The Irony of Mao's Legacy in Modern China.

At this point in my experience with China, the sense of irony that comes with Mao Zedong's legacy has left me jaded. This week I have been traveling in Hunan Province, the birthplace of Mao as well as the location of the first communist refuge he organized against the Guomingdang in the late 1920s early 1930s. The landscape of Hunan is still marked by its rural identity, but throughout the sprawling hills and boggy rice fields can be found memorials to the province's bloody history. Yesterday I got the chance to visit Mao's birthplace in Shaoshan, a little known town outside the origins of its most infamous former resident. I would not suggest the place to anyone passing through unless you have an interest in Mao and Chinese Communist Party history. It's a very dull tour with bland scenery and a long and agonizing bus ride.

First I was taken to a museum of Mao's life, which pretty much includes a lot of photographs not placed in chronological order depicting the life and greatness of Chairman Mao. Then I was taken to a shop with everything Mao, Mao shirts, books, lighters, buttons, tea, and statues all incredibly overpriced. If that wasn't enough, the last exhibit includes a large statue of Mao that everyone is "asked" to bow to in appreciation for his efforts to improve the peoples' welfare. 

After lunch we proceeded to Mao's birthplace, a small farm house that overlooked a pleasant pond. How much of it existed while Mao lived there I can't be for sure. Not too far from Mao's house is a gigantic bronze statue of the former great leader. A royal red carpet leads up to the structure, and every 5 minutes I witnessed another throng of Chinese tourists providing flowers to the bronze idol. Next to the statue was a commemorative hall that was designed to look like a typical Chinese temple, thus crystalizing Mao in an almost theological image for modern China. I was told that sometimes locals would light firecrackers in effort to bring back Mao's ghost from the dead. Also on the tour was the former residence of Liu Shao Qi, Mao's number two who came under scrutiny and  imprisonment for revisionist ideas in the Cultural Revolution. He was also given a statue similar to Mao's. 

What was striking about these places was not just the mythology yielded to the history that surrounded them but the total lack of tangible evidence that the legacy of Mao still matters in modern China. The area is littered with shopkeepers selling Mao souvenirs amongst other things such as ice cream , drinks, and plastic toys. As I walked to the bus form Liu Shao Qi's house, I was accosted by a crowd of merchants selling this crap. What would Mao think of this capitalist bastardization of his image? Perhaps he wouldn't mind so much. Besides being a narcissistic man, Mao's Cultural Revolution was a sort of marketing campaign for Mao as China's new and final savior. It came in the form of posters, hats, films, operas and of course little red books. It's no surprise that his image is still marketed today. It just seems out of place to have such capitalist activity run a muck throughout this Maoist acropolis. 

But truth be told, Mao's image itself is a bit out of place in China. In Changsha, the provincial capital of Hunan, I noticed few if any images of Hunan's favorite son. While Mount Vernon is dominated by Washington and Mozart's face plasters the streets of Salzburg, Changsha was relatively Maoless. Perhaps it's simply due to a pragmatic assessment by the Chinese towards Mao's lack of validity in modern China. Chinese cities already have their austere CCP committee buildings, military facilities with the red star, and martyr's memorials and parks. Adding a Mao in every house just seems a bit excessive and retro. 

When pondering Mao's place in modern China, I always think back to an image in Chengdu that burns in my memory. In the center of the city is a large stone Mao statue in the middle of a large public square. His arm is stretched forwards as if looking over his socialist kingdom much as Athena would to Athens or Lady Liberty to New York. However, instead of a socialist paradise, in front of him lay a massive boulevard with monuments dedicated to capitalism including resorts, banks, marketing firms, KFC and McDonalds. This image of irony to me brings forth Mao's true identity in modern China. A figurehead who is politically and historically important, but ideologically and culturally irrelevant.

The Iron Legacy of Margaret Thatcher

A few days ago, London's iconic Trafalgar Square was crowded with people from every corner of leftist Britain gathering to celebrate the death of Britain's infamous stateswoman, Margaret Thatcher. Whether you praise or abhor the basis for such a celebration, the occasion does truly signify the Thatcher legacy. Margaret Thatcher was a bold leader who dramatically changed the face of Britain and helped erode the face of Communist Europe. She was decisive, steadfast, and bold. But at the same time she was ruthless and unsympathetic to her opposition. Through her eyes, it was either her way, the way of freedom and privatization, or the way of totalitarianism and social decay, even if her way meant losing the jobs of thousands of workers and letting their children starve. 

To the many Britons who suffered under her policies, Thatcher was a tyrant who used their suffering to benefit politically. To these Britons, Thatcher showed a wanton disposition to their livelihood, much as a workhouse keeper would show to Oliver Twist. To these Britons, she was a leader that was more than willing to hand over state funds to fight a meaningless war in the Falklands than to help them put bread on the table. 

Margaret Thatcher left Britain better off economically, but politically she left a completely polarized political landscape, and much like their counterparts in America, the left leaning Labor Party abandoned leftist Britain for a more moderate alternative, thereby further infuriating the left. Today, Britons are more divided than ever, in particular over austerity measures which sparked responses in the form of  UK uncut and the Occupy Movement. 

Lady Thatcher's legacy differs sharply from that of her counterpart, President Ronald Reagan. While President Reagan was a bold conservative like her who dramatically changed his country and sought to challenge the Soviet Empire, he was able to develop a national narrative that included everyone. He didn't leave a good portion of Americans behind when considering how to approach policy. While his policies did benefit the wealthy far more than the rest of America, this didn't cause another group to suffer gratuitously. He was willing to compromise when necessary. In 1987 he increased taxes on the wealthy and closed loopholes, and in 1986 he granted amnesty for illegal immigrants. 

Reagan's narrative wasn't about liberals versus patriots or workers versus management. It was about Americans for America. Perhaps it was because Reagan got his training in Hollywood as opposed to a grocery store, but Reagan was able to communicate to all Americans far better than Thatcher was able to communicate to all Britons. As a result, following Reagan's death, no death parties were organized to commemorate the occasion.

At least politically, Thatcher's legacy matches President George W Bush's far more than Reagan's. The Bush Administration actively ignored its opposition which included scientists, clergymen, environmentalists, the UN, and budget experts. His message for America was if you don't support me, you are no better than the terrorists. The result was an America torn in two, an enraged left inspired by President Barack Obama to change the injustices born from the previous administration, and an extremist right that has declared war on progress and the process of government itself. Now the American political system is broken, and basic government functions such as making a national budget go ignored while irresponsible sequesters, set up to encourage action, fail to forge compromise. 

In reality, Margaret Thatcher probably wouldn't have been appalled by these signs of celebration following her death. To her, they would've been identical to her expereince at 10 Downings Street. Her reign was marked by massive public protests, anti establishment punk rock music, and riots, She would probably take comfort in this image of death as her ultimate triumph. While the brutes carry on with they banners spewing hateful rhetoric such as "Ding Dong the Bitch is Dead," her face retains its iron exterior. That which is unchanged and unmoved. 

China's Loss of Face: North Korea

Over the past few weeks, North Korea's spat of belligerence towards South Korea, the US, and its allies has made the American populace nervous. The American media has been riddled with stories  with questions that can not be answered with certainty. Is this new rhetoric the product of an inexperienced and unpredictable new North Korean leader? Will war break out over the Korean Peninsula? And most importantly, will North Korea attempt to strike the US with a nuclear weapon? In truth the threat from North Korea, while tangible, is far from meeting reality. North Korea is like any other county. It desires respect from the global community, and will take action when it sees necessary. 

Unfortunately for North Korea, due to its isolated diplomatic position, it can only rely on sticks as opposed to carrots. This is merely a presentation from a regime desperate for international legitimacy. Who knows. Maybe Kim Jong Un is seeking to steal the spotlight from the South's cultural sensation Gangnam Style. There is only question that truly matters in the media circus over this event. What does China think?

China is arguably North Korea's only ally. The two countries share an ideological (albeit artificial on the Chinese side) tie. Both nations are also bound together due to the Cold War experience. Apart from the bond of Communist heritage, both nations have the same geopolitical objective; keep the US out of the region, and the Chinese leadership is quick to discern that North Korean sabor rattling produces the very opposite trend.

Over the past few years, China has noted a gradual increase of American presence in the region. President Obama's Asia pivot has rendered Chinese American relations awkward. While President Obama has framed this move as economic and military engagement with Asia, in particular China, Chinese officials perceive this engagement as a hidden agenda to diplomatically and militarily encircle China. North Korea's recent threat of a nuclear launch in the near future has understandably caused alarm on the American side of the Pacific. In the midst of such uncertainty, Secretary of State Chuck Hagel has recently announced missile deployments to the US territory of Guam. This doesn't please the Chinese, who desire an Asia with minimal US intervention. The Chinese government recognizes that North Korean belligerence leads to a stronger American military presence, but North Korea sees this as a away to show the world it means business. Obviously there is a conflict of interest.

To the dismay of Beijing, newly elected conservative governments in Tokyo and Seoul have  welcomed a stronger US military presence in the Asia Pacific. It's not surprising that shortly following the announcement of the Asia pivot initiative, old territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas began to flare up between China and Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Since I have been in China, a major diplomatic crisis opened up over the Diaoyu Islands causing protests in several Chinese cities, some of which violently attacked Japanese businesses and Chinese owned Japanese eateries. Given the amount of diplomatic problems that China has to deal with already, the last thing China wants is war to erupt over the Korean peninsula. 

But most importantly, North Korea's threat of war undermines the role that China perceives of itself in Asia. Throughout its long history, China has served as the Middle Kingdom, the center of culture, economic growth, and political stability in Asia. After 150 years of humiliation and failure, the Middle Kingdom has returned to Asia. China is now the largest economic force in the region, and its wealth has trickled down to poorer Asian countries thereby creating modern tributary states. Laos and Cambodia in particular fit this description. In some ways, China's relationship with North Korea reflects that of a tributary state, a buffer state that answers to the higher authority of Beijing and pays tribute in the form of diplomatic support. However, North Korea's sudden threat of war appears to reverse the relationship. Despite Beijing's desire for a peaceful harmonious region, North Korea will act with autonomy to get what it wants. In doing so, North Korea has made China diplomatically lose face. In many ways, North Korea's actions are as much a message to China as it is to America. 

Still, despite China's disapproval of North Korea's belligerence, it will continue to respond mildly, stating that China simply supports a peaceful non-nuclear Korean peninsula. This fits the pattern of China's 5 Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which stresses sovereignty over intervention and mutual respect over moral criticism. One thing is certain, the Chinese want to avoid an armed conflict sparked by North Korea as much as we do. Allowing such an event to conspire would be the biggest loss of face since the 1842 Opium Wars.