The 2009 Nobel Bubble Prize

I started writing this blog on October 16, World Food Day. On Google News the following day, there were a petty 153 articles about the one billion hungry souls on our planet, "the first time in history", according to U.N Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In contrast, Google counted 5,950 news articles devoted to the "balloon drama" in Colorado two days before. (This was before it was made official that the drama was a hoax. Proportionally, I bet there were even fewer American news articles on the first subject than on the second one.)

This is not to say that Americans do not have a sense of history. They do, especially their political class. Just this past week, the most "powerful" politician on Capitol Hill, Senator Olympia Snowe, explained her health care vote this way: "When history calls, history calls." Flashing back to February, I also remember Mr. Obama told a reporter on board his plane that he felt history was at an "inflection point", presumably because he felt he was winning the "battle" with me. (His battle plan was apparently to ram through the $787 billion stimulus bill through Congress so as to borrow the money needed from China and other countries as quickly as possible without peoples knowing what's really going on. Later, his plan was to dilute the value of that debt by printing more dollars - to get "biggest bang for the buck", in the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - or worse, to gamble for a military or confrontational approach with China so as to perhaps write off the Chinese debt once for all. Of course, there had been no real battle to be fought with me because, as it turn out, I had largely sat on the sideline and ignored Beijing's many orders to act out of a genuine sympathy towards American people.)

Indeed, nowadays it seems that many things the U.S. administration does are of historic proportions. Also last week, one of the headlines was the eye-popping $1.4 trillion federal deficit for the past fiscal year - a $1 trillion increase over the previous year and the highest since World War II measured against GDP. Another one was the revelation of a record $23 billion projected end-of-the-year bonuses for bankers at Goldman Sachs, the well-connected Wall Street firm dubbed "the great American bubble machine" by Rolling Stone.

O. K., with these interesting observations aside, I'll take a deep breath and try to concentrate on the task at hand - writing about Obama's "winning" the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on October 9. I know you all want me to write about it. But you don't know how hard writing this story is for me.

More than a week has passed since the initial announcement in Oslo, I still could not believe what had happened. The news came to me like a stinky bomb. I can still smell the foul. What has our world come to?

The Nobel Peace Prize, "the highest honour in the world", was stolen by the most powerful man on earth simply because he desperately needed it as a cover.

"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." I used this famous quote in Part 4 of my Democratization series, hoping the Mr. Obama would be responsive to my message to build a more democratic international order. I guess I am just hopelessly naïve.

The Prize as a cover for Obama

Ever since I published my open letter (part 1, part 2) to his daughter, Malia Obama, and American youth in August, Mr. Obama knew he had a problem: If and when my story broke, he would face a torrent of questions, very likely including those from Malia herself, such as "Did Canadian government kill 9-year-old Cecilia Zhang and 5-year-old Tamra Keepness?"; "Did the two successive U.S. administrations influence and support successive Canadian governments in the cover-up of these murders?"; "Did you use me and Sasha as political covers when you brought us to Europe?"; "Did the CIA have a hand in the Urumqi Riot that saw the brutal loss of hundreds of innocent lives?"; "Is it true that America is a hegemony? Do you want America to be a hegemony?"; "Is it true that your decision to send 17,000 troops to Afghanistan on February 17 was not a military one, but a political one aimed at empire-building?"; etc., etc.

Obviously Mr. Obama feared my story's becoming public. Indeed, he used his power - or to borrow a phrase from Naomi Klein, his "corrupting influence" - to prevent my story from becoming news. (I believe Canadian media has become sympathetic to my story recently, despite their earlier hostility towards me. It is only because of the pressure from the Obama administration that I could not be brought out by Canadian media, which would have been my preferred way to be brought out because, as I said before, I considered my story primarily a Canadian one.) But he knew that he could not hide my story from the public forever. To minimize the potential impact of my letter, Mr. Obama pushed to give a school speech in early September - despite strong political opposition - so that he could get ahead of his problem. His real intention in having this face time with America's youth was evident in the original lesson plans accompanying his speech, which called for the students to write letters to themselves "about what they can do to help the president". -- He wanted America's youth to feel close to him psychologically.

At the mean time, he subtly manipulated my words to either change the subject or deliberately cause offence among American people. For example, after I wrote in my open letter - somewhat reluctantly, I should add - that my story was about morality, he framed his biggest domestic agenda - the health care overhaul - as a moral or ethical matter. I then had to mention "global ethics" in my August 20 blog. Also, the many facts in my open letter raised doubt about his political character, which was a personal matter. He responded by talking about the collective character of American people at the end of his speech to the joint session of the Congress on September 9. Similar to his talking about "the scale of our ambitions" in his inauguration speech in January, his "lawyerly instinct" to switch concepts was at work again.

Then came the significant occasion of China's National Day celebrations starting October 1. Just like last year's Beijing Olympic and APEC Summit, Mr. Obama knew that there was a very good chance that I would be brought out by the Chinese government during this occasion. Indeed, not just he knew it, many media outlets knew it, too. For example, after the live broadcast of President Hu Jintao's speech on top of the Gate of Heavenly Peace on the National Day, the BBC anchor had to ask its Beijing correspondent to make sure there was "no surprise there".

That's why the White House made the sudden announcement on September 28 of his trip to Denmark on October 1 - China's National Day - ostensibly to pitch International Olympic Committee for Chicago 2016. Unbeknownst to the general public, what he was really trying to do was to get out of the country for 24 hours in order to dodge the torrent of questions expected of him in case that I would become the "surprise" in Beijing's National Day celebrations. (I told Roger Hodgecock as such on Radio America on Friday October 2. Mr. Obama then hinted that additional stimulus measures might be needed for the U.S. economy in his Saturday address. In effect, he was telling Mr. Hodgecock and others not to talk about my story because, hey, he needed to draw more blood and sweat from China.)

Unfortunately for him, there was no "surprise" out of Beijing. As a result, Mr. Obama's plan backfired - a backfire not that much different from his deliberate "acted stupidly" comments on the Gates-Crowley row back in July. And he faced severe criticism at home for the Denmark trip. Since he could not try the same trick twice and get away from the media again, he desperately needed a cover in case my story broke in the last few days of Chinese celebrations. (Frankly, it was because I did not want to be brought out as a politician by Beijing that I delayed my last blog.) That's why Mr. Obama decided that he would "win" the Nobel Peace Prize on October 9. Since my story was about morality, the Prize, as the most visible moral recognition of our time, would be an ideal cover for him. Of course, to ensure winning, he or someone acting on his behalf would have to actively lobby the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

In short, Mr. Obama stole the Prize from many other worthier nominees. The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was basically a fraud. A lie. -- I am still at a lose with words.

American leadership or corrupting influence?

The remaining question is: How did Mr. Obama influence the Committee to get the Prize? Was the Committee informed about my file? I believe the answer is yes.

Let's face it. Although the prize is called the Peace Prize, the Committee is made of ex-politicians from a particular European country and the selections of each year's winners are often made to serve a particular political agenda. And it's not hard to imagine the Committee will decide to help Mr. Obama when presented with my story. There is, after all, such a thing as Eurocentrism, or a European worldview. (What annoys me is to hear some members of the Committee speak in such a tone without themselves even realizing it.)

Even without the benefits of knowing my file and its effects on the Committee, public opinions on Obama's winning the Prize were very polarized. This was a reflection of the scant justification for the Committee to have "awarded" the Prize to him.

Take the climate change file, for example. How could the Committee say that "Obama's initiative" made the USA play "a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges" when the reality is that the U.S. is going backwards on Kyoto? And it is leading other industrialized nations to do it. Is this what American leadership supposed to mean on the international stage? Or is it just corrupting influence as Naomi Klein put it in her column on the Guardian last Friday? Is this what the Committee meant when it said it wanted to influence world events to move the "right" direction by making the award to Mr. Obama?

Many news organizations knew what's going on with the Prize, but they chose to ignore it, as they have been doing for years with respect to my file. Take the New York Times, for example. After my revelation on radio on October 2 about the true purpose of Mr. Obama's Olympic trip, the editorial board at least exhibited some satire about Mr. Obama's non-existent "moral compass" in their editorial the next day. But when it came to commenting on Obama's winning the Prize, they not only perpetuated the myth that the Prize was a "implicit condemnation of Mr. [George W.] Bush's presidency", they also lied by saying: "Mr. Obama did not seek the prize." (I believe the lowest standard for journalism should be: Do not knowingly tell a falsehood. If, for some reason, you can not do that, stay away from the subject altogether, as David Brooks did in this case.)

Of course, there are people "in the loop" who are more upright. I'll note as example this blog by Toby Harnden of the Daily Telegraph, where he called Malia's quote in Obama's acceptance speech a fabrication and questioned Mr. Obama's personal character, among other things. Or others on the Right who saw his stealing the Prize as a major misstep, such as this column by Jonathan Rosenblum of the Jerusalem Post, where the key words were "manipulation", "good parents", "Olympic Games", etc.

Indeed, I believe the only reason that Mr. Obama mentioned his daughters in his speech was to get back to me. It's as if he was saying to me: "See, with this Prize, my daughters will still think I am the bestest peace-loving man in the world." And I also knew why Mr. Obama selected this "quote" presumably from Sasha: "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." He knew it was near the end of China's National Day celebrations. He was saying to me: "Look at all these good coverage I am getting. I am not afraid of you now. Besides, who is going to pay attention to your story during the long weekend?"

What's particularly appalling to me was the short-termism exhibited by Mr. Obama, or frankly, the American politics in general. Most of the American media adores Obama. It shocked me to hear on TV, when the news of his "winning" the Prize initially broke, that Obama would finally get over the bad press over his Olympic trip. It was as if the only purpose of winning this prestigious prize was to have a couple days of good press. (And the pictures selected by TV networks to accompany this good news were, not surprisingly, Obama with his family. Mr. Obama himself also made sure that TV cameras would get some fresh shots at his family going to the Sunday church later.)

Of course, to justify his acceptance of this Prize, Mr. Obama had to talk about "American leadership". He even pretended that the Prize gave him the "moral authority" to call on "all nations" to confront China, as he implied in his speech. I used the word "pretend" because, for one thing, most people "in the loop" could see that the Prize was stolen; and for another, nobody cared about such a fanatical idea anymore after I had thoroughly discredited it in my previous blogs, and Mr. Obama knew it.

Frankly, I don't understand why he decided to accept the Prize. I think it's foolish of him to have done that. He would still get these couple of days of good press if he turn it down. Perhaps he thought that by accepting the Prize, he would have another opportunity in December to get a couple more days of good press. But ultimately, I think Toby Harnden got it right: This guy is a lot of vanity.

I should point out that Mr. Osama's "winning" the Peace Prize was only part of an integrated plan to deal with the potential fallout of my being brought out by the Chinese government during the National Day celebrations period. Indeed, I believe I was drugged again during this period. Maybe I am still being drugged.

I think Beijing would do me a great favour by declaring me out of their politics as soon as possible.

Obama the bubble-builder

Besides being at a loss with words, I also had problem coming up with a pertinent title for this blog initially. Here were some of titles that had come to my mind:

• Shock and Awe: The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
• Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
• The Emperor has no cloth
• A joke
• "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

When I get angry, I try to meditate more. That's how I get by over the years - ever since before I embarked on my journey. (To me, meditation comes naturally. I find many of my daily activities quite meditating, such as cooking, or taking a walk in one of the many parks in my neighbourhood.) However, this time it was different. I even tried my hands on bao jiaozi that weekend - something I had not done for years - still, I just could not sit down and write the story. Something apparently had upset my inner peace in a profound way. I could not pinpoint what it was. Perhaps it was the magnitude of the hypocrisy, or perhaps the enormity of the irony. Or perhaps it was something else.

It was not until October 16 that I settled on the current title, after my January 18 open letter to Mr. Obama, in which I wondered aloud if he was "another W., another bubble-builder". I felt the title captured both the essence and the significance of the story.

The word bubble originally came from one of my voice messages to Obama when he was campaigning for his presidential ambition and I was incarcerated and tortured in a mental institution here in Canada. The word as I used there means lie made up to hide the truth of my cause. "When people's inclination is to hide the truth, they normally would have to make up bigger lies to do so. Just like a bubble, eventually it would burst". This is exactly how my story evolved, first under President George W. Bush, then under President Barack Obama.

Under George W. Bush and previous Canadian government, the political classes in both countries called me all sorts of names in order to discredit my cause, as can be seen from my earlier blogs. Of course, all of these names were lies. (Frankly, name-calling is sign of desperation.) They even tried to use court and psychiatry to discredit me. Mr. Obama inherited the file, that's true. But instead of correcting the bubble, he chose to continue to conceal the truth. By bringing his daughters to international stage repeatedly, Mr. Obama used them as his political cover to influence public opinion. I called this cynical and wrong political leadership in my open letter. But I guess "corrupting influence" might have been a better term. When I pointed out that his ploy was a "bubble" in my open letter, Mr. Obama resorted to stealing the Nobel Peace Prize to hide it. On the surface it seemed to have worked. By "winning" the Prize, Mr. Obama could use it to shield himself from the many questions raised in my open letter.

Only that the Prize itself is a bubble, just a bigger one, as Malia will soon learn. By stealing the Prize, Mr. Obama merely enlarged the original bubble. Now that he accepted it, this year's Prize will forever be remembered as the Nobel Bubble Prize.

Also, as I mentioned in my previous blog, the word bubble also means American hegemony, an idea Mr. Obama has never given up. Indeed, despite the many nice words in his acceptance speech last Friday, one still could sense that he wanted to ensure the American empire. I have heard people say that the decline of an empire often starts with its moral decline. If that is the case, I think the America empire is in decline. Because what can be more epitomic of an empire's moral decline than its president stealing "the highest honour in the world"?

Perhaps we are finally approaching an inflection point in history.


Update (20091031):

I had some thoughts on history while writing this blog. Because such grand topic as history was inevitably linked to politics and my instinct has always been to get out of politics, I did not include them in my above blog lest it created the wrong impression.

Mr. Obama mentioned in his Prize acceptance speech how having kids helped him “keep things in perspective”. Apparently, I am not as lucky. What I have instead is my horrible prison experience, which - perhaps he does not know this - also gave me a broader perspective for life. Indeed, it was because of my prison experience that I took an interest in history, after I was able to clear my mind from the debilitating drug effects months after release from the mental institution in spring 2008.

I was not surprised to learn Mr. Obama had such a strong sense of history back in February. After all, he was a very ambitious person, as I pointed out before. By contrast, history was one of my least favourite school subjects. I took an interest in it only after I seriously wondered if my life really had a destiny.

Therefore, I think it is safe to say that Mr. Obama and I have vastly different views on history. While Mr. Obama obviously thinks he can personally affect the course of history, I take a more fundamentalist view on it. To borrow the wisdom of Warren Buffett, I am a “value investor” in history. And I believe the most important fundamental factor affecting historical development is the people, not the ruling class. As someone said it before, it is always the people who makes history. Personally, if I have a destiny, that destiny is merely part of the larger history in the making. I still regard myself as a simple guy. I just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

These different views on history gave rise to different approaches to the “battle”. Mr. Obama naturally took the “battle” very personally, often seeing it as a contest between him and me. Aside from his attempts to cultivate a certain personal image, he also focused his attention on my person, e.g., figuring out whether I am a “17” or not - the answer is basically yes, I should add - drugging me, bullying me using helicopters and police, etc. By contrast, I approached the situation in a somewhat chaoran manner. In my mind, history will take its due course, regardless of what Mr. Obama or I will or will not do in the short run.

And that due course is that China will democratize using its own cultural resources and America will revitalize itself with its pragmatic cultural tradition. And China and American, as world’s leading democracies, will eventually embrace a cooperative relationship based on a common philosophy. And that cooperative Sino-U.S. relationship will in turn become a magnet for other countries to join for a more democratic and peaceful world.

I am confident that my conclusions on China’s democratization and its impact on the world are the right ones for our time. Precisely because I do not have prior training in politics, I do not have the usual ideological baggage with me. As such, I am able to see the world for what it is. And because of my unique position of being a simple guy dragged into politics, I am able to look at the world of politics from an ordinary person’s point of view (and again in a somewhat chaoran manner) and reach those conclusions based on objective observations on the ground.

I decide to post those thoughts here today because, I realized that, while history will take its due course, politicians do have important roles to play, the most important of which is to provide political leadership. I believe in what Peter Drucker said: “Leadership is doing the right things”. And the right things to do politically are always the things desired by the people, not by the political class.

As my story illustrated, the saying that “power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies to both domestic politics and international politics. Fresh, genuine political leadership is urgently needed both for China and for the world at large. Moreover, there is also a practical imperative for political reform in China besides combating rampant corruption. As I have already argued, from China’s side, political reform is the only way to fundamentally address the issue of trade imbalance. Postponing such a reform only gives some Americans (such as Paul Krugman) excuses to advocate a confrontational approach with China.

It is with these considerations that I declare my candidacy for the 4th generation of Chinese leadership, in order to lead China’s democratization and promote a genuine, enduring cooperative Sino-U.S. relations and ultimately, a more democratic and peaceful world order.


Update (20091105):

Well, well. What does a nice guy with no political experience like me know about gaining power? Zero. Nil. Zilch. Naught. Nothing. Indeed.

I think I should stay out of politics. Let history take its due course, sooner or later.

What do you think?


Update (20091112):

What irked me, you might ask?

Actually, I was not just irked. I was utterly disgusted that day. I tempered my feeling a little bit in posting the above update, as I often do with my writings.

The subject of this blog is about lies and cheats. In particular, it is about the most contemptible type of lies and cheats, i.e., hypocrisies as epitomized by Mr. Osama’s stealing the Nobel Peace Prize last month. By now, you all know how I feel towards such people and such deeds. In one sentence, I simply can not stand them.

This was exactly what happened again on November 5. Only this time the hypocrisy came from China. Almost automatically, my “political instinct” kicked in again: I simply wanted out. Subconsciously, I could not image the misery I would get myself into if I had to deal with scheming hypocrites on a daily basis.

So what was the hypocrisy from China that disgusted me so much that day? It was a piece of political news about the visit to Jinggangshan by Zhou Yongkang, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau, the supreme decision-making body of CPC, on November 4.

For those of you who are not familiar with Chinese politics, Jinggangshan, often referred to as the cradle of communist revolution, has a special symbolic significance in China. It was from Jinggangshan that CPC gradually developed its strength, won the overwhelming support of Chinese people, and eventually drove the then much more powerful, but rampantly corrupt KMT to Taiwan in 1949.

Why was Mr. Zhou’s visit to Jinggangshan hypocritical? And how was it related to my bid to replace President Hu?

First of all, although Mr. Zhou is a member of 9-person Standing Committee of the Political Bureau, he, just like his predecessor in the Standing Committee, is merely the front man for Li Peng faction within CPC. The power center of CPC consists of various factions and the internal politicking of CPC is a constant shifting of alliances. That’s why it’s called a “black box”. That’s also why an important aim of my democratization proposal is to do way with the “black box” and make Chinese politics transparent. Without transparency, people will forever be kept in the dark and there will never be accountability.

After my October 31 update, I was not surprised to learn that President Hu Jintao was not going to give up his power easily. I was not surprised either to see that maintaining stability was used as the reason for him to stay. Moreover, based on my previous observations, I was not surprised to see that former Premier Li Peng and his faction once again threw their support behind Hu. (Note the title of the news article implicitly called me a “new problem” in maintaining stability.) It was only the hypocrisies in Zhou’s actions that surprised and indeed, disgusted me. How could they be so shameless?

As I wrote in the second instalment of China’s democratization series: “The name of the communist party might give the appearance of a far left party. In reality, it has morphed into something far more right-wing than the central-left character of the overall population.” Li Peng faction is perhaps the most egregious example of such duplicity. Indeed, they had long ago morphed into one of what is commonly, but vaguely, known in China as the Special Interest Groups.

And what a powerful S.I.G. Li Peng faction is. By the virtue of Zhou’s position, one can see that this group effectively controls China’s law enforcement and public security apparatus, not to mention their considerable influence in the economic sphere accumulated over the years. Indeed, Hu Jintao himself, through a recent article by his writer Xian Yan, implicitly acknowledged that his staying power rested on the constant support and cooperation from such S.I.G.s.

With Zhou’s visit to Jinggangshan, Li Peng’s faction signalled to me and other insiders of their resistance to my idea for China’s democratization. They made the implicit statement that they wanted to ensure CPC’s continued grip on power. (Note that my proposal effectively meant the end of CPC’s rule in China.) But of course, the real and the only reason they resisted political reform is that they wanted to preserve their political power so as to continue benefiting themselves with their privileged status. Furthermore, they cheated on the people by creating the impression that they were faithful followers of early CPC revolutionaries when in fact they constituted the most corrupt, most rotten part of CPC today. And it was this latter hypocrisy that truly disgusted me, frankly.

I had not wanted to write about this because I did not want to touch the sensitive topic of “black box” if I did not have to. This was not just a personal consideration. Politically, I was afraid that chaos might erupt in China if I divulged too much. In contrast to decades ago when the condition in China was not conducive for democracy to take root, now the condition is much more favourable and we should all cherish it, because the best way to democracy is through gradual reform, not radical changes.

Of course, I recognize that maintaining stability is a valid reason for Hu to stay on power as long as he is determined to stay on power, because maintaining stability takes priority over fighting corruption and everything else. As such, replacing him is out of the question for me. Besides, Mr. Hu appears to be calling me to be the 5th generation of leadership in his latest article.

In his article, Mr. Hu hinted that nobody in the current upper-echelon of CPC could credibly tackle the problem of corruption. I had never consciously thought about this before. But it was consistent with what I have been reading about China’s top leaders over the years. As I mentioned before, it is the unchecked system that is breeding rampant corruption. Once you are in the system, it is virtually inconceivable to keep yourself absolutely clean in this cesspool of corruption. That leaves me, an outsider, the only person to be able to credibly fight corruption.

Realizing this, I felt a sense of historical responsibility. If I do have a destiny, that destiny comes with certain responsibilities. And I am not a person who shirks his responsibilities. Even if I may not enjoy myself in politics, it is only a personal sacrifice. And it is a personal sacrifice I am willing to make for the sake of exerting political leadership. I just need to learn how to enjoy a fight because some things are definitely worth fighting for.

Now that I have accepted President Hu's "offer" to succeed him, I have just one final question for him: You seemed to be saying in your article that you had always wanted to curtail the influence of Special Interest Groups. Is that true?


Update (20091120):

I see that Mr. Zhou Yongkang is conducting a diplomatic tour on behalf of CPC. So much for my gentle prod on Hu Jintao to fulfill his "desire" to curtail the influence of Special Interest Groups.

Noting that Zhou's tour started after my last update, I felt ridiculous. Mr. Hu not only wanted to hold on to power, he also appeared to be consolidating his power for the long term. Which makes my original thinking that I could be a strong No. 5 look increasingly naive.

The truth of the matter is, even if I want to fight a good political fight, I don't know how. I simply do not have the necessary skills to succeed in politics, as I mentioned before.

I am out.


Update (20091223):

I have to speak out on Copenhagen. -- I may not have wanted to get involved in politics, but I can not turn a blind eye on the waves upon waves of China blaming and China bashing in the media.

Those harsh attacks on China originated largely from certain corners of the British media. This was not surprising, considering that they were fed from the highest level of the British government.

Even before the Copenhagen conference had ended, China blaming was already in the British air. What most people did not know, however, was that the Chinese delegation was apparently ambushed at the Conference, diplomatically speaking. And the ambush was organized by the British and the host Danish governments, at the behest of the Obama administration. Those China blaming was only part of the plan.

I only noticed this on the last day of the Conference on December 18. The front page of the Independent newspaper caught my attention. I subsequently sought out news about the Conference, breaking my usual Internet activity.

And I believe my unusual Internet activity on that day may have prompted President Obama to “crash” the party of BASIC countries to hatch a deal with them late in the evening. He then declared victory, showing a startling disrespect for the vast majority of countries left out of the process who had not even seen the deal, before rushing back to Washington, ostensibly to beat a snow fall. His total stay at Copenhagen was less than 15 hours.

What Obama was most afraid of, coming into Copenhagen, was apparently that the Chinese delegation might make my story public. He would lose face in front of billions of people, as Premier Wen Jiaobao hinted at the beginning of his address to the Conference on December 18.

Frankly, from comments made by delegates from Valenzuela and Cuba during and after the Conference, it’s an open secret among heads of governments that Obama had fraudulently won the 2009 Nobel Bubble Prize.

But apparently, it was very important that he do not lost face in front of billions of ordinary people. Using the political adage that the best defence is a good offence (or something like that), the Obama administration launched a pre-emptive strike on the Chinese delegation on December 17 - Premier Wen’s first full day at Copenhagen.

And I would venture that it was the same political adage that guided Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s China bashing in the last couple of days, only this time his defence was against me as he figured that I would eventually write about my observations of the Conference. Indeed, I have been researching on the Conference for the past few days and Mr. Brown surely must have known my Internet activities.

Watching Mr. Brown’s immediate reaction to the final deal, one could see a sense of relief, if not satisfaction, on his face. Why else did he and his minister ratchet up their rhetoric against China in the last few days, if not for pre-emptive defence against my telling the inside story to the public?

Indeed, their ambush of Premier Wen and Chinese delegation was so successful that Secretary Clinton had the broadest smile on her face that I had ever seen in all her diplomatic endeavours across the world.

How did they launch the offensive?

Let’s take a look at Mrs. Clinton’s performance first. In the morning of December 17, she made a speech announcing Obama administration’s willingness to contribute to a $100 billion fund by 2020 for developing countries with multiple conditions attached, chiefly independent verification of emission cuts framed as a “transparency” issue required of China, “a deal-breaker for us”, as she put it smartly.

Note that I had just heavily criticized Chinese politics for not being transparent in one of the above updates. Of course, Mrs. Clinton took a page from her boss’s playbook and switched two totally different concepts. While Chinese politics should be reformed to be transparent so as to make it accountable to its own people, Chinese government, generally speaking, has no such obligation to the outside world. Otherwise, such a demand does raise the possibility of infringement on its sovereignty.

Aside from quoting a famous Chinese proverb to signal her target on China, what I found particularly distasteful was Mrs. Clinton’s cracking nuts of the word “us” in her speech, i.e., “it can no longer be about us versus them”, and “a deal breaker for us”. Similarly, Gordon Brown also cheapened my five year struggle for justice by saying that “we cannot permit the politics of narrow interest to prevent a policy of human survival” in his speech on the same day. -- Do these politicians at least consider the fact that I actually went into a prolonged and tortured hunger strike for my cause?

Yes, Mrs. Clinton’s offer on the second last day of the Conference was just pure talk and she knew it. Even in the final Accord, the offer was loaded with “lawyerly language”, as one observation goes. Meanwhile, Professor Jeffrey Sachs observed that “experience with financial aid for development teaches us that announcements about money a decade from now are mostly empty words”. Moreover, most Americans do not know that it was their legal responsibility to help poor countries financially. (Can you imagine what the western media will say if China shirks its international obligations?) Mrs. Clinton should never have made an offer with so many conditions attached.

Indeed, the only purpose of her making the offer was to divide some developing countries and China, a “negotiating approach that undermines rather advances progress”, as she herself called for avoidance in the speech. In short, Mrs. Clinton’s performance on that day was just … performance. As the December 18 cover story of the Independent says:

“It was unforgettable political theatre. Like a poker player with a sudden new bet, the power-dressed Mrs Clinton changed the game instantly as she pulled her gigantic sum out of the US back pocket and slammed it down on the negotiating table.

She was not saying that America would provide $100bn on its own account. She was not even saying how the money would be raised.”

This was the initial article that caught my attention on Copenhagen. Reading the whole article, one could say the it could just as aptly titled “Clinton’s unforgettable political theatre” as “China holds the world to ransom”, as splashed across from its front page. I would say that the Independent is in the back pocket of either the Brown government or the Obama administration. What do you think?

Granted, there were other allegations of China’s unwillingness to make binding commitment after the publication of the above article, on the last day of the Conference. Those were probably true, I have to say. One of the reasons -- this should be known to newspaper editors and reporters if not to the general public -- is that China has a totally different system of government. Chinese negotiators do not have that kind of luxury as the Americans have of backing out of a commitment such as Kyoto because their government is of an authoritarian nature. In a sense, their promise, even if voluntary, is gold.

And Obama’s pre-emptive defence continued on the last day of the Conference. I noticed that Premier Wen’s address to the Conference was originally scheduled on December 17. I do not know why it was moved to the final day. He was the first one to make his speech and Mr. Obama was the third. All those arrangements appeared to have been made to ensure that in case Mr. Wen did mention my file in his speech, Mr. Obama would have an immediate opportunity to use his oratory skills to minimize the damage.

Much was made of a meeting that morning that Premier Wen chose not to attend personally. I should note that that meeting was organized by Mr. Brown, the obvious chairman according to the Independent, and attended mostly by western governments plus a few developing countries that had been peeled off the G77. And a CTV report says it was organized “for Obama’s people”, who had just landed in Copenhagen barely an hour before. I should also note that Mr. Rasmussen was also present. I would bet none of the other BASIC countries was invited. In short, this was an ambush of Premier Wen. As such, he had every right to stay away.

Moreover, I also note that the meeting at the main plenary hall was postponed for two hours. This was not surprising, given that Mr. Rasmussen was at the group meeting. Piecing all the information together, one can easily conclude that, with the cooperation of the Danish Prime Minister, Obama administration hijacked the UN conference in order to ambush the Chinese.

Indeed, perhaps because the day was still early, Obama’s pre-emptive defence against China went on. In his main speech, he openly attacked China again, with the Chinese Premier sitting at the Conference. (Why didn’t I see Mr. Obama sitting at the Conference when other leaders spoke? Where was the “mutual respect” he often preached? -- While I am on this subject, I have to ask more questions: Why the American delegation could just walk into the venue while everyone else had to brave the cold waiting to be cleared? And why the leader of the Chinese delegation was denied entry for three consecutives days? As a BBC commentator says, can anyone imagine such a thing happening to an American delegation leader?)

In order to avoid being possibly exposed as a fraud, Mr. Obama repeatedly took aggressive pre-emptive defence actions and as a result, heavily poisoned the negotiating environment between U.S. and China, the two most important countries at the Conference. Could a better deal have been made? I think so, considering the lightening speed at which the final deal was hatched. At least more consultations could have been afforded to the developing countries.

In the final days of the Conference, I heard someone on TV jovially call the meeting a NATO one, short for No-Action-Talk-Only. The unspoken connotation was that Copenhagen was essentially hijacked - in the true sense of the word - by western governments.

Perhaps Copenhagen should be remembered as such, if it was to “live in infamy”.

Let me be the solution

Beijing is stuck: While my supporters in the Chinese government want to bring me out to replace President Hu Jintao, the President and his people are only willing to let me be the next generation of Chinese leadership.

This is essentially a power struggle and I don't want to have anything to do with it. Undoubtedly, a lot are at stake here: If my supporters are successful, President Hu will lose power. If the President and his people have their way, he can still serve out the rest of his term, albeit with a diminished prospect of exerting influence afterwards.

How to solve this impasse? I'll say: Bring me out as an outsider and start China's democratization now.  -- Those are what I have always wanted to happen, anyways.

Let me be the solution, please.

China’s democratization and its impact on the world (6)

Other ideas that should belong to this series were scattered throughout my blogs since my April installment. Here is a brief summary.

I borrowed the short-hand of a G2 from the media, not knowing what the letter G entailed. From my writings it should be clear, though, that I am not proposing a global governing body consisting U.S. and China. In fact, the very idea of a global governing body implies the existence of the governed countries, which is in contradiction with pragmatic philosophy.

I felt Sino-U.S. relationship is important not because these two countries can become great friends. Frankly, a lot of other countries have better potential than China in that regard. Sino-U.S. relationship is important because, from my own experience, the risk of a potential conflict is great. Therefore my starting point is to find a way to avoid potential conflict between China and U.S. Only after U.S. and China build a enduring cooperative relationship based on that common philosophy, will that relationship become a magnet for other countries to join in. In that sense, when, say, Europe subscribes to the same common philosophy, U.S., China and Europe will become a G3, etc. As such, my idea of a G2 is ultimately an open concept aimed at global cooperation which will necessarily result in a multi-polar world. And I felt that East Asia should be able to make a particularly significant contribution to that global cooperation because of the Confucian sensibilities of its people.

When I first put my thought on the future Sino-U.S. relationship, the key word came in my mind was complementarity. This was precisely a manifestation of pragmatic thinking based on the basic facts I already put forward, i.e., the United States is essentially a central-right country and China a central-left one. Following similar thinking, one can then easily see how I have gotten my ideas of "China as counterbalance to America's hegemonic tendencies", "China and the developing world", a more democratic international order, etc.

China’s democratization and its impact on the world (5)

Here we go again. North Korea, armed with nuclear weapons, is playing a dangerous game and the Obama administration is consciously playing it along.

I am referring to the meeting between New Mexico governor Bill Richardson and two North Korean diplomats in Santa Fe yesterday.

First of all, the meeting yesterday, just like Bill Clinton's visit to Pyongyang earlier this month, could not have happened without the approval of the Obama administration. Those two North Korean diplomats were posted at their mission at the United Nations in New York and, at a minimum, needed the permission of the U.S. State Department to travel to New Mexico. To characterize these meetings as "private" is, frankly, dishonest.

This was especially true of Clinton's visit just a couple of week ago. President Clinton, unlike other senior politicians retired from the U.S. government, is deeply "in the loop" with respect to my file, as evidenced by his nut-cracking while campaigning for Mr. Obama last fall. (Indeed, he had cracked nuts about my cause while visiting China several years ago.) And in a slip of tongue on CNN yesterday, Mr. Richardson attributed the release of those two American journalists to the good diplomacy "by the Obama administration". In his mind, apparently, Clinton's visit to Pyongyang was not just a "solely private" humanitarian mission, as claimed by the Obama administration. Mr. Clinton's visit was arranged by the Obama administration in response to North Korea request.

As I have already revealed in my June 2 update and June 16 blog, not only had Pyongyang's May 25 nuclear test caused the greatest security damage to China, it was also aimed at China from the conception. After these revelations, North Korea fired 7 short-range missiles on or around July 4. Conventional wisdom had it that those missile tests were a provocation against the United States or its allies in the region. I would say that based on the number and the ranges of these missiles, they were further provocations against China by Pyongyang. Or more precisely, they were meant to send a signal to the United States.

And here is the big picture and certainly the North Koreans know it. I have proposed a plan to democratize China and, by using the common philosophy, to build a enduring cooperative relationship between China and the United States. However, the Obama administration has never given up the outdated idea of confrontation and containment in its China policy. Sensing the potential confrontation between China and United States, Pyongyang exploited the situation for its own advantage.

Evidently, Pyongyang wanted direct talks with the United States, perhaps thinking that it could get everything it wanted from the U.S. However, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger pointed out: "[T]wo-party talks outside the six-party framework never made any sense. North Korean nuclear weapons threaten its neighbours more than the United States." By playing it along with Pyongyang's overtone, the Obama administration not only slapped the faces of its negotiation partners - who had been pressured to sign on to tough sanctions on North Korea just weeks before - by ignoring their concerns in the six-party process, its actions had also raised the possibility that it would use North Korea as another piece in its containment policy towards China.

Already, there were telltale signs of what Pyongyang wanted from an improved relationship with Washington. Soon after President Clinton's high-profile visit, North Korea touted the diplomatic success as the brilliant work of Kim Jong-un, heir-apparent of the secretive regime. While it is unclear at this time whether the Obama administration made any explicit promise in supporting such a leadership transfer scheme, the potential depth of conversations between those two governments could not be underestimated, especially considering that the U.S. administration, for its own self-interest, had a long track record of backing other countries' ruling classes at the expenses of their general public.

Of course, the North Korean regime could not have exploited the situation to its advantage had the Obama administration been more responsive to my idea of Sino-U.S. cooperation. In a genuine cooperative relationship between China and United States, there would be nothing for an international outcast to exploit. When both China and U.S. take a pragmatic view of the world, even countries like North Korea will likely follow. In that scenario, the problem of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons could be easily solved as North Korea will soon realize there is no need to possess such weapons.

Granted, as China democratizes, North Korea will necessarily feel pressured internally. I can understand the anxiety of its leadership, especially since I have called the regime "a family dictatorship". However, I believe democracy is ultimately for the good of its people. And it will be up to North Korean people to decide whether to follow the example of a democratizing China. While the current leadership will likely not budge, a Western-educated Kim Jong-un may turn out to be more open-minded. As such, I am optimistic about North Korea's future as a full-fledged member of international community with normal relations with other countries, including the United States.

Indeed, the whole region of East Asia will become more peaceful if and when China and United States start to cooperate on global issues with that common philosophy. And I am very hopeful for this Confucianism-influenced region. Concerning relation between human beings and relation between man and nature, Confucian philosophical sensibilities have much to offer to the emergence of a new global ethic which is, frankly, urgently needed for human survival in the 21st century. Ultimately, I believe the people in East Asia will be able to make a significant contribution towards world peace and sustainable development.

I feel for the Taiwan people

Typhoon Morakot struck Taiwan and part of Mainland China, leaving a trail of destruction, the scale of which has not been seen for decades in that area.

My heart goes out to all the victims of this terrible disaster, and especially those from south Taiwan, who have suffered the most and are still coping...

An Open Letter to American Youth (Part 2)

Dear Miss Malia Obama:

I want to talk to you about peace today because, frankly, this letter would not be complete without it. -- It was part of my writing plan originally. However, just before I published the first part of the letter on August 2, I deleted the sentence "I will get to the subject of peace a bit later" from it, not wanting to put undue pressure on myself. (I have depression and writing has become an ever increasingly difficult task for me.) But peace is too important a topic to be ignored. And I can't forget world peace was Cecilia's last wish before she was taken away from this world.

I believe that you, just like Cecilia, are a genuine peace lover. That's a significant part of the reason for my writing to you, and through you, to American youth. -- And imagine what a world we will all be living in if none of us would never grow up, as I myself have been frequently ridiculed to be by those "adults".

After I decided to write to you, I did a little research on the peacenik symbol that was on your T-shirt. I was confirmed that it had its origin in the nuclear disarmament movement. -- That's how I got a sense that you probably had heard of me, "as defined by your father". But as I said many times before, it really saddened me that for some people, nuclear weapon was the only thing that come to their mind whenever they think of me.

Your father is not one of those people. Your father is even worse - he was highly elastic in portraying me according to his needs. This was a reflection of his broader political character - he defines truth as he sees fit. He knew that I saw myself as primarily a rights activist, as my invocation of Martin Luther King, Jr. in this blog suggested, and that I had always held dearly the primary goal during my five-year journey, i.e., to seek justice for Cecilia. (The other part of my goal was, of course, to hopefully get my own life back.) Indeed, after my complaint in my June 16 blog, he conveyed his sympathy towards me and my cause, which, just like his talking about success on the Father's Day, was, frankly, just part of his larger effort to try to manipulate my emotions, as I mentioned in my previous blog on Urumqi Riot.

After last year's presidential election, both he and his opponent, Sen. John McCain, talked about "sleep" in their respective and separate first public appearances. In their minds, insofar as I was the decisive factor of the election between them, I was remembered for my blog Summer Hibernation, which people had falsely interpreted to mean a nuclear winter, which, as I learned later, happened to be the truth on Sino-U.S. nuclear relations. In other words, I had stumbled on the truth of a mutually assured nuclear destruction between China and United States. I had never threatened anybody with nuclear weapons, as he might have told you. And your father surely must have known this from my extensive writings on this subject years ago when I was forced to give detailed account of what I knew and when I knew.

As for your father, he talked about "sleep" in a jovial mood after the election, as compared to Mr. McCain's self-deprecating manner. There were two reasons for this. One was that he, as the President-Elect, did not see the truth I stumbled on as his problem because everyone thought the chip would fall immediately on Taiwan. The other was that he was still grateful for my helping him win the presidency, as evidenced by, among other things, his mention of Pearl Harbour in his victory speech at the election night. (From my book-borrowing activities, your father knew that I was advocating for China's leadership role in East Asia. In essence, he was subtly endorsing my idea in his speech. -- I generally admire the efficiency and achievement of Japanese people and Japanese society. But I also believe that Japan, with a large portion of its political class still unrepent over its past militarism - an adventure that had caused untold sufferings in its neighbouring countries and beyond - simply can not be trusted with a leadership role in the region.)

However, once your father became the president, he treated me as his enemy and took a deliberate confrontational approach towards China, as evidenced by the countless nuts in his inauguration speech. (I highlighted the nuts in his inauguration speech and posted it here in the document section of my blogs.) In particular, he treated the nuclear truth as a real, serious challenge and evoked the prospect of a nuclear winter towards the end of his speech.

I noticed that before the G8 summit in Italy, you had also gone to Russia, where your father had reached a nuclear arms reduction target with the Russian government. Your father must have told you about his goal of a nuclear-free world as well. And I have no doubt that you love your father unconditionally and trust him completely. As such, you must have thought that your father is the bestest peace-loving man in the world.

Or is he?

While I applaud your father's effort in continuing the nuclear negotiation with the Russians, I do not know how much credit he could claim as the negotiation between these two governments had been going on for years and years. Your father largely inherited the file. However, I do know something about his "pledge" of a nuclear-free world, though. And I'd like to tell you what I know.

Your father's pledge of a nuclear-free world was first made in Europe, after the G20 Summit in London. It was in fact one of his not-so-coherent responses to my April 2 blog, in which I had disclosed some unflattering things about him. In essence, he made that pledge with an aim towards China. In doing so, he had several considerations in mind.

First of all, just as he uttered in his January 22 remark on his decision to close the Guantanamo Prison in Cuba, he wanted to occupy the "moral high ground". (While we are on this subject of prisoner abuse, please ask your father what he is going to do about the Bagram Prison in Afghanistan.) Now, I believe his January 22 remark was a slip of tongue, because a politician as shrewd as him should not speak his mind. And speak his mind he did because he knew what my story is about. It is about morality. My story, if become public, will not reflect well on either the Canadian government or the U.S. government morally. And it will not reflect well on political classes in either countries morally. (As for my part, I have been extremely unwilling to go there, because, perhaps, I am just too nice. Whenever I can, I even avoid the use of the word "moral" or "morality". -- I did use right-and-wrong a lot, though. -- After all, I believe whether you are a moral person is not for you to say, but for others to judge.) At a time when China's true strength of nuclear force was poised to become public, his pledge of a nuclear-free world will undoubtedly score him some political points. In short, his pledge was a shrewd political calculation. But of course, Malia, you should know that a nuclear-free world is not some innovative idea. In fact, it is the official position of many countries, including China.

Secondly, making the pledge was actually a good military policy for the United States. As I showed in my analysis of the nuclear issue - done "with five tons of reluctance" - China is far behind the United States in conventional warfare capabilities. Given your country's astronomical military budget, it's not wise for China to engage in an arms race. But in order to protect its core national interest, China must have decided a long time ago to achieve a nuclear balance with the United States. By pledging to work towards a nuclear-free world, your father is shrewdly putting pressure on China, which he considered to be his biggest threat, to eliminate that balance. In essence, your father was not giving up U.S.'s military advantage. (How could he?) On the contrary, he was trying to strengthen it.

Thirdly, his pledge was not genuine. When it comes to Sino-U.S. nuclear relations, your father considers his first option the concealment of truth from the public so that (1) he could continue to be a nuclear bully like his predecessors; and (2) he could start wars with China with minimum resistance at home. How did I know this? Just take a look at the speech he gave on the economy during his first prime time news conference on February 9 - when my story had been expected to become public. He used the phrase "in the winter of our hardship" to backtrack the nuclear winter connotation in his inauguration speech. As if to prove his point and reassure American people, less than 24 hours later, your government and Russia's jointly demonstrated your technological capability by smashing two satellites in a space "accident". But of course, even if your father had succeeded in assuring the American people, it would have been a false assurance. -- Do you think it is a right thing to do to hide the truth from people? Please let me know.

Malia, I do not mean to put you on a difficult spot. I actually admired you for wearing that peacenik T-shirt in Italy. I could never have imagined myself doing such a thing at your age. Despite my own aversion to politics, I actually think it is a good thing for youth to be politically engaged. The only advice I would give is that you should get informed. In fact, you need to demand informed, even when you think you know everything that you need to know because you live in an advanced democracy. Do you know that American people only knows about one percent of what goes on inside the White House? Well, those were not my words. Those were the words of your former Vice-President Al Gore. And they came from a reliable source, Bob Woodward, the foremost investigative reporter of your country.

Since I am on the important topic of peace, I would like to tell you more about what I learned about your father's action in this regard. Not his words -- his words were always eloquently spoken. Previously I had discussed individual events such as the swine flu and Urumqi Riot in separate blogs. Here I'd like to provide the overall picture.

Your father started his presidency at his inauguration. As I said before, there were countless nuts in his inauguration speech. As such, his speech signalled to the world that he was going to confront China. But he knew that, in order to achieve his ambitious objective, he would need as many countries on board as possible. That's why he also said that "America is a friend of each nation". Of course, his objective became more apparent in his Cairo speech on June 4 when he sensed that he could go for the kill.

The way your father went about achieving his objective was not new at all. Recall during the Cold War, U.S. regarded the former Soviet Union as the chief threat. To contain that threat, President Richard Nixon went to Beijing to normalize relations with China. Now that U.S. regards China as the chief threat -- which is largely unfounded, I should add -- it tries to bring as many countries on board as possible to contain China. I believe I had previously cited a study which discussed this defining feature of Bush administration's foreign policy. Your father simply followed Bush's policy. (The sad thing was that, precisely because I wanted to avoid a future confrontation between China and U.S. that I put my life in danger last fall to elect your father. Your father campaigned on "change" to become the president. The way I see it, the only thing that has changed since he moved to the White House was the more appealing presidential rhetoric. He did not bring any new thinking into the White House at all.) I believe the increased tensions along China's borders recently were a direct result of his policy towards China.

The notable difference between the current Sino-U.S. relationship and previous relationship between U.S. and U.S.S.R. is that, not only do China and U.S. have close economic relationship that previously U.S. and U.S.S.R. doesn't have, the economies of China and U.S. are actually joined at the hip, as I wrote before. Especially at the start of your father's presidency, the recovery of U.S. economy was heavily dependent on the cooperation of Chinese government. Your father's highest priority was to rescue the economy when he took office. Once he got what he wanted from China in this regard, though, he turned around to contain China.

Perhaps the most illustrative example in this regard was his decision on February 17 to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. First of all, U.S. administration's real aim in Afghanistan was not to defeat the Taliban insurgency. Experts say that you need 10 times the current troop level to achieve that objective. The U.S. administration, whether it was under George W. Bush or under your father, treated Afghanistan war as part of the effort to encircle China. That pretty much explains why, after almost 8 years of war, the mighty U.S. military is still in Afghanistan. Secondly, as far as I can see, your father's decision to send in 17,000 troops was made before all the reviews of U.S. policy in Afghanistan were in. Thirdly, absent of any reported explanation on how your father arrived at the number of troops to be sent in, I would suggest people look into a piece of information I already disclosed: When I was taken to the mental hospital for a psychiatric assessment in September 2007, I was assigned to a Room 17. Seventeen is the sum of 8 and 9. And 8 and 9 are what the U.S. administration wished I would be: A largely personal cause and a genuine desire for China's democratization.

Indeed, your father made the Afghan decision after he had successfully rammed his economic stimulus bill through congress. While he treated this process as a real battle, I largely sat on the sideline without taking any action. In fact, I ignored Beijing's many orders to act, as I disclosed before. Therefore, your father must have concluded that I was just as he wished, the sum of 8 and 9. -- That's how he decided on the number of troops to be sent to Afghanistan.

When I saw him on TV saying that sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan was his toughest decision, I had to marvel at his capacity to manipulate and indeed, to lie. I am sorry to break the news to you, Malia, but your father is a great manipulator.

Ironically, yet another thing your father tended to do when he sensed that my story was about to break was to say something positive about the American economy. He hoped that in the event of economic consequences of my story, the American people would blame me for it. (Here in Canada, the government similarly tried to manipulate the public opinion. For example, I believe both the Pattullo Bridge fire on January 18 and the Lions Gate Bridge incident on February 1 were the works of the government to spur public annoyance against me.) Of course, in his manipulative mind, the fact that I had deliberately ignored Beijing's orders out of a genuine sympathy towards American people meant nothing.

Moreover, just look at his words and actions with regard to my political standing in China. Didn't he manipulate me there as well? For example, if he were so concerned about my being able to stay here, why didn't he facilitate my return to China when I had been willing, albeit reluctantly? Instead, he intentionally created problem in China's power transfer. His ultimate purpose is the concealment of my story from the public. Failing that, he wanted to create as much trouble as possible for China.

From now on, I refuse to be manipulated by him. I am who I am. I am No. 6. I am out of this business. And I am out of this business precisely to get away from people like him. (On a second thought, I think my political ideas are urgently needed, especially in China. Just because the current U.S. administration is playing a manipulative game with me to hide me away from the public, it does not mean that the Chinese people have to wait any longer for my ideas on China's political reform. And I believe my ideas had been well-received by the Chinese government. As a matter of fact, I have already seen some of my ideas being implemented, i.e., the health care reform. Therefore, by the virtual strength of my ideas, and to also maintain social and political stability in China, I think I should take on the role of the third generation of Chinese leadership, for the good of Chinese people. -- Added 20090809.) (On a third thought, I think I should take on the role of the fifth generation of Chinese leadership for now. Just because some of my ideas are being implemented does not mean that my whole proposal for China's political reform has a widespread acceptance in China. While I firmly believe in my own ideas, I also recognize it may take a little time for it to become consensus. Hopefully, it won't be long. -- Added 20090814.) (Well, well. I guess I have been thinking too much, then. I'd be very glad indeed to go back to my original thought. Just take me out as soon as possible, please. I can't bear it anymore. -- Added 20090817.)

But I have to say a few words on manipulation because I had awful experience with it before. Indeed, if you read my first report, you will find that my story might have ended up completely differently had the daughters of my SFU professor not been manipulated by their father. Indeed, I felt for them because, just like me, they were also victims in that whole shenanigan created by those professors.

Currently, an interesting question is: By keeping my story away from the public, are American people being manipulated by their government? Some people might say: Our elected officials and political class know what's best for American people. Therefore, it does not matter if the American people are being manipulated by their own government. Well, my professor could have said the same thing about his own daughters. But somehow I just felt they were also victims. What do you think, Malia?

I can shed some more light on the question because I know what your father think what's best for America. -- He wants America to remain as the sole super power. But is hegemony what American people want? I doubt it but I am still looking for a definite answer to that question. And I hope you, Malia, will help me find that answer.

What's hegemony, you might ask? Well, a hegemony is a country who bosses other countries around, who plays one country off with another, and who attacks or threatens to attack another country at will, etc. But fundamentally, hegemony means inequality among nations. Inequality is at the heart of hegemony.

Malia, you live in a great country where you have democratic government and the rule of law and everyone is equal. You probably have not experienced any discrimination or inequality. So let me give you an example of extreme inequality.

There was another girl who had disappeared in Canada. Her name is Tamra Keepness. I have not mentioned enough of her case because I put the conditional probability to be around just 10 percent that her abduction was also the work of Canadian government if my conclusion regarding Cecilia Zhang case turns out to be true, i.e., it was the RCMP/CSIS who orchestrated the abduction and murder of her. The reason is that I have very few "coincidental" connections between Tamra's disappearance and my experience. Indeed, there were only a couple of such connections.

Back in 1995 or 1996, out of frustration about my situation, I talked to one of my former classmates about my awful experience with my professors at SFU. In citing racism as the root cause of my situation, I told him what I had learned about the abuse in Canadian residential schools. Although my conversations with my classmate were private, the Canadian government nevertheless got a hold of them, I believe. Perhaps just to send me a message, RCMP/CSIS kidnapped Tamra in July 2004, soon after the election of Paul Martin as prime minister.

Tamra Keepness was aboriginal. She was just five years old.



Sincerely,

Jim Yu

An Open Letter to American Youth

Dear Miss Malia Obama:

You should not be surprised to receive this letter. Your father, the President of the United States, should have told you.

You see, Malia, your father is a very powerful man. In fact, there is no dispute that he is the most powerful man on earth. A man that powerful can do a lot of things, the most important of which is making peace -- as long as he is willing. I am sure you love peace. That's part of the reason I am writing you and through you, to youth all across America. (I will get to the subject of peace a bit later. -- Added Aug 8.) For now, I just want you to know that your powerful father is almost able to read my mind.

On Thursday July 9, I stumbled on one of your pictures wearing a peacenik T-shirt at the G8 Summit in Italy on drudgereport.com, an Internet news website I visited often. That night I couldn't fall asleep. I got up and visited Drudge Report again offline. Although I never clicked on the news about you either online or offline, I believe your father knew from my computer activities that day that I would likely write about you or to you. (Indeed I did get the idea that night.) -- That's probably why the next time I visited Drudge Report, your picture had been replaced by a teddy bear, and the Drudge headline had changed from "Wrong Way" with a graphics of your father's declining poll numbers to "It's Working" with a picture of your father looking very serious and stern.

Why did your father, who obviously knew me very well, know that seeing that picture of yours would make me tick?

There were several reasons. For one thing, I knew why your father brought you and your sister along with him to Europe. He basically used both of you as his potential political cover. Indeed, it was for the same consideration that he brought both of you along with him last time to Paris. For another, your father could imagine my sense of profound irony seeing you wearing that peacenik T-shirt, especially at a time when I had to watch those bloody pictures of Urumqi Riot, knowing that it was your father's CIA who orchestrated the violence on Urumqi streets. But most important of all, that picture of yours reminded me of Cecilia Zhang, who, as your father surely must have known, largely defined who I am today.

Watching you wearing that peacenik T-shirt, I got a sense that you probably had heard of me, as defined by your father. But he probably hasn't told you about Cecilia Zhang. That's just not fair. So let me tell you a little bit about her first.

Cecilia was a kind, beautiful and talented girl. Born in China, she moved to Toronto, the largest city here in Canada, when she was 4 years old. By all accounts, she was like an angel who brought great joy to her loving family. In the cruel early darkness of October 20, 2003, however, she was kidnapped from her bedroom while everyone else in her household was asleep. An AMBER Alert was issued. But nobody could find her, including the police. One hundred and sixty-one long, agonizing days later, her remains were founded in a wooded area by a passer-by. Until today, the authorities had to hedge as to how she died. -- She was just nine years old, not much younger than you are today.

I had never met Cecilia. I lived in Greater Vancouver, another metropolis in Canada. The first time I heard of her was on the day when she was kidnapped. It was a big news here in Canada. (Her abduction was also featured in America's Most Wanted on TV later.) But I did not see anything suspicious at the time. After more information of her case came out in the summer of 2004, though, I noticed too many "coincidental" connections between her case and my personal experience to ignore the possibility that Canadian government might at least have prior knowledge of her abduction and murder. Indeed, I believe that it was my filing of a lawsuit in November 2002 against some of my professors and their Wall Street friends that set in motion the criminal conspiracy against her, because Canadian bureaucrats had previously taken side and protected these privileged people who had bullied and harassed me and sabotaged my career.

I am a cautious person. At first, I did not want to believe that Canadian government had anything to do with such a horrible crime. But I am a firm believer in facts and logic, and my facts and logic pointed me to the Canadian government. In the end, It was because I felt that taking a life as innocent as Cecilia's was such a clear-cut right-and-wrong issue that, even with 25% confidence about my conclusion at the time, I went against my reticent nature to not only protest, but also to fast. That's how I started my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang.

However, my efforts to try to bring Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up to public awareness were met with indifference, disdain, even outright attack from our political class, which included politicians and the mainstream media. Ironically, political parties would fight with each other over my story - but always keep my story at the background and away from public eye. Eventually I learned that although they knew my cause was valid - they in fact knew more than I did about her case - they never had the intention to actually take on my cause because doing so would undermine the political class themselves. Your government, whether it was under former President George W. Bush or under your father, unfortunately, also supported Canadian political class throughout the years.

My journey, therefore, is a frustrating one. Frustration aside, however, my confidence in my cause actually increased over time. This is because my confidence in my cause is built on facts and logic. As additional information became available along my journey, these facts not only did not contradict my previous analyses and conclusions, they actually augmented my previous analyses and conclusions. Indeed, I believe any objective person who takes the time to read the extensive facts and analyses on my websites would agree with my conclusions about Cecilia Zhang case.

However, many politicians tend to view facts through various political glasses. What come out are distortions or worse, pure propaganda. Take, for example, your father. When I risked my life to root for him during last year's presidential campaign, he appeared to be for my cause. He talked about how being unemployed was a dignity issue, which resonated deeply with me as I have been unemployed for most of my adult life because of deliberate sabotage and harassment. He also played with the word "indifference", which was from a quote by Elie Wiesel that I had used in one of my blogs on racism.

However, once your father became the president, he viewed me as his enemy (even though I had always had sympathy towards him and many of my actions were meant to build up trust with him - unfortunately my niceness had been taken advantage of by him.) As such, his view of my cause changed. That's why he used the phrase "subject to date and statistics" in his inauguration speech. That's also basically why he brought you and your sister along twice to Europe. Both times, there was a increased probability that my story would become public, as I had shown in my previous blogs. In essence, by bringing both of you along, your father was making a unspoken statement that my cause of seeking justice for Cecilia Zhang was invalid.

Another thing your father tended to do when he sensed that my story had a increased chance of becoming public was to hold a prime time news conference because he is a good orator and he also possesses the world's loudest speaker. The latest one was held last Wednesday July 22. Many people said that your father slipped when he accused Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. I don't believe so. I believe it was a calculated political move on the part of your father to have uttered those words in anticipation of immediate breaking of my story. It was because my story did not break immediately as he anticipated that he appeared to have created such a mess with the Gates-Crowley debacle.

Indeed, if my story had become public, not many people would have paid much attention to the Gates-Crowley row anyways, even with your father's inflammatory comment. In that situation, your father's comment at the news conference would have been shrewd. On the one hand, he would have successfully appeared to be firmly on the side of minorities in terms of race relations - one of the issues in my story. On the other hand, he also sent out a subtle message to the elitist/political class - another issue in my story - that he is one of them.

And these messages are very powerful because, just like the message implicit in the appearance of you and your sister on the international stage, they're political. As I said before, while many people objectively would agree with my analyses and conclusions about Cecilia Zhang case, for political reasons they would just consciously ignore their objectivity at the urging of your father. In that sense, what your father did may be called political leadership. But it's cynical political leadership. And it's wrong political leadership.

I don't know why, but writing about Cecilia Zhang still gets me going. I guess deep inside me, I still hold my cause dearly and never regard money as my ultimate objective. For me, money really is not everything. Perhaps I should rethink my decision I made in my last blog. Maybe I should get back to politics to show what is true political leadership - by demonstrating my continued pursuit of Cecilia Zhang cause. Yes, I think I should take on the 5th generation of Chinese leadership. That should give me ample time to get the truth of Cecilia Zhang case out here in Canada.

Truth is not only the foundation of justice, but also the foundation of pragmatic politics. When I heard on American TV people equated pragmatism with opportunism, I could not help but laugh. After all, pragmatism is an indigenous American thought. Precisely because it pays great attention to facts, pragmatism is much more ethical and moral than the politics as usual we see everyday.

Warren Buffett once said: "In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you." I guess the same can be said about hiring in politics. And it is high time that we inject some integrity and morality into our politics.

The truth of Urumqi Riot

Media

More than two weeks after the Urumqi Riot, many Western media outlets are still perpetuating misinformation and manufacturing myth about this horrible but important event. Just on Monday, 24 Hours, a local newspaper here in Vancouver, carried the following piece from Reuters:

Uighurs rally against China in Kazakh capital

Thousands of ethnic Uighurs rallied in the Kazakhstan city of Almaty yesterday to protest a crackdown on Uighurs in the neighbouring Chinese region of Xinjiang.

Around 5,000 Uighurs gathered in a Soviet-era congress hall in Kazakhstan's biggest city to express their anger at China's crackdown in its northwestern Muslim region.

"Freedom to Uighurstan!" shouted the crowd after a minute's silence, shaking fists and waving flags.

In Xinjiang's worst ethnic unrest in decades, Uighurs staged protests in the regional capital Urumqi on July 5 after a clash at a factory in south China in June left two Uighurs dead.

The following violence left 197 people dead and more than 1,600 wounded.

(Reuters)

What's wrong with this report? There are at least two as far as I can see.

(1) What were these Kazakh Uighurs protesting? According to the report, they were protesting China's "crackdown on Uighurs" in Xinjiang. This characterization of a "crackdown on Uighurs" was used so often by Western media in reporting the event of July 5 that it had become a myth. What it implied was that the Chinese government used heavy-handed tactics, or worse, violence, against unarmed and peaceful Uighur protesters in Urumqi, as is often portrayed in much of Western media.

(2) What do these protesting Uighurs in Kazakhstan want? "Freedom to Uighurstan!" according to the report. Uighurstan? Could anyone point it out on a map? This is an even phonier country than East Turkestan, which "existed" -- for a few months -- back in 1930s, but thanks to the media, has been on the news a lot since the July 5 riot. It is clear that those Kazakh Uighurs wanted part of China's territory. Ridicules demand? You bet. But apparently, Reuters was astute enough not to over-emphasize this point.

(3) What Reuters put emphasis on was the myth itself. The last two paragraphs of the report came right back to it. Readers learned, perhaps for a thousandth time, that Uighur protests in Urumqi on July 5 was followed by violence, which "left 197 people dead and more than 1,600 wounded". Because the report already said that the so-called crackdown was targeted on protesting Uighurs, readers were undoubtedly left with the false impression that most, if not all, of the victims were Uighurs.

Reuters is a respected news outlet with an international reputation. And I have nothing in particular against it. I happened to see the report on Monday and felt it was fairly representative of many other reports I saw by the media here. Since China had provided unprecedented access to foreign media to cover the event from the very start this time, I challenge Reuters -- and any other media outlets, for that matter -- to produce concrete evidence to justify the characterization of a "crackdown on Uighurs" and its associated implications.

In actuality, there was no crackdown of peaceful protesters. As Peter Foster of Daily Telegraph observed first-hand:

A note on the performance of the Chinese police during this crisis: from what I've seen they have been highly disciplined and professional under extremely challenging circumstances and deserve real praise for this.

On the one hand, it could be argued that the police failed in the first instance. Certainly that is the view of many Han people we've spoken too who are deeply angry that Sunday's killing was allowed to take place at all.

It seems that the police were taken completely by surprise. Having broken up the original demonstration around the People's Square and the South Gate on Sunday night between 6pm and 8pm, they failed to anticipate the extreme violence that was unfolded along the side-streets after about 10.30pm.

I will provide an answer later to Mr. Foster's question as to why the police appeared to have been caught off guard by the extreme violence taking place after the original demonstration had been broken up. My answer will speak volume to the sophisticated organization of the Urumqi Riot. For now, let's just concentrate on the myth that's been perpetuated in much of Western media.

From my observation, the myth of a "crackdown on Uighurs" was sold to the public through a cooperating media by World Uighur Congress, an organization of mostly exiled Uighurs, yet shamelessly claiming to "represent the collective interest of the Uighur people" both inside and outside of China.

As an example of WUC's efforts to create this myth, I shall focus on the casualty numbers provided by WUC. In a statement released on July 7, WUC claimed that "as many as 800 Uyghur peaceful protesters were killed and thousands were injured by the armed Chinese police and security forces." The next day, however, its president, Rebiya Nadeer, wrote on the Wall Street Journal that "400 Uighurs in Urumqi have died as a result of police shooting and beating." I don't know how a paper like the Journal could publish such garbage without at least checking out the apparent inconsistency first.

These were lies perpetuated by WUC, plain and simple. And the lies were made up for the purpose of further inflaming violence on Urumqi streets. Indeed, if you take a quick look at the WUC website, you will find many more sensational languages such as "crackdown of a peaceful protest", "ethnic massacre", "mass slaughter of the Uyghurs", etc.

These people have no concern for innocent lives being taken away by such brutal means as burning, mutilating, and throat-cutting. Why? Because their ultimate objective is the separation of Xinjiang from China. Just like Monday's Reuters report showed, much of the Western media, I believe, knew this objective of WUC but did not tell the public the whole story.

Indeed, the same WUC website devoted extensive space on the so-called East Turkistan. The mere fact that these exiled Uighurs did not call their homeland Xinjiang already revealed the true nature of their organization. But on the surface, WUC always presented itself as an organization for "human rights" and "democracy".

Indeed, these people were so adept at their hypocrisy that even experienced hand like Judy Woodruff of PBS's News Hour was taken in, as could be seen in her interview with Alim Seytoff, a spokesperson for the WUC, on July 7. Note that Ms. Woodruff was very surprised towards the end of the interview when Mr. Seytoff, having dodged an earlier question on separatism, finally uttered the words "an independent country". Indeed, not only did Mr. Seytoff want an independent country for Xinjiang, he also inflamed additional discontents among Tibetans and Mongols in China during the interview.

Politics

WUC's hypocrisy - to put it mildly - is a reflection of the same hypocrisy on the part of U.S. administration. In my previous blogs, I often cited my own experience as proof that the United States did not really care about democracy in other countries. What they really care about was their own self-interest. Of course, their leaders often talked about it -- loudly -- because it sounded good. (Another example that came to my mind was back in September or October 2007. I believe the street unrest then in Burma was the work of the U.S. government to create instability at China's border as China was preparing to take Taiwan by force, as I had already disclosed.)

To see the connection between WUC and U.S. government, one needs only to ask where the funding for WUC comes from. A little research will reveal that WUC's funding comes from an organization with a nice-sounding name, National Endowment for Democracy, which is in turn funded by U.S. Congress.

As for NED, all you need to know is what Allen Weinstein, former Archivist of the United States, who helped draft the legislation establishing it, said to Washington Post in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago." In other words, NED is a quasi-CIA organization. That just makes WUC a quasi-CIA operative. Human rights and democracy are just a nice cover.

In essence, what WUC was doing in the past few weeks -- often in concert with other CIA-linked organizations such as Radio Free Asia -- was to conduct a massive disinformation campaign to instigate and perpetuate violence on the streets of Urumqi. Some Western media outlets certainly must have recognized WUC's goal as such but decided to be a willing partner nevertheless.

Turning to the bigger political picture, the first thing that caught my attention was actually the timing of the riot. July 5 was the day when President Hu Jintao started his European visit. Indeed, I had hoped that maybe during this trip of his, I could finally be set free "with minimal disruption" to China's stability. Obviously, the timing was not a coincident. The riot was in fact organized to take place on that particular day to create maximum instability during a potential transfer of power in Beijing.

At first, President Obama was quite tight-lipped about the "China situation". After President Hu abruptly cut short of his European trip and came back to Beijing on July 8, Mr. Obama sensed a power struggle was imminent in Beijing. He could not help but pouring more fuel to the flame in China. On July 11, he said that Africa did not need strongmen but strong institutions, which was an apparent reference to what I said about myself, i.e., I am not a strongman and my strength is in my ideas on China's democratization and on international relations. In effect, Mr. Obama was attempting to divide Chinese public over the issue of leadership succession in Beijing. (New York Times immediately picked up the message. It produced an article on the Xinjiang situation on the same day, acutely titled A Strongman Is China's Rock in Ethnic Strife. Of course, this was not the first time New York Times has been a voluntary political aide to Mr. Obama. So much for journalistic independence. -- After Mr. Obama brought out his wife to a high-visibility date, New York Times produced an article titled Mr. Obama Proves that He Can, or something like that. I should note that that date was not the only time when Mr. Obama used his family members as political props.)

Looking at Urumqi Riot in the context of my story made even more sense. After my previous blog, Mr. Obama knew that his open call to break up China had failed. What he could not do openly, he chose to do it in the dark. Using CIA and covert action to create instability inside China, consequently, was a logical choice for him. That's why Mr. Seytoff and the like not only attempted to stir up unrest in Xinjiang, but other minority regions in China as well.

With this political background in mind, we can now cast some light on Peter Foster's puzzlement: Why the police appeared to be caught off-guard by the riot that killed so many people and injured so many more? I believe the initial demonstration was conceived to be largely a smoke screen, although it was not peaceful either, as Ms. Nadeer had to acknowledge in her WSJ article. Other facts pointing to sophisticated planning and organization included: (1) many of the rioters came from outside of Urumqi, some came from as far as 1,500 kilometres away; (2) similar violent acts were committed at around 50 different places at the same time; (3) rioters appeared to be working in groups; (4) such a high casualty number in such a short period of time indicated that at least some of the rioters had prior training in violence; (5) a certain degree of media savvy could be spotted in some protests.

Given that US military is in the neighbouring Afghanistan, it is not far-fetched to conclude that CIA, as the ultimate instigator and organizer of Urumqi Riot, had a double-barrel approach. On one hand, WUC and other quasi-CIA operatives were tasked to conduct a massive disinformation campaign to instigate and perpetuate violence on the ground. On the other hand, CIA had agents physically on the ground in or near Urumqi to organize and direct the demonstration and/or the riot.

Me

When the news of Urumqi Riot came, I did not pay much attention to it initially because (1) I was really tired of immersing myself in politics everyday and I had not followed politics closely since I published my last blog; and (2) I thought it was just another unrest in China. It was until I saw the bloody pictures on TV that I realized this event was quite different. Indeed, when I started gathering information on this incident, I couldn't bear to look at those pictures of extreme violence. I could not believe it actually happened in China.

Because of the timing of the riot, it did not take me long to conclude that the U.S. government was behind it. My realization saddened me greatly. What have China and its people done to deserve this?

After I published my last blog, the buzz words coming out of Washington were "consequences" and "think it through". I knew that I had foiled Mr. Obama's plan to turn the whole world on China. These and other appealing words by Mr. Obama aside, my gut feeling told me not to read too much into them. (Nowadays whenever I see Mr. Obama give a speech, I simply turn off my TV or change the channel. His words just can not be trusted. More to the point, I simply do not want to be bothered.) Low and behold, then came the CIA.

Before Mr. Obama started his trip to Russia, he famously said that Vladimir Putin had one foot in the past. As usual, those were just his words only. When it came to achieve his goal - which is to maintain U.S.'s sole superpower status - Mr. Obama proved that his words did not mean anything and both of his feet could be placed in the past.

From swine flu to Urumqi Riot, Mr. Obama's actions show that his biggest fear is the rise of China. However, China's rise is mostly a result of its focus on economic development and improving people's lives for the past 30 years. With this focus, China's economic growth is simply unstoppable. When will Mr. Obama learn to discard the outdated idea of hegemony and peacefully cooperate with China and other countries?

Politically, Urumqi Riot certainly had strengthened President Hu's hand in Beijing, as any external pressure would, because Chinese government always attached utmost importance in maintaining social stability, and rightly so. (Think back Chen Liangyu case.) My feeling, as confirmed by Mr. Obama's "strongman man/strong institution" comment in Africa last week, is that I have lost so much support that I can not even easily become the 5th generation of Chinese leadership now, let along the 4th or 3rd generation.

However, this may not be a bad thing because I am so desperately wanting to be out of this business. From the swine flu, to North Korea nuclear test, to Urumqi Riot, every time something happened that is connected to my situation, it would affect my sleep, which in turn exasperated my depression, which just made my life so much more miserable. If I could shut myself out of politics for a while, my sleep would improve and I would feel better.

Like Warren Buffett counsels, people should find careers that they actually enjoy. Politics certainly is not my cup of tea. That's why, I think, my father asked me to stay away from it before he passed away.

That's what I am going to do now. So please leave me alone, would you all? Please?