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".
