Mia Farrow's take on China's Responsibility in Darfur

Celebrity Activism for Awareness of the "Genocide Olympics"

For over three years the upcoming Beijing Olympic Games has been a controversial topic among celebrity activists. China and Sudan have a history as oil trading partners and up until last year, it seemed as if China was not going to reconsider its ties with the nation. According to the New York Times, a senior Chinese official, Zhai Jun's trip in April 2007 to Sudan to encourage the government to accept a UN peacekeeping force was the product of Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg in particular who seemed to have success in linking the Beijing Olympic Games to the genocide in Darfur. Other top Chinese officials have been to Darfur multiple times following Jun. The Chinese believe this link between the Olympics and the genocide in Darfur is unfair because they claim they are simply trading partners.

In February of this year, after months of cries from activists like himself, director Steven Spielberg quit his job as the artistic adviser for the games. China has since voice it's disapproval and has even insulted Spielberg but also pushed the Sudanese government even harder to allow a UN peacekeeping mission there.

Recently, celebrities and athletes have turned to their sponsors and corporations sponsoring the games to voice their concern about the Beijing Olympics. According to the New York Times writer Katie Thomas, it is much harder for athletes to do so, because of Rule 51 of the Olympic charter which forbids athletes from participating in a “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda” at Olympic sites. Actress Mia Farrow is the spokeswoman for Dream for Darfur, an organization dedicated to awareness of the "Genocide Olympics." The organization is one of the leaders of the movement to get the corporate sponsors of the games to use their influence in China. The organization has just released their second Sponsor Darfur Report Card in which it cites Anheuser-Busch, Atos Origin, BHP Billiton, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Lenovo, Manulife, Microsoft, Panasonic, Samsung, Staples, Swatch, UPS, Visa and Volkswagen as failing. The organization believes these companies have not done enough to use their leverage to persuade China to act. Dream for Darfur has asked the companies to meet with Farrow to discuss the current situation.

Many writers and commentators stand firm in their belief that these efforts by celebrity activists are the major cause of China's recent actions. But how much activism is too much? As China continues to pressure the Sudanese government, celebrities and organizations continue to pressure China and stab at its Olympic Games. Dream for Darfur also has actions planned in Beijing for the actual games which it "cannot divulge because of the risk to its participants." The Chinese government may not like these attempts to further darken their Olympic Games and therefore might reconsider their recent actions. A warning to celebrity activists: think clearly about how your actions might affect your goal.

I am reading a fascinating book in which author David Rieff makes the distinction between a moral and political/military responses to genocide in Rwanda (1994) and the atrocities in Somalia (1993) . In At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention Rieff claims that the United Nations has responded to such crises using military and political means, but has left out morality. This issue has fallen upon the humanitarian agencies and cultural icons. But Rieff also upholds that the seemingly moral crusade and the political decisions of the UN frequently get confused and muddle the minds of the public. How does a humanitarian agency's work, for example the Doctors Without Borders, coincide with UN action? Is having separate moral and political action a workable compromise? Rieff says these separate goals haven't worked, and will not work in the future.

What does this accomplish?

George Clooney and his father, Nicholas Clooney, a prominent journalist, went to visit the Sudanese region to raise awareness about the atrocities there. What does this accomplish for the individuals that live his documentary every day?

A proposal

I will explore the heightened attention that the Sudanese region of Darfur is currently receiving because of the genocide occurring there, and why this alleged concern has not led to a significant change in the conflict. I will further examine this situation by looking at pop culture’s definition of genocide, the United State’s definition of genocide, and why both of these definitions have not translated into progress in Darfur. My research will include, but is not limited to the perspectives of the Sudanese on America’s pop culture’s obsession with the cause, the perspectives of the main leaders of the pop culture push, the implications of pop culture’s obsession on aid for Darfur, and pop culture’s role in past genocide awareness in Africa.My research will point to the underlying question of how pop culture ploys affect international crises.