I am not going to comment on this in detail right now, other than to note that this is getting a lot of press coverage and it's a serious PR boost for Dream for Darfur. However I will point you at two posts that I think offer interesting comment.

Dave at Mutant Palm thinks that Spielberg should have taken his message right to the Chinese public (B):

I think there's another way that no one is talking about here. In a discussion with Feng37, the question was raised about whether the belief that you must work in secret is actually a tactic used by the Chinese government to prevent public embarassments. In other words, if Spielberg worked silently (and not publicized his letter to Hu Jintao or other efforts), he may have simply been strung along with the promise of slow progress until the Olympics were over, only to be ignored afterwards. But one thing that no one, not Mia Farrow, or Spielberg, or the Free Tibet crowd, are not trying, and that's addressing the Chinese people directly. The assumption on both sides, the idealist Save Darfur campaign and the realist perspective of Silicon Hutong, is that for any movement on the issue you must petition the Chinese government. What about petitioning the Chinese people?

Dave goes on to include the letter he would have liked to have seen (in English).

See also David Wolf's analysis at Silicon Hutong. David thinks that Spielberg's move may, if anything, be counterproductive:

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.

Ultimately whether Spielberg's comment is effective or not depends on what the intent was. If it was to motivate the Chinese government directly, David Wolf may be right. But if it was to raise public awareness elsewhere, he's succeeded in spades.

This is still gathering steam. I think the next six months will be very interesting indeed.

See also:

  • Jane Macartney's piece from the Times on China's PR response

  • Geoffrey Fowler's excellent piece (subscription) from the Wall Street Journal on the success of the Darfur activist's PR campaign. They've successfully linked their issue tightly to the Beijing Olympic games. This is not a natural connection. They had to engineer it, and the effort was not trivial.

  • Richard Spencer analyzes the Chinese bureaucratic mindset when it comes to appraising the influence of activists.

  • Austin Ramzy at Time's China blog posts Spielberg's entire statement and speculates about the impact should any sponsors follow Spielberg's lead.

  • Mark Magnier's story from the LA Times succinctly identifies the big risk for China come games time:

    "The government is haunted by the prospect that the $38 billion it has spent on the Games and related projects, its meticulous preparation and bid for global accolades, could be undone by a few images of banner-waving protesters getting roughed up by police."

  • Forbes and The Economist (subscription) agree: The Olympics have always been political.

  • Cam Paul at Zhongnanhai tells Steven exactly how he feels about this. He sums up the opinion of a substantial slice of the China blogosphere.

  • The Times again, via Danwei, with an excellent analysis of the situation, reporting on what may have motivated Mr. Spielberg, and an illuminating recap of politicized Olympic games.

Previously on Imagethief:

Did the "Genocide Olympics" influence China? (May, 2007)

Don't politicize the Olympics? It's much too late for that... (May 2007) 

Bang! China shoots its own Olympic PR in the foot (August, 2007) 

More under the "Olympic" tag in the tag cloud at right.

Update:

Apropos of some of the comments in Mr. Fowler's article on athletes getting involved, I want to share a thought I left as a comment on Tim Johnson's blog the other day:

The problem with punitive bans on athletes speaking out, especially when they are reiterated at the national team level, is that they could have the unintended consequence of amplifying the message of any athlete that does want to make a point. They do this by adding the timeless ingredient of martyrdom. If an athlete can speak up with little thought of consequence, big deal. But if an athlete sacrifices their medals and perhaps career to make a point? Well, that's a statement with some emotional power.

This is going to sound cynical, but if the teams and IOC want to limit the damage from athletes making political statements they should make sure they don't raise the cost of making those statements so high that they confer automatic heroism on any athlete that dares do so. (But also, don't lower the bar so far that you have groups of athletes protesting on the fields.)

Why does no one notice dissent in the US? Because it's cheap. Why does everyone notice dissent in China? Because it's expensive.

A follow-up commenter left the very valid point that dissent isn't necessarily cheap in the US, and it is possible to sacrifice greatly by challenging sacred cows, especially in sensitive times. But it is, on average, significantly cheaper than in China.