I cried today

Haven't done that for a long time.

 

But I felt good afterwards.

 

I think I am getting ready.

 

 

Nuclear issue redux

Some of the pundits, in response to my October 27 blog, brought up the nuclear issue again. They wanted me to deal with the three possible controversies out of my writings:

1. My blog Summer Hibernation on August 24, 2005.

2. My use of the quote "All reactionaries are paper tigers" in my second report on January 17, 2006.

3. The following paragraph from my open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on August 2: "[T]he problem with my blog [Summer Hibernation] 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.)"

Contrary to what some of the pundits suggested, I did not make any mistakes in any of the above writings. All of them are very appropriate writings within their separate context. The first two did not even have anything to do with the nuclear issue. And I think I have provided adequate information to deal with the first two controversies.

It is totally outlandish for some pundits to suggest that I am a jihadist because of my third writing above. Without a shred of substance – I don't even consider myself religious -- they attacked my motive simply because of my choice of the word, Buddha. If they have even the most rudimentary knowledge about China, they should know that never in its history have the Chinese gone to war in the name of religion. Who has heard of a Buddhist jihadist?

When I wrote my open letter to Stephen Harper, I felt I had to deal with the nuclear controversy because (1) Harper government had been towing the line of the Bush administration in tagging me a nuclear terrorist when they clearly knew that my original blog Summer Hibernation was meant to provide a political principle/strategy - to him, no less - for the coming federal election; and (2) Dr. Jiang's nuclear physics background might have contributed to his death. As I saw it, I would need to write at least two more articles -- which, as it turned out, I was only able to finish doing two months later -- in order to adequately deal with the issue. Because of my health problems, I was literally in great pain lying in bed at the time. All I could do was to write a couple of sentences' summary in a long letter. How I wished that somebody could interview me so that I could get everything out at once! (My situation was not that different from the one on February 3, 2005 when several pundits ganged up on me on national newspapers and I, not being a writer, could only write a summary Untitled in the evening as a response. I should note that the then opposition leader Stephen Harper seized the opportunity and called the then Prime Minister Paul Martin an "artless dodger" the next day.)

Maybe some pundits found my choice of the word Buddha, a foreign divinity, offensive. I chose the word Buddha clearly because I wanted to use the phrase "merciful Buddha" to convey the meaning of pure good luck. I saw some pundit later talked about "divine intervention". But I wouldn't go that far. I was just thankful that no military conflict materialized and nobody got hurt. (Generally speaking, divinity is better left out of our discussion of earthly matters. After all, who are we to contemplate what's in God's mind?)

The problem with the whole controversy was in the over-reaction on the part of Bush administration by releasing the media nuclear bomb in response to my blog Summer Hibernation, which had nothing to do with nuke. Taking away Bush administration's over-reaction, there would not be any logical connection between my first two writings above, no matter how you would like to interpret them.

However, it was only after I had realized that Bush's media nuke was an over-reaction to a misinterpretation of my blog that I found out that I had unwittingly spelled out the truth about Sino-U.S. nuclear relations. And this uncovered truth might have been a major contributing factor in stopping a looming war across Taiwan Straits.

 

 

In my blogs written in the spring, I stated that it was after I saw a looming conflict across Taiwan Straits at the end of February that I risked complicating my own legal situation to put everything I knew on the table. Looking back, the looming conflict was a very real one. But a potential military conflict was eventually avoided because (1) intentionally, I busted the "grandest conspiracy" to instigating a war across Taiwan Straits by the Bush administration, Koizumi government, Paul Martin and Taiwan secessionists, undermining the moral basis for such a war; and (2) unintentionally, I spelled out the truth about Sino-U.S. nuclear relations, i.e., that there is an "asymmetrical nuclear balance" between these two countries that would result in a mutually assured destruction (MAD).

Policy background

There are two aspects of Bush administration's China policy: an engagement one and a containment one. "The grandest conspiracy" I busted in late February was actually a manifestation of Bush administration's policy of containing China militarily. As Professor Michael T. Klare, an expert on peace and world security at Hampshire College, wrote in an article on Tomdispatch.com in April: "… the grand strategy of the Bush administration … is not aimed primarily at the defeat of global terrorism, the incapacitation of rogue states, or the spread of democracy in the Middle East…. The truly commanding objective … is the containment of China."

Other key points of the article:

The policy of containing China is devised by the hawks of the Bush administration: Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice.

Japan is a key part of the containment framework.

Taiwan is the flash point.

Not sure if India has signed up.

However, most other countries regard the attempt to contain China as a bad idea. For example, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer distanced himself from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just before Rice's arrival in Sydney in mid-March to attend a strategic alliance conference with her Japanese and Australian counterparts, stating publicly that his country does not "support [the American] policy of containment of China...[which] would be a very big mistake. And the British appeared to agree. The then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a speech at Smith Institute on April 26 that China's rise is an opportunity.

 

Diplomatic Front

Rice speech at Georgetown

On January 18, 2006, the day after I published my second report for Canadian election, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a major speech at Georgetown University in Washington. Although she did not single out China specifically, it was apparent that China would be a major focus of what she dubbed as the Bush administration's new "transformational diplomacy".

Continuing the theme in her "action plan for Canadian election" article on Washington Post on December 11, 2005, Rice again talked about the concept of " fundamental character" in an apparent reference to me: "Fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power."

·

Related link: Stephen Harper spoke during a campaign event in Toronto on January 5, 2006: "I see a city whose fundamental character is beginning to change."

 

AIT appointment

Also on the same day, U.S. government announced the appointment of Stephen M. Young as the new director of American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), often called its de facto embassy. Mr. Young, U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan at the time, was referred to by the media as the "field commander" of a color revolution in a central Asian country (presumably Kyrgyzstan).

·

Related Link: Young's recent comments about arms sale to Taiwan

 

Panda politics

Panda is the most important symbol of Sino-U.S. friendship. However, it was reported around this time that a number of American zoos complained the panda fees were too high. Even British deputy Prime Minister John Prescott ridiculed such a complaint.

 

Propaganda Front

Separatist/Imperialist

Three days after I published my second report, The Guardian newspaper, besides cracking nuts on the timing of the Bin Laden tape in its editorial, suggested that I could be labeled a Chinese imperialist. See Jonathan Steele's column The textbook whitewash of our brutish empire is a lie, and Simon Jenkins' Of course the Chinese didn't discover America. But then nor did Columbus.

This kind of propaganda was in line with Paul Martin's accusation on CKNW that I – who else could it be? - was a separatist trying to split off Pacific Gateway, "a tremendous national asset", from the rest of Canada.

Do not think these reasons were far-fetched, As we saw in the case of the Iraq War, when it comes to start a war, the Bush administration does not need much reasoning.

"War on terror"

Because of 9/11, the concept of "war on terror" is an easy sell to the American public. Logically, the easiest way for the Bush administration to go to war with China is to tie China to terrorism. This explains why Bush administration kept trying to tie me – potentially the 5 ^{th generation of Chinese leader – to terrorism.}

Early 2005

See my second report about the then U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci's remarks in early 2005 about me.

January 20, 2006

Just a couple of days after I published my second report, another Bin Laden tape surfaced. The Guardian editorial on January 20, In the Shadow of Bin Laden, cracked nuts about the intriguing timing of the tape.

February 3, 2006

China was left out of a U.S.-hosted anti-terror meeting organized by Pentagon. According to Kurt Campbell, a former senior Pentagon official, "the only U.S. agency that has difficulty clearing a meeting with China is the office of the secretary of defense."

February 17, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech on using media to fight terrorism in which he used the word reactionary or it variants.

June 9, 2006

On June 3, I posted my blog Analysis of Min Chen's Motive. Using facts and logic, I stated that I had become more convinced of my earlier allegation that Canadian government was involved in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder and poked holes in the so-called "trial" of May 9. As a result, it looked that my story was going to break soon.

Days later (on June 9), U.S. Embassy in Beijing issued a warning about possible terrorist threat in China. It turned out there was no threat at all. The purpose of issuing such a warning was to affect the mass psychology. In case my explosive story did break around that time, people would associate me with terrorism.

Actually, a pattern emerged on the part of Bush administration to try to associate Chinese people with terrorism. I can think of two additional cases. One was related to me. Another one might not be related to me personally, but was related to Chinese people in general.

The one incident that I am sure was related to my situation was produced from the same mode of design as the one above. In November 2005, U.S. Embassy in Beijing (or a Consulate in another city) issued a terror warning in China. It occurred after I had generated some media momentum after my protest on Pattullo Bridge on October 31. Of course, the warning was just a warning, as it turned out.

The other incident was the Boston dirty bomb scare of 2005. I am not sure if this one was related to me. (I was in Ottawa at the time.) But the timing was just too peculiar. The anonymous tip that started the hoax came on the day before President Bush's inauguration in January 2005. Although the public soon realized that the whole incident was nothing more than a hoax, the damage had already been done when distinctive Chinese namesakes were splashed on newspaper and TV screens connected to radioactive terrorism on a day of presidential inauguration.

I found Bush administration's attempt to associate Chinese people with terrorism or extremism ludicrous. China, with a culture engrained with a long history of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, is the nature home of moderation in this polarized world. But such was the war propaganda.

Nuclear war propaganda?

In the March 2006 issue of the influential Foreign Affairs, which was published at the end of February, the lead article was The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy by Professor Keir A. Lieber, the University of Notre Dame, and Professor Daryl G. Press, the University of Pennsylvania. The gist of their article was then widely reported by the mainstream media.

Given the timing, one of the effects of this article was essentially the (incorrect) assurance to the American people that they should not worry about a potential nuclear war with China.

I noticed that, after the tension across Taiwan Straits eased, the professors' thesis was refuted by, among others, U.S. government officials in a fall issue of the same magazine.

Military Front

As mentioned in Professor Klare's article, the U.S. Navy announced in mid-February that in the summer, it would "conduct its most extensive military maneuvers in the Western Pacific since the end of the Vietnam War, with four aircraft carrier battle groups and many support ships expected to participate".

By the time U.S. Navy did carry out these exercises, the tension eased across Taiwan Straits had already been eased. In fact, Chinese military observers were invited to at lease one of them. Military exchanges appeared to be frequent between these countries recently.

"Winning without fighting"

On April 20, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited the White House. I believe my file was at the top of both president's heads during the visit.

It was widely reported just before the visit that the gift the Chinese delegation would bring to the White House was the classic work The Art of War, often with the famous description that "winning without fighting is the best strategy".

By then, I guess a war had been avoided. And everyone is a winner.

 

 

Be forewarned

Not much was new in my truthful, innocuous blog posted on October 27. If you have been following my journey, you already knew I am a huge admirer of Mr. Buffett's and that I have writing difficulties along my way. Indeed, many of the words and phrases in the posting could be found in either my previous blogs or in the letter I wrote to Mr. Buffett at the end of August.

That's why, as I mentioned in my previous blog, I was surprised to see so many strong reactions to it. That's also why I am posting three blogs at once. -- If every word I write elicits all sorts of interpretations, speculations and reactions, I'd better put out as many words as possible at one time. Then I won't have to spend a lot of time and energy to go through them. Unlike a president or a prime minister who has dozens, if not hundreds, of people working for him, I am only human and can only handle so much.

 

One of the reactions to my blog that shocked me was that some pundits again brought up the issue of my dignity photos or videos to intimidate me.

I am fully aware that the killer, i.e., RCMP/CSIS, had my dignity photos or videos. I am confident that RCMP/CSIS is capable of such extreme nastiness as to "leak" those photos or videos to the public domain, as demonstrated by their leaking damaging (and untrue) information about Mehar Arar to the media. Because of that, I have to issue a warning to the Harper government, the guardian of Canadian tax-payer money: I WILL SUE IF MY PRIVACY IS VIOLATED BY YOUR GOVERNMENT AND I WILL SUE BIG TIME.

Be forewarned.

 

 

My life under the crossfire of politics and law

After posting my October 27 blog, in which I announced that I would stop writing about my story and reiterated my goal and desire to be Mr. Warren Buffett's apprentice, I thought I could finally take my mind off the development of my story and concentrate on catching up with Mr. Buffett. But I could not. Actually, I was totally shocked by the reactions to my truthful, innocuous blog. What's more, I also became increasingly worried about my upcoming court appearances associated with my protest on Pattullo Bridge last year.

I have to write again. I feel like I'm under the crossfire of politics and law.

Mehar Arar, who was detained by US immigration officials at JFK Airport likely based on false and misleading information furnished by RCMP and who was later tortured in Syria following the "extraordinary rendition" by American authorities, says that he lives a double life in that the memories of torture still comes back regularly to haunt him. [Edited 20061212]

I guess I live a double life too -- an extraordinarily unusual one online and an extraordinarily bland one offline. But unlike Mr. Arar's, both aspects of my life are real.

Online life

I devote most of my energy to my "public" life interacting with "people in the loop" via media and Internet, in order to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and, let's not forget Dr. Guobing Jiang) and myself. In the course of my endeavor, I had to be drawn into politics and write about it. Apparently, my writing has drawn quite a following among politicians and pundits, both here in Canada and abroad.

The latest example would be about the report I had given up writing: The Politics of Polarization, Propaganda and Peaceful Coexistence.

May - June, 2006

One of the main ideas of my proposed report came from my own experience and observations after I realized in May that RCMP/CSIS was the culprit of Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder. Mostly out of the desire to protect Canada's image, I took a moderate response so as to make it easier for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to provide his political leadership in my file. And I justified my action in my blog The Meaning of Justice on June 19: "Moderation is a valued temperament in this polarized world". Unfortunately, Mr. Harper failed to do that and another tragedy occurred in Toronto in July.

August 2, 2006

Just hours after I posted the second half of my open letter to Stephen Harper on August 2 – prompted by the death of Dr. Guobing Jiang - Warren Kinsella said in a blog posted on National Post website that "one-sided ceasefire" means suicide. I believe he was talking about Dr. Jiang's death, except that as a spin doctor, he twisted my act of political moderation into "one-sided ceasefire" with the killer.

September 18, 2006

I set up a template for my proposed report in the evening of September 18. I did not put out any content except for the title: The Politics of Polarization, Propaganda and Peaceful Coexistence.

September 19, 2006

In his speech to United Nations, President Bush expressed his desire to work with moderates of other countries.

September 27, 2006

In hosting the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, President Bush said: "The forces of moderation are being challenged by extremists and radicals." Mr. Bush also suggested that supporting moderation and defeating extremism go hand in hand.

September 29, 2006

In hosting Kazakh president, Mr. Bush again pleaded to "support the forces of moderation throughout the world".

Memo to President Bush: To work with the moderates, you have to moderate your own behavior first. It's always easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk.

Late September to early October, 2006

In a series of columns on Washington Post, David S. Broder tried to provide some input – from Bush's point of view – for my report. I appreciate his efforts. Thanks but no thanks.

October 3, 2006

Secretary Condoleezza Rice in Saudi Arabia: "First of all, we have made very clear that we believe that all parties now in the region need to be dedicated to helping particularly these young government in places like Lebanon and Iraq and to help the Palestinians. But the way that one does that is to support the moderate forces that are fighting those who are extremists and are fighting those who would use terror as a political weapon."

In fact, Rice saw her entire Middle East tour of that week as an opportunity to "rally moderate forces and moderate voices".

October 9, 2006

Foreign Minister Peter MacKay said about North Korea's nuclear test: "Everyone is going to have to moderate their response in the short term, so as not to cause an improper reaction."

Note 1: In part 2 of my open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on August 2, I said that "the problem with my blog [Summer Hibernation] was in the over-reaction by the Bush administration [with a media nuke]."

Note 2: Iraq War was an unnecessary over-reaction to 9/11 by the Bush administration.

Note on Note 2 (20061210): No puns intended. The sooner the Americans realize that over-reaction to terrorism - a voilent form of extremism - plays into the hands of terrorists, the more efficient of a war on terror they can fight.

Note 3: This rare change of heart by MacKay revealed that, after all, he knew what's right. Whether to have the courage to do what's right is the true test of leadership.

October 12, 2006

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett on Guantanamo Bay : "The existence of the camp is as much a radicalising and discrediting influence as it is a safeguard to security."

I fully agree.

October 27, 2006

I announced that I wouldn't be writing the report.

October 28, 2006

Lee Teng-hui stole a page from Bush's playbook above. Again, it's ironic to see a radical Taiwan secessionist to steal my idea of moderation.

I am flattered with this kind of attention to my writing ever since I started my journey more than two years ago. At the same time, I am also frustrated that my cause has been totally ignored and my offline life continues to be miserable.

Offline life

Maybe you haven't thought about my miserable offline life too much. I seldom wrote about it because I did not want to bore you.

It's a tough life not only because of the many problems I have to deal with - financial problems, health problems, legal problems, to name just a few – but also because of the bareness of it. I do not know how to answer a question as simple as "What do you do for a living", let along uttering a word about my online life to people around me lest they think I am crazy.

But the worst part of my life was to have RCMP/CSIS on my tail. Just take a look at some of incidents that I mentioned in my previous reports and blogs. Now that I know RCMP/CSIS was the culprit of Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder, logically, those incidents were the works of RCMP/CSIS, too. And they all make sense to me now. For example,

·

I wrote in my first report about an Internet incident in March 2001 where somebody seemed to be able to exert some control over the Internet to deliver individualized information to the public computer I was using. Often times, I wondered how it could be possible. Now I understand it was the job of RCMP/CSIS, acting in concert with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC).

·

Somebody was able to detect the existence of a cell phone I purchased anonymously for the singular purpose of communicating with Mr. Warren Buffett in May 2002. I thought it would take some really resourceful people to pull off such an activity. Now I understand that it was the work of RCMP/CSIS.

·

When I was preparing to file my own civil case in fall 2002, the calls I made – most of them were of a legal nature - using the public telephone in the New Westminster courthouse library seemed to have been monitored. I used to think that such activities were too brazen to be attributed to any individuals. Now I understand they were the works of RCMP/CSIS.

·

Of course, I now know the infamous videotaping of me in or around my residence from 2002 to 2004 was conducted by RCMP/CSIS - which was before they killed Cecilia Zhang - and likely continued after I came back from Ottawa in summer 2005, which may explain a couple of my failed attempts to make friends.

I believe that my current Bail Officer, who took over my bail file at the end of March, is a spy. I also believe that RCMP/CSIS has always been working on people around me to, among other things, try to instigate conflict and spread rumors about me. All these just make my tough life almost unbearable.

Legal case

What worries me most is that, with only a few week to go until my next court appearance, UBC Law Students' Legal Advice Program (LSLAP), who had been holding on to my case for several months, suddenly informed me early this month that they would no longer represent me.

The reason, according to LSLAP, was that "the issue of mental health had been raised". Of course, LSLAP knew from the beginning that the Crown had raised the issue at my bail hearing. I even once asked LSLAP to help me to have my bail conditions reviewed by a judge.

What's even stranger was that LSLAP insisted that I contact a specific lawyer to represent me. And LSLAP suggested that, "because the issue of mental health had been raised", this particular lawyer would be able to help me get financial aid from Legal Aid Society.

Again, LSLAP knew that I had applied for Legal Aid before and had been turned down. And Legal Aid Society knew that the Crown had raised the issue of mental health. What possible difference could it make now if I apply again, except that this particular lawyer is involved in the process?

Besides, my Legal Aid application was turned down under very suspicious circumstance last November. I was approved initially by my worker, only to have it turned down by a manager hastily on a weekend.

I called this lawyer whom LSLAP referred me to, with those questions. His answers were evasive. I believe he taped our conversation. He seemed to want to let me know that he knew the common perception that I had been called upon to be the 5 ^{th generation of Chinese leadership.}

(By the way, when I wrote in March that there was a possibility that the Chinese government was interested in my service, I was being reticent. But "people in the loop" already knew what I meant. The common perception I sensed was that I was called upon to be the next generation of Chinese leadership. My own realization came about gradually last fall. It was Stephen Harper, with his famous 5 campaign priorities, who gave me the clearest hint in the middle of last election. It was also around that time that Li Yang wrote several articles on the inner workings of Chinese leadership.)

All these smack of the shadowy work of RCMP/CSIS, similar to what they did to me when I tried to hold a news conference right after I was released on bail last November. RCMP/CSIS sabotaged my efforts then by (1) delaying my email and cell phone communications with reporters; (2) affected SFU when I called SFU and tried to book a room in their downtown campus. (Sometimes I wonder if RCMP/CSIS has a liaison officer at SFU just to be able to better monitor and control me.)

To have a lawyer represent me properly is very important. It was precisely because I did not have my own lawyer during my bail hearing that the Crown was able to impose on me such strict and unfair bail conditions, which caused me considerable hardship in the past year, and to discredit my protest by simply saying to the judge that my Internet postings were "not really suggestive of a mind that is operating sort of on a logical [ground]." (The bail hearing took place after New Westminster police kept me in a solitary confinement with lights on for a whole night.)

For the Crown, I believe that they know my underlying cause of the protest is valid, but they either don't care, or they are out to discredit me. I suspect the Crown is following the political development of my story. For example, they decided in mid-March to proceed with only the lesser of the two charges against me. And they sent me the new Information sheet on May 3, coincidentally the same date when Min Chen trial was fixed because it was on that date when Cecilia Zhang's parents signed their victim impact statements.

As for RCMP/CSIS, nothing will make them happier than to drag me through the mud in the upcoming trial.

I am fully aware the inconvenience my protest on Pattullo Bridge caused to the motorists on that day. For that, I have apologized publicly in court, on a newspaper and in my blogs. However, I do need a lawyer to represent me in court so that I could properly defend myself.

That's why I have to continue writing.