May the Year of the Tiger bring you and your family peace, prosperity and great happiness.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Just in case UNSC works on the weekend
It occurred to me last night that United Nations Security Council might work on the weekend. So I made a PowerPoint presentation and will try to fill in the necessary details later.
- It appeared that Chinese government had a plan to bring my story up at the United Nations Security Council during the current month of January, when China is the rotating chair. This makes sense for a number of reasons, among them:
- My story does involve multiple governments.
- My story contains important information related to UN business, such as the Copenhagen conference.
- My story is about facts and logic, not political theatre, at which the Obama administration is very good. In contrast, the Chinese government is very weak in public communications. UNSC would be an ideal forum for them.
- In anticipation of the Chinese plan, the Obama administration deliberately ratcheted up tensions with China and exhibited a dangerous inclination to seek military solutions. This also makes sense for a number of reasons, among them:
- As is often said, truth is the first casualty of a war (or something like that). Were the Obama administration and his predecessor complicit in the cover-up of the murders of 9-year-old Cecilia Zhang and 5-year-old Tamra Keepness? Was I tortured in mental hospital and beaten in prison? Was his "winning" the Nobel Peace Prize a fraud? Etc, etc…
- Given the many setbacks of his agenda and his sagging poll numbers, and especially the electoral defeat in Massachusetts, Mr. Obama knew that the easiest way to prop up his approval rating is to start a confrontation or even a war.
- Given America's economic woes and the interlocking economic relations between U.S. and China, it's easy to find a scapegoat in China. Witness the first sign of it: Mr. Obama had already started feeding American people with China envy in his State of the Union speech.
- Basically, Mr. Obama has never given up his fanatical idea of confronting China militarily. Portions of his State of the Union speech, such as "we must answer history's call", smacked the same tired and discredited rhetoric in his Cairo speech and Nobel acceptance speech, as I wrote about before.
- The cards Mr. Obama used to ratchet up tension with China included Taiwan and Google. Why Google? Just take a look at the many evil deeds Google did to me at the beginning part of my journey, as mentioned in my blog. (At the time, I might have thought Google was taking orders from private individuals. -- If anyone has any doubt that Google could play politics, just note that Twitter, another American Internet company, took orders from the White House, too, during the recent Iranian election/unrest.)
- At the mean time, Mr. Obama tried very hard to drag me through any mud he could dreg up, or to demonize me, in order to ultimately discredit me. Of course, knowing that I am alone without help, and knowing that I am having a severe episode of back pain (see "numbing weight of politics" in his State of the Union address), it's especially a good idea for him to put as much pressure on me as possible, or to bully me directly. For example:
- Why did the Obama administration finalize the Taiwan arms sale on Friday, January 29? Because I started writing this blog on Thursday and had planned to publish whatever I could finish on Friday morning. (As always, the U.S. and Canadian governments knew every move of mine, in real time.) By beating me in announcing the arms sale, the Obama administration would create the impression that my publishing the blog was in response to the sale announcement and thus I was at fault for the rising tension. Of course, when you wanted to bring the American people along to war with a big country like China, you have to appear confident by being aggressive.
- The purported bin Laden tapes. (You've got to marvel at the U.S. government for the way they value their enemies.)
- Perhaps the most outrageous attempt in this regard was Mr. Obama's out-of-the-world, swift response to my blog on Haiti earthquake. Besides the overt militaristic tone in his speech - augmented by the presence of his national security team with the noticeable absence of the head of USAID - he was also heavy on religious rhetoric. I did not realize at first that Mr. Obama's religious rhetoric was in response to the underlying Buddhist sensibility in my blog. -- I do not consider myself a Buddhist, strictly speaking. But Buddhism is part of my culture and it is only natural that my writing would have a undertone born out of that culture, without myself being consciously aware of it. Is there anything wrong with that?
- I knew I had to respond in order to clear the way for the Chinese government to bring my story up at the UNSC. But I had too much respect for the perished and the still suffering in Haiti to give Mr. Obama another excuse to politicize the issue. Oh, yeah, I knew Mr. Obama would give political interpretation to whatever I was going to say, if my innocent one sentence blog could "galvanize" him so such. -- When I wrote my Haiti earthquake blog, politics was something furthest from my mind. Obviously this was a natural disaster whose devastation was made so much worse by the poor conditions of that country. And if you read my blog, you know that poverty is something I care dearly. Besides, who would not be moved seeing our Governor-General break down on TV?
- After I had declared that I was out of politics, I had always thought that I was out of politics. With my back pain getting worse, I knew I should spend time walking, rather than in front of my computer to follow politics. Indeed, it was after I fully grasped Mr. Obama's reactions to my Haiti earthquake blog that I was able to piece everything (including Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue the Parliament at the end of December) together to realize UNSC. And it was still later that I sensed that the Chinese government probably planned to bring me out as the No. 5. Still, I think Mr. Obama over-reacted to my Haiti earthquake blog. And he did so deliberately in order to drag me into the mud and to create tension.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
My heart goes out to the Haitian people
It's just so sad to see the human suffering from yesterday's devastating earthquake near Port-au-Prince.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Thursday, October 22, 2009
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:
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:
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”.
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”.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 24, 2009
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.
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.