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.