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
