Hollywood film director Steven Spielberg's decision to withdraw as an art adviser for the 2008 Beijing Olympics is - perhaps unconsciously - aligned with imperialist assumptions bred by living in the United States.
Spielberg's stated reason for withdrawal from the Olympics is alleged Chinese indifference to the suffering - and human rights violations - caused by a civil war in the African nation of Sudan, which is a major trading partner of China.
Spielberg claims that China is not "using its influence" with Sudan to "end the suffering". However, the notion that a "great power" should "use its influence" to control the internal affairs of other sovereign nations arises from the US, and not Chinese, assumptions.
People living in the US routinely witness their government subjecting other states which do not follow their demands to economic sanctions or boycotts; covert operations aimed at destabilizing the targeted "regimes"; and even outright invasion as in the case of Iraq.
Reading between the lines, Spielberg's position, and that of those like him, is a demand that China act like the US, and impose - or threaten to impose - economic sanctions on its trading partner Sudan.
However, China follows a completely different policy. Based squarely on the five principles of peaceful co-existence, which China has followed since 1949, this policy consistently refrains from interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations.
This principle of non-interference is precisely why the leaders of 48 African nations convened a year or so ago in Beijing for joint high-level talks with China's leaders.
This meeting was notable as the first-ever meeting of the African Union outside of Africa. Non-interference is precisely the reason that African leaders felt warmly about coming to China, and why the country is warmly welcomed in Africa in a way the US, and the former European colonial powers, are not.
I personally saw various African heads of state on TV during the meeting asked about their relationships with China. The general response was: "We are happy to work with China economically and otherwise because (unlike the Western powers) they do not come to Africa to give us lectures."
Recent Western media portrayals of the China-Sudan issue are distorted beyond belief. To begin with, it is frequently stated that "China provides diplomatic cover" for Sudan in the UN Security Council.
In reality, however, China, Russia, and - crucially - the African Union representing all African states, have all taken the same position at the UN - that dialogue and use of African Union troops and limited numbers of UN troops should be used in Sudan, and that economic sanctions should not be imposed.
So it is China's position - and not that of people like Spielberg or the US government - that represents the real perceived interests of Africa.
Moreover, it is China, and not the US or Spielberg, which has the moral high ground on Sudan, via its consistent approach of using dialogue and non-interference rather than using military or economic force to coerce other nations.
Finally, and sadly, while Spielberg professes concern about the human rights of Sudan, he was not so concerned about the human rights of the people of Iraq, where an estimated 600,000 or more people have died since the US invasion.
In reply to questions about the then-impending attack on Iraq, Spielberg told journalists: "Bush's politics has been solid, grounded in reality, willing to uproot terrorism wherever it may be found ... if Bush, as I believe, has reliable information on the fact that Saddam is making 'weapons of mass destruction', I cannot not support the policies of his government."
(A Canadian who teaches in Beijing)
