Dear Mr. Harper:
I believe that you knew about RCMP's role in the crime perpetrated against Cecilia Zhang, even before you became the prime minister. This belief of mine, of course, came about only after my own realization about RCMP's role in the crime, a realization that changed my perspective on many fronts.
Jim Travers' column on May 4 helped me with that new understanding of RCMP, politics and media.
When Mr. Travers' column was published, I thought it was prompted by my blog posted the day before, in which I revealed that the news of RCMP's income trust probe in the middle of the election played a significant part in my assessment of the polls and in my decision of "limited participation" in the campaign. Initially, I thought Mr. Travers was criticizing RCMP for playing politics, as a few other pundits and political operatives had done. Studying his column again, however, I learned that RCMP is a "revered", "untouchable" organization with "star power" and an "iconic" image in Canada. It's almost taboo for politicians to criticize the Horsemen. But, like most other organizations, RCMP is not without its failings and Mr. Travers cited sponsorship scandal and Maher Arar affair as examples. On second reading, I also got the feeling that Mr. Travers hinted about RCMP's role in the crime against Cecilia Zhang.
With this fresh knowledge, I looked back and gained a better understanding of your words and actions after the election.
Just a week after you won the election, you paid a high-profile visit to RCMP headquarters and toured their child exploitation investigative unit. It was reported that you were particularly concerned about child exploitation cases. At the time, your visit and the photo-op stirred fresh criticism of RCMP's alleged meddling in the election and your attempt to take advantage of RCMP's iconic image. I interpreted it as a positive sign because I do think (and said so in my Report) that the underage girl(s) in my story were exploited or manipulated. Re-examining your visit, I figured that you risked those criticisms to send me (and others) a clear signal that you, like every politician else, would support RCMP unwaveringly, and thus questioning RCMP's role in Cecilia case would be off-limit.
I also remembered you said that Canada is a great country and RCMP helps making it so. (I believe you said those lines but could not be sure of the setting. Because of my illness, it's not easy for me to do thorough research now.) You repeated the same message on May 25 when you spoke to reporters at RCMP's Vancouver headquarters, just three days after I hastily visited Ottawa and contacted your office for the first time.
So I understood that blowing whistle on RCMP would jeopardize Canada's image and no politician would likely support me in that scenario. (That probably explains why the front-page throw of National Post on May 17 was OPRAH VS CANADA.) In addition, I remembered that during your very first press conference after winning the election, you, unprompted, praised the contribution Chinese Canadians made to this country and re-affirmed your party's commitment to a formal apology for the racist head tax legislation. Although head tax redress was in itself a right thing to do, I sensed, by following the development of this file, that you made a "trade-off" between these two issues. In other words, it appeared to me that you offered the head tax apology in exchange for a protection of RCMP. Of course, you did not know that I did not know RCMP's role until around May 18. (This probably explains why the age of consent legislation was introduced on the same day of the head tax apology.)
Personally, I had a mixed feeling about your proposed compromise, if that was what you intended to do. However, I also thought Canada's image on the international stage was one of its most important assets and I would loath to see it take a beating. At the time, I still had confidence in you and your judgment, having fought the issue for so long with you and other opposition politicians on my side – even though the battle was never made known to the public. Indeed, I was ready to hand my file over to you and let you and Canadian people decide where you and they wanted to take my story.
What puzzled me, though, was that you appeared to be sending me conflicting messages at the same time.
About a week after Min Chen pleaded guilty, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay "cracked nut" on CBC Radio's 8:00AM news. I don't have a recording of the newscast, but Mr. MacKay said something like "melting snow" or "melting ice".
[I should add that this was not the only time when Peter MacKay cracked this nut. For those people who do not already know, this nut has a long history. It probably started in Paul Martin's bizarre – that's why I remembered it - campaign rhetoric in the final week of the campaign, although I did not recognize at the time it was a nut-cracking in response to my last Report. U.S. ambassador David Wilkins also cracked this nut around the time of your Cancun meeting, using "spring thaw" to describe Canada-U.S. relations.]
The message you, through your Foreign Affairs deputy Peter MacKay, were trying to convey seemed to be: If I questioned the role RCMP played in the crime perpetrated against Cecilia Zhang, you would not collaborate with my interpretation of the blog Summer Hibernation. In short, you issued a threat against me.
I have provided a full interpretation of that blog already. I knew it was an important and serious matter. That's why I went all the way and wrote a long blog (Canadian Election 2006: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8) about the last election to back up my explanation. In doing so, I hoped that others – that would include you, sir – would fill in the rest of story. I do not know what your real intent was in issuing the threat, but for you to deny that my file was at the center of last election would be a mockery of democracy.
Besides, you should know the problem with my blog was in the over-reaction by the Bush administration, which was beyond my control. To paraphrase a legal jargon, it was an act of a Buddha. (And a merciful one, too, because my previous "technical analysis" of Sino-America nuclear imbalance could be wrong.)
Looking elsewhere, I saw mainstream media attacking my credibility as a result of the show trial. For example, see Washington Post's editorial pages on May 12. Of all the political and intellectual elites, Warren Kinsella was the most vicious one. On the very day when Min Chen pleaded guilt, he started threatening me with lawsuit, attacking my credibility and generally spinning the story on his blog.
Obviously, RCMP and some people in the political establishments worked hand in hand on my file, and provided cover to each other. Given how professionally the trial was turned into a show, I am wondering if political interference extended into the courtroom.
In short, to say that I was dealt with a severe blow by the "trial" and related events is an understatement. During the days following the "trial", lots of shocking information I had to absorb, lots of emotions went through mind. I could sense there were powerful, dark forces at work behind the scene. I wanted to do something but was practically at a loss.
On Saturday, May 20, Norman Spector appeared to be giving me a hint to go to Ottawa on his daily press review, with words such as "Vancouverites would die to be back east today" and "vote with their feet". Since I had to report daily to my Bail Officer, I made a hasty decision to fly to Ottawa on Sunday evening to take advantage of the long weekend. I was quite hopeful to be able to meet someone in your office the next day. And I was ready to hand over my file to you and release myself of any active role in the subsequent development. Unfortunately, nobody in your office ever returned my call.
On June 1, I felt I could not keep my silence any more, having been under attack for weeks. So I posted my first blog about the case since the "trial", in which I re-affirmed my earlier allegations, with a strong conviction. Incredibly, the next day, another big news was in the making: RCMP/CSIS arrested 17 suspected terrorists in Toronto.
According to media report, RCMP/CSIS controlled the sale and delivery of three tonnes of ammonium nitrate to this group of suspected terrorists. Once the deal was done, the RCMP moved in for the arrests. This raised the question of whether the arrests were prompted by my blog the day before, as the RCMP/CSIS feared that my next blog entry might expose their wrongdoings in Cecilia Zhang case and they wanted to create a big news to divert the attention.
I did not follow the terrorism case very closely at the time as I put energy into writing my next blog, which was on Min Chen's motive. It backed up my even stronger conviction on my allegation. After I posted this blog, Warren Kinsella stopped his malicious attacks on me and instead, kept saying "I am not afraid" on his blog. But on the other part of the political establishments, the Mulroneyites launched their coordinated attack on our perceived compromising approach. On June 6, Greg Weston of Ottawa Sun attacked you for the perceived working with me. On June 7, Geoff Matthews, also of Ottawa Sun, went a step further and cracked the nut about my blog Summer Hibernation. On June 8, both Greg Weston and Simon Jenkins of The Guardian cracked the nut about some "fall guy". I guess they meant Matthew Li.
I am not sure if the Mulroneyites had any direct influence on you. My sense is that they took their orders directly from Washington. No wonder the first column Pat MacAdam wrote after the "trial" was titled and about some "Amber room". He knew I read his column every week and he wanted to give me the hint – which I didn't get at the time - about the Amber Alert in Cecilia Zhang case so as to set us onto a confrontational course. Apparently, a confrontational course was what Washington wanted to see.
As I said before, as an immigrant, I wish for good international relations among all countries, especially Canada, United States and China. "The last thing I want is to be seen as someone who either causes worsening of Canada-US relations, or challenges US interest on its turf, especially with the perception that Chinese government was backing me." That's why I did not initiate any contact with your government until I sensed there was a problem.
Still, I find your conflicting massages puzzling and your continued silence on my file unsettling. You appear to be different from when you were at the opposition or on the campaign trail. For example, when you were at the opposition, you said you weren't blinded by ideology. But now you look like Bush's ideological sole mate. We live in a diverse world. If you constantly look for differences, rather than similarities, between you and other people, you will just be a leader for fewer and fewer people.
These criticisms may be hard for you to swallow. And you may question my bias. If you feel you are in a difficult position, you can always tell Canadian people the whole story and seek wise guidance from them.
Sincerely,
Jim Yu
