Social Experiment

Last week I was able to conduct an interesting social experiment in my classes. The lesson topic was Super Heroes and the language objective was reinforcements of basic plurals and singulars. Out of this mixture arose an interesting game, which required critical thinking and consideration of ethics.

I set up six teams in the classroom and gave each team a few super heroes. I then gave the class a series of scenarios where two different locations needed help at the same time, one an individual one a group.

There were several different choices to consider such as whether to save a woman who had been kidnapped by pirates or a group of old women who had their money stolen and between helping cars in a traffic jam or a broken down bus full of school children. I got several interesting and amusing answers such as: I will help the woman because she’s sexy, I will help the old women because the elderly should come first, I will help the old women because I like money, I will help the bus because children are our future and they need an education, and I will help the cars because I hate school. 

But the scenario I thought produced the most interesting results was a choice between a political official (Xi Jin Ping/ Li Ke Qiang) who had been kidnapped and a robbery where several peoples’ lives were in danger and the bank account of hundreds of people could potentially be stolen. In almost all the classes, the results were half and half. I got quite the diversity of answers.

Some groups chose to save the political official because he is important for the country, but others would pick the people. One boy said he would pick the people because the loss of all that money would severally damage the economy. Another girl said that she would save the people because another leader could always be selected to replace the assassinated leader but a country would be nothing without its people. Another boy made a very bold statement when he quoted Mao Zedong as saying that all people are equal regardless of position, pretty much stating that it doesn’t matter how important Xi Jin Ping is. In a choice between saving lives, the many always comes before the one. One kid plainly blurted out that he didn’t like Xi Jin Ping at all and so he wanted to save the people!! Instead of gasped this statement only received laughter from his fellow students.

This game demonstrated to me that even at a young age, Chinese people have little patriotic obsession over their technocratic leaders, and in the right setting you can get a lot of dissenting opinions out of them.

However this doesn’t mean that Chinese people completely speak freely about their opinions regarding political officials. In one class, a group of educators sat in and observed the session. They seemed to generally enjoy the lesson, but they did have an effect on student answers in regards to this scenario. Only one team picked the people in the robbery over the political official in this class, and all the answers in support of saving the official came off as a bland statement referencing how important Xi Jin Ping was for the country and how China wouldn’t be able to progress without him. Given the circumstances I decided not to press the students on their answers.

However, I don’t want to give the impression that all teachers and educators mindlessly support the Communist Party. While party members usually head school administrations, I have talked to a few teachers at my school (all female too) who have openly denounced the effects of the Cultural Revolution on Chinese society. But like their students, these teachers are far less bold in front of their superiors.

Also my neighborhood in Shenzhen (Overseas Chinese Town) is unique in China. Shenzhen itself is sort of a bubble. It’s a special economic zone that has been officially capitalist for thirty years. It’s right next to Hong Kong where newspapers and books with views not condoned by the Communist Party can be easily purchased. Most people in the inner districts own their own computer and even in the outer districts an Internet Café isn’t too far away. Most importantly, the economic prosperity, wealth, and opportunity that can be found in Shenzhen has bolstered a vibrant Middle Class in areas such as my neighborhood of OCT/Window of the World.

An area dominated by a Middle Class is more likely to have a louder and more diverse array of opinions as opposed to some village in Guizhou where people don’t have the luxury to ponder the socioeconomic issues facing 21^st Century China.  Shenzhen is way ahead of most of China in regards to political and economic perspectives. However, Shenzhen is a good place to observe changing Chinese perspectives that within 10-20 years very well could be the norm. 

Loony Toons with Socialist Characteristics: Analyzing Chinese Cartoons

While Chinese animation isn’t nearly as developed and fruitful as American or Japanese animation, there are a few shows that adopt the typical cartoon formula that draws in young audiences. The most famous cartoon in China ix Xi Yang Yang (Pleasant Goat) who co starts with his arch nemesis Hui Tai Lang (Big Bad Wolf).

The cartoon has received numerous awards over the past 10 years and is widely known by children throughout China. It’s simple cheerful music and mild violent antics make for great entertainment for those who are learning Chinese like me. The language is easy to follow and the plot line is predictable. Hui Tai Lang always tries to capture Xi Yang Yang and his other sheep friends for dinner only to find that his plans were in vain when Xi Yang Yang discovers a clever and painful way to defeat him. In many ways Xi Yang Yang is the Chinese Loony Toons, applying the plot line of a hunted underdog hero who always overcomes his bumbling hunter antagonist. However, Xi Yang Yang is not without its Chinese characteristics and when looked at closely, the show reveals a socialist theme.

Unlike the witty Bugs Bunny who defeats the Odious Elmer Fudd and erratic Yosemite Sam single handedly, or Road Runner who leads Wile E Cyote into his own traps, Xi Yang Yang is amongst a community of other sheep. It is Hui Tai Lang, the antagonist who is outnumbered, which leads the viewer to support a unified community over that of a single malicious individual who strays from the pack. Hui Tai Lang is depicted in dirty peasant clothing with a scar across his face, and it’s not hard to discern that his murderous actions are self-seeking.

However, Hui Tai Lang is not completely without company. He has a wife who he always refers to as La Po (my love/ honey-pie). The style of La Po’s outfit couldn’t be farther from her husband’s. She is dressed in a Queen’s robe with a crown adorn in jewels and their abode is a dark castle inn the woods. La Po also is characterized by her hot temper, which frequently leads to Hui Tai Lang being whacked in the head by a frying pan when his plans fail to bring positive results, which of course they never do. He also has one son (the gift most Chinese parents want), who often betrays his farther by siding with Xi Yang Yang who he views as a friend. To his chagrin, Hui Tai Lang’s failure to catch Xi Yang Yang reveals the lack of power he has over his own household as he cowers under the threat of his wife’s frying pan.

Essentially, Hui Tai Lang is the unlucky capitalist; seeking to destroy the community paradise the sheep live by attempting to eat them for personal gain. These attributes, according the show, are not virtuous and they lead to Hui Tai Lang flying off into the distance in Team Rocket fashion due to some explosion or crash screaming “Xi Yang Yang wo hui lai!!” (Xi Yang Yang I will be back!). Even Hui Tai Lang’s son is forced to forsake his father for the stability of the community over individual selfishness.

Xi Yang Yang isn’t the only Chinese cartoon to do this. Another cartoon involving an overly confident hunter and some bears and other various forest animals also employs the group protagonist vs. individual antagonist dynamic. What’s even more amusing about this cartoon is the hunter is dressed like a typical American redneck in full camou attire, toting ridiculously large guns and a superfluous supply of bullets.  This may be a jab at the lack of American gun control provisions. Private gun ownership is illegal in China.

Given Xi Yang Yang’s success in advancing socialist ideals to children, one would think that the Chinese government would support its broadcast. However, due to a recent incident in Jiangsu Province involving the burning of a child by another child who was imitating the show, the government has had the show censored until it can produce episodes devoid of violence, meaning devoid of typical cartoon antics, which is the whole point of animation. Still, if the show continues to run, you can expect the community protagonist structure to continue to be in play. 

On American Exceptionalism

Following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement to the American people in the New York Times, a tirade of responses washed upon the media from all sides of the political spectrum.  CNN’s Crossfire provided a perfect example of left and right America’s united condemnation of Putin’s curt denial that America is an exceptional nation when Van Jones joined Newt Gingrich in trumpeting America’s exceptional status.

Jones and Gingrich went on to say that America is indeed an exceptional nation due to its founding ideals and the historical progress to materialize the promise of those ideals from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. The pair referenced how America redeemed itself from slavery, its original sin, through the struggle of the Civil War. They also discussed how present day American society provides equal opportunity to all people through the virtue of personal liberty. While there is plenty of truth to this illustration of American exceptionalism, none of what Jones and Gingrich actually said responds to the points Putin was making in his Op Ed.

Vladimir Putin’s article directly referred to American foreign policy, by asserting that it is dangerous to rationalize military action on another country based on some self righteous assumption that the ideals guiding your government’s decision making are somehow exceptional. Historically speaking, Putin is right. From the Spanish American War onwards, American foreign policy has been far from exceptional. For 130 years, America has been on a slow path towards empire that has ended in reluctant hegemony.

America is no more exceptional than the British, Spanish, or Roman empires of the past. Far from being a beacon of hope, America has merely continued to carry the torch of the Western imperial tradition. America has often sold its ideals for pragmatism by supporting oppressive regimes around the world including the Iranian Shah, General Diem in South Vietnam, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

In 1898, following the overthrow their Spanish imperial overlords, the so-called beacon of hope crushed the Philippines’ right to democracy and self-determination by refusing to grant the island nation independence. Since the 1950s our government has consistently sided with the Pakistani side of the partition instead of India the largest democracy on earth, despite the fact that Pakistan is ruled by a corrupt dictatorship frequently plagued with military coups and has proven to be an untrustworthy ally by providing a haven to America’s greatest enemies.

Time and time again throughout the 20^th century, America seemed to be on the wrong side of freedom and revolution. Many of the past century’s George Washington’s including Nelson Mandala, Salvador Allende, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, and even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were enemies of the American government.

Instead of inciting a progressive path towards the global implementation of America’s ideals in the freedom from want and freedom from fear, our government has done the opposite. After bailing out Europe and Japan with the Marshall Plan following World War Two, the American government refused to pass the successful program onto the third world. Instead, in the 1980s, The Reagan Administration established a system of structural adjustments that the developing world must abide by to receive economic aid from the IMF. As a result, the developing world has been forced into accepting a perpetual state of dependency on the developed world thereby ensuring that there will always be a world defined by a separation of excess and hunger.

In the 21^st century, America’s imperial identity has only gotten worse. Following the September 11^th attacks, the American government responded with a series of security reforms that led to the atrophy of liberty. The feelings of fear and anger following the 2001 terrorist attacks eventually led to an unwarranted attack on Iraq despite unanimous worldwide opposition.  The War on Terrorism has led to a new evolution of warfare conducted by unmanned aircraft ignorant of national borders and secret courts and prisons blind to ethics and justice.

Has there been any good that has come from the American empire? Sure we had a few successes in post war Germany, Japan, and South Korea. American global leadership has also seen the rise of the UN, the worldwide economy, and the Internet. But every empire leaves something good behind. For instance, the British Empire left the world Singapore, Hong Kong, and they left India a system of government, a unified language, and a national train system.

The American empire is very real and it is potent if you are willing to accept it. By doing so you accept the fact that America is not an exceptional nation in terms of the issues that Putin is discussing. Instead of Roman phalanxes or white helmets with monocles, our empire comes in the form of formally dressed businessmen clad in custom made suits armed with brief cases full of figures, derivatives, algorithms, and contracts.

This is simply a reality that we must accept as the global hegemon. By recognizing this perhaps we as Americans can learn to think introspectively about the consequences of our actions be they military or diplomatic instead of simply accepting the intellectually lazy argument that we our special and we can do no wrong. That is what Putin is trying to remind us, so perhaps we should heed his word of caution. 

Manufacturing the Chinese Dream

Recently, the Chinese media has liberally used a new term called "The Chinese Dream" modeled after the commonly phrased "American Dream." As an American, I already find the "American Dream" to be too loaded a phrase to take seriously. But not only it the Chinese Dream a loaded phrase, its as of now, a term void of definition meaning that any clever writer can fill it's cup with any artificial nectar and media fanfare they so please. Yesterday I read an article from Xinhua analyzing the subtle and suspicious differences between the Chinese and American Dreams. Not to my surprise, I was bombarded with CCP propaganda and rhetorical nonsense. 

First: The Chinese Dream focuses on the strength and prosperity of the nation while the American Dream focuses on that of the individual. Regarding this distinction, the article reveals nothing about America despite its geographical advantages, natural resources, and recent decline. Since America doesn't have to worry about as many security problems it can focus on the individual. But the Chinese Dream requires a strong nation due to China's violent history. Based on my experience, Chinese people worry more about internal threats as opposed to external threats. China is the strongest country in Asia, it has nothing to fear from a serious rival power in the region (besides maybe the US). If anything, the Chinese fear the possibility of being forced out of their house by the government, by an earthquake that could crush the shoddy construction foundations of their local schools or hospitals, or the lack of ability to purchase a house due to skyrocketing housing prices.  

Second: The Chinese Dream is about the revitalization of the people, the American Dream is about the success of the people. In my opinion, I think both of these have remained as dreams as opposed to realities. But if you take a good look at both societies, America (despite the Recession) has done a much better job than China has in fulfilling its "dream". In America, albeit rarely, we can witness the accomplishment's of personal success. In China, I have yet to see any person that I would consider "revitalized". Much of Chinese culture and civilization had been destroyed and ripped from its roots during the Cultural Revolution. Today's younger Chinese have little to believe in other than test scores and materialism. Indeed, China's reforms to Capitalism have defined the Chinese individual to an extreme matched to Mao's socialist reforms in the 1950s and 60s. Today Chinese people are defined by their material wealth. Who has the nicest apartment, most loyal wife, hottest mistress, tallest high heels, shiniest watch, most durable man purse, and my favorite longest camera lens (I'm convinced this is a phallic symbol). Of course, most Chinese can't afford these things, so the other side of the coin is the mass sea of factory workers who see themselves as little more than parts in a giant machine. Either of these alternatives is far from a revitalization. Culturally, the revitalization efforts have been even worse since all Chinese Opera, Minority Costume, and artistry has been reduced to a state of banality designed for tourists. True China has experienced growth in the past 30 years, but forests of construction cranes can not be substituted as a revitalization effort.

Third: The Chinese Dream builds a harmonious society, The American Dream ensures the happiness and freedom of the individual. I mostly agree with this assessment although I would correct Xinhua by saying that the American Dream strives for "the pursuit of happiness" as opposed to happiness itself. In China, harmony and the satisfaction of the people are valued above anything else. This is because throughout Chinese history, during eras plagued by the  dissatisfaction of the people, chaos, war, and starvation descended upon the empire thereby allowing for the collapse of the old establishment and the rise of a new dynasty. However, these chaotic periods would last for generations, sometimes hundreds of years. However, the article does make an uneasy comparison between the nation of China and the family. It says 家和万事兴 meaning that a harmonious family can take on any obstacle. It goes on to say that like a family, the Chinese people share to ensure the welfare of all China's citizens. Nothing could be farther from the truth. People in China keep to themselves. When there is a traffic collision, no one will aid the victims. They will simply stand and stare awkwardly. Han chinese, the ethnic majority, look to minority Chinese citizens such as Hui, Miao, Mongolian, Uighur, and Tibetan peoples as outsiders who lack the civilized nature of those who apart of the Middle Kingdom. The best example of Chinese selfishness is the wealth and power accumulated by corrupt Community Party officials who make their money by performing shady deals which disregard the peoples' welfare. Chinese people may be generous with people "within their family" but not complete strangers. 

Fourth: China's Dream is based on its long history, America's Dream is based on experience. This basically belittled the American Dream due to America's short history, while China is far more wise because of it's long history.

Fifth: This last bit was the most descriptive regarding the article's true message. China's Dream is for the glory of the people, while the American Dream is for the individual's glory. By the peoples' glory, the article states a salvation from past humiliations and disasters, followed by respect for the people, safety of the country, and the ability of all people to work happily and live safely. These demands do not come from the "dreams" of the Chinese people. Like the dream itself, these were manufactured by the government. A harmonious society and an acknowledgement of respect from the rest of the world are not the objectives of the average Chinese citizen. But if the CCP media wants to project a "dream" that truly reflects that of the peoples', perhaps they should start with a government that actually represents the peoples' interests  instead of representing their own. 

Here is a link to the Xinhua article: http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2013-05/28/c_115940154_4.htm 

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.