paper-folded cranes have been left by visiting Japanese school children as tokens of regret and respect. The accumulated leis showed that some schools make regular sojourns to this site. One can conclude that not all the people of Japan are blind to history.
Some still living members of the imperial troops have publicly expressed remorse and guilt over their conduct in Nanjing. To do so took great courage as they immediately became targets of hate mail and death threats from Japan’s right wing extremists.
One Japanese filmmaker claiming that the Nanking Massacre never happened is planning to introduce his rebuttal on screen. It will be interesting to see what “truths” he will unearth.
Japan’s Consul General from Shanghai has already visited the reopened museum. He complained to Chinese officials that the exhibits were overwhelmingly one sided and he expressed concerns that the exhibits will inflame emotions and disrupt peaceful development of relations between the peoples of the two countries.
By all indications, the current government of Japan has foresworn its military, aggressor past and is a government of peaceful intentions. Unfortunately, the government is also hobbled by its inability to openly seek reconciliation with the world.
The Nanking documentary will make it that much harder to ignore the past but perhaps will convince the Tokyo government to finally face history squarely.
Only by knowing the lessons of history, can humankind avoid repeating the error.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Chen Shui-bian’s Next Move
Now that Chen Shui-bian’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lost Taiwan’s parliament election big time, what will be his next move? First to atone for the overwhelming defeat, he resigned his position as chairman of his political party.
Next, Taiwan is afloat with the rumor that he plans to fly to the Spratly Islands （南沙，Nansha meaning southern sand in Chinese）ostensibly to honor the military personnel based there for their vigilance—presumably against the attack of killer whales.
Typical of actions related to Chen, his office denied knowing anything about his plans to visit the troops, albeit boosting the morale of the military was something he was said to do regularly. Then the next day, they deny Chen having any plan to fly to Itu Aba Islet (太平屿, Tai Ping Islet) even though a runway is nearing completion on this fortified islet. (See how he points east while attacking west in earlier post, ">click here
“What is Chen’s next ao bu (奥步, Taiwanese for trickery move),” people of Taiwan are wondering? Given some of the more outlandish antics that have taken place in the past, I would like to venture a prediction.
Just before the March presidential election, Chen will fly toward Nansha and the plane will mysteriously disappear from the radar screen. This could create a great turmoil and confusion among the Taiwan electorate and cause one of two possible outcomes.
In the confusion, the DPP candidate Frank Hsieh scores a surprising upset victory by means too difficult to speculate, perhaps abetted by a hanging chad or two. At which point, Chen just as mysteriously reappears in triumph and regains the admiration of his hard core supporters even if at the askance of the rest of the population.
On the other hand, if Ma Ying-jeou still wins as he is heavily favored to do so before any shenanigans, then Chen pops up in Los Angeles with his new hukou (residence permit) in hand.
As predictions about Taiwan go, my version is relatively tame. There are even speculations floating around Taiwan on whether Chen is desperate enough to resort to assassination.
No, not aimed at Ma, because that would be too obvious. The more diabolical speculation is for Chen to have Hsieh taken out. After all, it is well known that the two do not get along. In a massively confused aftermath, Chen cancels the election and declares martial law and stays in power.
Too farfetched? Stranger things have happened that pass for politics in Taiwan.
Next, Taiwan is afloat with the rumor that he plans to fly to the Spratly Islands （南沙，Nansha meaning southern sand in Chinese）ostensibly to honor the military personnel based there for their vigilance—presumably against the attack of killer whales.
Typical of actions related to Chen, his office denied knowing anything about his plans to visit the troops, albeit boosting the morale of the military was something he was said to do regularly. Then the next day, they deny Chen having any plan to fly to Itu Aba Islet (太平屿, Tai Ping Islet) even though a runway is nearing completion on this fortified islet. (See how he points east while attacking west in earlier post, ">click here
“What is Chen’s next ao bu (奥步, Taiwanese for trickery move),” people of Taiwan are wondering? Given some of the more outlandish antics that have taken place in the past, I would like to venture a prediction.
Just before the March presidential election, Chen will fly toward Nansha and the plane will mysteriously disappear from the radar screen. This could create a great turmoil and confusion among the Taiwan electorate and cause one of two possible outcomes.
In the confusion, the DPP candidate Frank Hsieh scores a surprising upset victory by means too difficult to speculate, perhaps abetted by a hanging chad or two. At which point, Chen just as mysteriously reappears in triumph and regains the admiration of his hard core supporters even if at the askance of the rest of the population.
On the other hand, if Ma Ying-jeou still wins as he is heavily favored to do so before any shenanigans, then Chen pops up in Los Angeles with his new hukou (residence permit) in hand.
As predictions about Taiwan go, my version is relatively tame. There are even speculations floating around Taiwan on whether Chen is desperate enough to resort to assassination.
No, not aimed at Ma, because that would be too obvious. The more diabolical speculation is for Chen to have Hsieh taken out. After all, it is well known that the two do not get along. In a massively confused aftermath, Chen cancels the election and declares martial law and stays in power.
Too farfetched? Stranger things have happened that pass for politics in Taiwan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
