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

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

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

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

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

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

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 However, the Obama administration has never given up the outdated idea of confrontation and containment in its China policy.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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel for the Taiwan people

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

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

An Open Letter to American Youth (Part 2)

Dear Miss Malia Obama:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or is he?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sincerely,

Jim Yu

An Open Letter to American Youth

Dear Miss Malia Obama:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth of Urumqi Riot

Media

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

Uighurs rally against China in Kazakh capital

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

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

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

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

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

(Reuters)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grudgingly, I’ll try to be a politician

To be or not to be? That's the Shakespearean question bothering me these days. Irony is, when the question was about whether I should be a politician, the mere fact that I spent so much time pondering it, especially at this time of great crisis, already illustrated what I have been saying all along, that I could never be a politician.

But grudgingly, I think I'll try to be a politician.

UNSC Resolution 1784

The current crisis originated from North Korea's nuclear test on May 25. The latest development was that last Wednesday June 10, after more than two weeks' apparently stalked negotiations at the United Nation Security Council, China and Russia agreed onto a tough-worded draft resolution backed by the U.S.. The resolution was adopted by UNSC last Friday.

Why the sudden movement at the UN last Wednesday? I would say it had to do with what I typed into my computer the day before. As I mentioned several times already, the Canadian and U.S. governments were able to read the files on my portable disc. From my experience this time, I would say that they were able to capture every one of my keystrokes. (I have since bought another computer, on which this blog is being composed.) In order to put the political development in context, I'll copy and paste here the first several paragraphs of my writing last Tuesday June 9:

The North Korea situation is still a mess. More than two weeks after it conducted a nuclear test in defiance of the international community, U.N. Security Council has yet to bring forward a united response to the crisis. At the mean time, North Korea is increasingly bellicose, openly threatening the use of nuclear weapon in a "merciless offensive" through a state-run newspaper today.

China should and must deal a firm hand with North Korea this time. But in order for that to be effective, China needs first to take an even firmer approach to Russia, the backer of North Korea's nuclear test. China, together with the United States and other countries in the region, can then better leverage its influence over North Korea to make it give up its nuclear weapon.

In my June 2 update to my previous blog I argued that logically, Russia had to be the backer of North Korea's nuclear test. Later in the week, I found the telltale sign of its role in creating the crisis in a published interview of its president, Dmitry Medvedev, with Maria Bartiromo of BusinessWeek. Apparently, Mr. Medvedev was caught off-guard by the North Korea question. Otherwise, he would have hid his government's role in the nuclear test better. As I commented at the end of Bartiromo's article:

"On North Korea, Mr. Medvedev was lying through his teeth to you, Maria. The truth of the matter is, the recent N Korea nuclear test was aimed at China, with the backing of his government. That's probably why he did not mention a word of China in his interview with you. (Indeed, China was the only country he did not mention because U.S. was implicitly mentioned when he emphasized its allies Japan and S Korea.)"

The political logic behind the latest development at UN is as follows: The Obama administration is reluctant to accept my idea of a G2. The Russian government is firmly against it. I am widely regarded as the real leader of China with my proposals of China's democratization and Sino-U.S. relations. As such, the goals of U.S. and Russian governments somewhat converged on China and they therefore had an incentive to work together against me. Once they learned what I was about to publish last Tuesday, they quickly "reconciled" their differences on North Korea - with Russia agreeing to the U.S. position - at the UNSC with a resolution that put great pressure on China before my story could become public.

That China felt great pressure from this resolution was evident from the warning voiced by its ambassador to U.N. after the vote: "Under no circumstance should there be the use of force or the threat of use of force" in implementing the resolution. That's why we saw on CBC NewsWorld, one of the headlines all day Friday was "7th heaven", 7 being the most dreadful number in Chinese politics and used by Mr. Obama in his Cairo speech just recently on June 4. And on its Politics program with Don Newman, the anchor said: "Nobody wanted World War I, but …" He even mentioned the word "hibernate", from my original blog where I unwittingly spelled out the truth about China's nuclear force. (It's really sad that even after all these years, that's all came to some people's minds when they thought of me.) And on its evening flagship National program, the top headline was "T minus one sleep", perhaps a snipe at my slowness in writing my experience. (And I would suggest that the political drama in Ottawa in the past couple of days surrounding a rare summer election speculation was connected to my situation.)

U.S.-Russian cooperation on my file

The first time I suspected there might be a U.S.-Russian cooperation on my file was on February 10, 2009 when two satellites, one from the United States and one from Russia, collided in space. The chance that such a collision was a pure accident was extremely small. And the timing of the incident pointed to the cooperation between these two governments because Chinese government had a plan to bring me out into public in a celebrating atmosphere the day before, on February 9, the end of Spring Festival period and a significant Chinese holiday. (As it turned out, there appeared to be significant objection within the Chinese government, as manifested by two incidents happened to Chinese Central Television on that day. One was a reported satellite difficulty that affected transmission of TV signals for hours in the morning. Then in the evening, a huge fire engulfed the CCTV building.) What the U.S. and Russian governments wanted to accomplish with this "accident" in space were (1) to tarnish my public image at the start of my debut by reminding people that the Chinese government had conduct an anti-satellite (ASAT) experiment in connection to my possible debut in early 2007; and (2) to demonstrate their technological know-how. (From this and many others events people can see that China has a long way to go in terms of managing its international public relations.)

Of course, I did not know in advance of China's ASAT test. Indeed, I had come out and strongly condemned it after I learned its connection to my situation. I should add that this was not the only incident where the Chinese government had portrayed me in a militaristic fashion. Such portraitures did nothing to help my situation here other than to complicate it, as I often complained. Perhaps the most idiotic of them all was President Hu Jintao's link of my Pattullo Bridge protest in 2005 to "air defence". (Of course, my protest on Pattullo Bridge had nothing to do with the Chinese government, as I said many times. I got the idea from someone who, I believe, had nothing to do with Chinese government. I went on with my bridge protest only after all my other protests, including fasting day-in and day-out in freezing temperature in front of the Parliament in Ottawa, had failed to generate media attention on my cause. Even the timing of my protest was tied to Canadian domestic political situation: Although nobody admitted it, I believe it was my protest that gave the then opposition parties the resolve to bring down the then Liberal government and to begin a rare winter election. -- The non-confidence motion that defeated the government was a one-sentence general statement that "this House has lost confidence in the government", without being specific. For more background of my protest, please read here, here, and here.) Still, I feel sorry for the misunderstanding caused by Chinese government's idiotic portraitures of me.

Why was the U.S. administration reluctant to accept my G2 proposal of Sino-U.S. cooperation? I think fundamentally, it was due to U.S.'s hegemonic tendencies. I am not going to get into the abstract debate on whether the United States is an empire or not. Even for Barack Obama, there were telltale signs that he did not want to give up U.S.'s sole superpower status. That's why I called him (and his predecessor Mr. Bush) a "bubble-builder" in my January 18 blog. (I'm sure that he understood what I meant. That's why he had since tried to give alternative interpretations of the word "bubble".)

In my previous blog, I recalled that Mr. Obama could not give a coherent response to my April 2 blog during his post-G20 European tour. One response he gave was quite telling though: He stated the obvious fact that the U.S. was still the dominate military power in the world. The underlying message was simple: If necessary, he would not hesitate to use military power to preserve U.S.'s sole superpower status.

In my previous blog, I also talked about Mr. Obama's speech at Georgetown University on April 14 where, after he had succeeded in putting military pressure on China with the engineered hostage crisis off the coast of Somali, he essentially demanded that I should be the 5th generation of Chinese leadership, effectively proclaiming that my G2 idea was dead. In his speech, he mentioned that this 21st century would be another "American Century". Similarly, on the day after his 100th day in office when he succeeded in deceiving me by pretending that he would bring me out into public on that day, he gave another speech where he used the phrase "American Century" again to justify his keeping me away from the public.

Again, I am not going to get into abstract debate about "American Century" - just like the word "empire", much is depended on the definition. The mere fact that he used this phrase again and again to justify keeping me and thus my idea of G2 away from public was quite telling. And from my own experience, I can see that it is this hegemonic tendencies on the part of the U.S. administration that is a major part of the root cause for the potential conflicts between U.S. and China.

Because the U.S. government - and perhaps many other governments - was able to read the files on my disc, it's a good idea to copy and paste again some of the key phrases about my G2 idea from my disc. These are: "a new international order", "multi-polar world", "international democratic order", "counterbalance to America's hegemonic tendencies", "China and the developing countries", etc. These words should give people additional flavour of my idea on international relations. But most important of all, I should point out, my idea of G2 is a peaceful concept. It does not challenge American leadership per se. It merely offered a peaceful mechanism to transform the current uni-polar world order to a more democratic multi-polar one.

Russians are a bit trickier. My feeling is that the Russian government was fundamentally opposed to my idea of G2. Not only that, they in fact wanted to see China and U.S. walk down a more confrontational path. I mentioned before that I had foiled several potential conflicts across the Taiwan Strait over the years. In most of those cases, Russians appeared to have been on the side of Chinese government. It seemed to me that China and Russia had some kind of alliance. If that's the case, I think China should re-orient its approach to Russia.

From my own experience, I feel Russia supported China's confrontation with U.S. for its own reasons. Most other times, it just wanted to be troublesome. I remembered that after I had not cooperated on the plan to take Taiwan by force in late September or early October 2007, Vladimir Putin was very upset as evidenced by the news he made with the phrase "a lunatic dancing on a razor-thin edge", which was clearly nut-cracking my just-finished article on my experience in the mental hospital, entitled The Governments Pushed Me To The Edge Yet Made Sure I Did Not Fall Over The Edge. And more recently on the day of Mr. Obama's visit to Ottawa, Russian planes approached Canadian air space. Note that the Chinese government had a plan to bring me out on that day as well, as I revealed in my February 20 blog. What's Russia's purpose to send war planes over, other than "troublesome just to be troublesome", as prime minister Stephen Harper put it?

Of course, the U.S. and Russian governments would not have taken me and my G2 idea so seriously if I were not widely regarded as the real leader of China. And here came a dishonesty on the part of Chinese government, which I had disclosed before. As I said in my April 2 blog, Chinese government wanted to make me the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership - a super leader - yet "maintain in public that they only considered me as the 6th generation of Chinese leadership so that I could be free to establish myself here in Canada". As I said, this plan of Chinese government had caused friction between U.S. and China. Looking back, I am afraid that my genuine desire to get away from politics may have been taken advantage of by the Chinese government. And judging from Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo, it is quite possible that their bestowing me a super leader status was contingent upon my successful establishment here.

It was mostly because of this realization that I decided that I should go back to politics in a honest way - except for myself. That's the only way to resolve the situation. I have written enough on me and politics as a profession, and every word of it was true. However, there is no point in being honest to myself (that I can never be a politician) if everyone else thinks otherwise (that I am the true political leader of China). And if my realization is correct, the only honest way for the Chinese government to bring me out is to treat me as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership.

But I also knew this was a wrong decision. That's why I was so torn-apart by it. Indeed, I think it was a mistake for the Chinese government to have picked me years ago as a potential candidate for the top leadership position in China. I don't know exactly why I was picked. Perhaps Warren Buffett was a factor. But frankly, I think I am just an average guy. If anything, I perhaps have a stronger sense of right and wrong than other people. When it comes to politics, though, I am awfully ill-equipped. As the events in the past few weeks demonstrated, I had to be responsible for at least some of the serious damages done to China.

Events after North Korea nuclear test

Let's face it. Not only was North Korea's nuclear test aimed at China, even the date was carefully chosen to disrupt China's plan to bring me into public. May 25 was when Mr. Wu Poh-hsiung, Chairman of KMT started a highly visible tour of mainland. Chinese government probably had a plan to bring me out into public as the next super leader (but maintain in public I was only the 6th generation) around May 25 or 26 thus reveal at the same time what I have done, among other things, for peace across the Taiwan Strait. (I should add that I do not always know Chinese government's exact plan, such as the one on May 12, which I only knew after the fact. Partly this is because I lack experience in politics. Partly it is due to the way I receive my information. Ever since I embarked on my journey, I have not received a single message plainly, whether it was from the Canadian government and opposition parties, or from Chinese government, or from U.S. government and opposition politicians, or from the media. The messages were always hidden. I didn't always get them in my first reading. Indeed, a lot of times I only discovered the hidden messages when I went through the whole news the second, third, or even fourth time. Of course, even when I got the messages, I did not always act on them.) For me, I think it is simply the right thing to do to guard peace.

Indeed, I wrote my last major blog with an eye on the developing situation in Taiwan. Apparently, the U.S. administration had influenced the opposition DPP in an attempt to create social unrest and/or chaos on or around May 17 in Taiwan as part of their plan to create problems for China, who was preparing for war with India. Taiwan's former leader Chen Shuibian, who was held in prison for corruption-related charges, had started a hunger strike. After the current DPP leader's visit to the U.S., the entire DPP top brass, who had distanced themselves from Chen, visited him just before the mass demonstration their party organized. In light of this situation, in my initial draft of my last blog I started with writing my own experience in prison. Indeed, I believe it was because of these initial passages, unpublished but observed by the U.S. administration nevertheless, that prevented social unrest from flaring up in Taiwan in mid-May.

… Nice guy finishes last. My own experience was so miserable that I cried many times.

I remembered crying as far back as in the summer of 1994. I was in the office of a business professor at SFU, telling him what happened between my Stats professors and me. Many years would pass me by while I was bullied, harassed as well as humiliated without a job. I became depressed. But I did not file my lawsuit until November 2002. Even that was at the end of a status of limitation period. (Of course, I did not know the involvement of the federal government when I filed my lawsuit.)

I remembered crying on November 29, 2006, over the disappearance and potential cover-up of another young girl, Tamra Keepness, in Saskatchewan.

My last significant cry was after November 28, 2007, the first day of my trial in Judge Steinberg's "kangaroo court". I cried because I felt I was losing my cause of seeking justice for Cecilia Zhang, having realized that I had been cheated by both the judge, who apparently had been influenced by the government after I was last in his court, and the opposition Liberals, whose moral outrage during the Question Periods in parliament before my trial was just hot air. Knowing that I was under 24 hour video surveillance (duo to my earlier hunger strike) in prison, I had to control my crying with my back facing the camera. Still, the prison doctor was at my door in no time. Apparently he had been hard pressed by the governments to find any evidence to prove that I was mentally ill so as to discredit my cause.

And my situation is not much better, being in a virtual prison as I often say I am in. Moreover, I am still on probation by Judge Steinberg's order, issued after he had convicted me AND made sure that I would be sent back to mental hospital for forced psychiatric medication. Any "bad behaviour" would automatically land me in a real prison, together with forced psychiatric medication. Even if I have to be hospitalized for other sickness, I would likely be forced to take psychiatric medication as well.

And I believe I am still under surveillance even inside my apartment. The latest confirmation was the big drop in market indices on Wednesday, May 13. I believe the sequence of events is as follows: (1) I read on Tuesday night on Bloomberg website that a respected Australian scientist claimed that the A(H1N1) virus could come from a lab; (2) I could not fall sleep and got up in the middle of the night; and (3) Information about me was relayed to market insiders.

As such, right after North Korea's nuclear test, I got the feeling that it was targeted at me. But I was out of politics then and I was determined not to be bothered by it. I even tried to get my mind away from politics by developing a hobby to break my daily routine. I contemplated taking up photography. I visited electronic stores to compare-shop camera; gathered information on photography classes from at least two institutions and investigated funding requirements. I was really serious about it. But I could not get away from the news on North Korea -- it was headline everywhere. And soon I realized that I would be personally targeted if I did not respond. I also knew Chinese government had another plan to bring me out on June 1, the last day of Wu's visit to mainland. Naturally Chinese government wanted me to act and to act promptly.

However, I realized these a little too late, as my mind had been deliberately taken elsewhere. When I decided to write my response, I wrote it too slowly, as I always did. As you can see, I was only able to finish this update in the evening of June 2 local time.

It was in this context of my failing to meeting the June 1 (Beijing time) deadline that Air France Flight 447 disaster occurred on June 1 (local time). I highly suspect it was a foul-play to pin terrorism blame on China. Besides the timing of the incident, the following are the facts that support my assertion.

1. France's Sarkozy government is well-known for its anti-China stand. Indeed, French government had tried to take a lead in the recovery of wreckage and investigation of the accident in the beginning.
2. Brazil is an important developing country who has a generally good relationship with China. This would be a good opportunity to instigate problems and create frictions between Brazil and China. If successful, China would be considerably isolated internationally.
3. Media coverage, especially those in France, had put a cloud of mystery on the disaster from the beginning. A French minister openly said that terrorism could not be ruled out.
4. Just three days later, Mr. Obama called on the whole world to turn on China in his Cairo speech.

After I missed the June 1 deadline, Beijing suggested to me that I could get back to politics on June 4, as my sentiment on the event of June 4, 1989 was well known. I knew Beijing was eager to bring me out. But I was still reluctant to get back to politics. As a result, Beijing could not get out the truth about North Korea's nuclear test.

When I first read Mr. Obama's Cairo speech on June 4, frankly, I was a little shocked that he openly called for China's dissolution with the number 7 in his speech. But my initial shock soon gave away to the reality: Russia was starting to turn against China. France had been onboard for some time. With the power of Western media in his palms, Mr. Obama must have felt that the prospect of pinning down China with terrorism was within his reach by connecting the Air France 447 disaster with China. No wonder he was bolstered to call on the whole world to turn on China.

It was in the morning of June 5 that I started collecting and saving information on Air France disaster story. Perhaps because of this computer activity of mine which "told" the world that I was watching the development of this story, the media frenzy surrounding this story started to die down a little bit. It was after the first two bodies were found that I felt much more relieved. I really hope that truth will be found in this tragic disaster.

The effect of Mr. Obama's speech was immediate. There were certain benefits to be the world's only superpower, after all. Great Britain and Australia were the two countries whose governments had been receptive to my idea of G2. In Great Britain, Gordon Brown's government went into a deeper crisis with additional minister resigning. In Australia, RioTinto suddenly scrapped a huge business deal with Chinalco. It was clearly a political decision. So much for not meddling in other people's affairs.

What do I have to say to Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo? Frankly, not much. I suppose that if Mr. Obama succeeds in turning the whole world against China through his Machiavellian ways, that would be the end of China as we know it. But like Warren Buffett says, you always have to ask yourself the question, "And then what?" And I have already provided the answer in my analysis of Sino-U.S. relations and elsewhere in my blogs: A chaotic China is not in the world's interest. Just think of the perhaps hundreds of millions of refugees coming out of a disintegrating and chaotic China. Where would they go? How many will U.S. take? How many will France take? How many will Russia take?

Even with that awful scenario, China - in the cultural sense - will still survive. In fact, the power of China lies not in its military, nor in its growing economy. I believe China's real power lies in its culture. Indeed, if you study Chinese history, you'll find that there have been periods when China was conquered by "outsiders". And then what? The conquerors invariably became Chinese. That's just how irresistible Chinese culture is. (Another feature of Chinese culture is that it is incredibly open.) Think of Chinese culture as chocolate. As one of my favourite movie illustrated, you can not fight chocolate with a knife. You just can't.

But I took my other realization from reading Mr. Obama's speech seriously. I did not want to see myself become a source of tension, even unintentionally. That's why on Friday evening, June 5, I posted a blog, grudgingly signalled that I would consider trying to be a politician, as this was the only way to diffuse the tension between China and U.S as Mr. Obama saw it. The Chinese government's plan was to bring me out on June 8, again in a celebrating atmosphere in connection to the first of a series of parties for the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic. In effect, Chinese government planned to bring me out as the 3rd generation. However, I did not feel comfortable with their plan, even if this time their bestowing me the 3rd generation status did not depend on my establishing myself here. On Saturday evening, I took down my blog.

Conclusion

Just four weeks ago I sum up my experience with politics this way: "I was dragged into politics without my prior consent. I was bothered by the fact that politics had complicated my situation and made my primary goal - which was to get my life back - seem harder to reach. Despite the complications, however, I had always used 'doing the right thing' as my guiding principle along the way - usually with great personal costs. When I found out that I could not untangle myself from politics, I played along, hoping that I would be taken out politically."

But, as I said, the only honest way now to bring me out is to treat me as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership. I am little sad about it. But I am resigned to my fate. Hopefully my story will shed some light on the North Korea situation and help to resolve the crisis peacefully. Politically, I will still try to lead China on the path of democratization with that "nice" philosophy of mine. I will also try my best to make my idea of G2 work between China and U.S. This may just be too naive. But I'll try nevertheless, because it is the only way I know. With President Hu Jintao traveling outside of China, I think there is an opportunity now to do this with minimum disruption. My only hope is that Canadian government will cooperate with my plan and compensate me as soon as possible for the serious wrongs inflicted upon me.


Update (20090620):

It appears that I don't have enough support in China to be the 4th generation at this time. That leaves me with the only option to be the 5th generation.

Still, I believe my strength is in my ideas - my idea for China's democratization as well as my idea for international relations. These ideas could potentially change China and impact the world. That's fundamentally why people take me so seriously.

Assaulted in prison, tortured in mental hospital

Before I take on politics again, I post here my oral submission to BC Provincial Court on December 4th, 2007, to provide some context on the torture and assault I personally endured during incarceration:

At the core of the 13-page documents I submitted to the Court last Wednesday, November 28th, in support of my application to stay the proceedings was a 2-page letter I wrote to U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, on October 23, 2007. In it, I disclosed for the first time that President Bush personally knew my telephone activities at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital (FPH) and therefore likely knew that I was being tortured there as well.

In this current submission, I intended to establish that, in order to protect the Bush administration from this damaging information about President Bush, the federal government, mostly through its influence on North Fraser Pre-Trial Center (NFPC), repeatedly obstructed the delivery of my letter to Senator Reid, in various formats.

One. On October 23, 2007, I submitted the 2-page letter, attaching the 6-page FPH update, to NFPC for faxing to Sen. Harry Reid at around 1:00PM. Mr. Fraser, the Living Unit Officer (LUO), signed my request "fwd for action" and later told me that his supervisor had promised to "make it happen". However, at around 10:30AM the following day, Mr. Fraser told me that my fax request had been rejected. I asked him why. He said that he was told it was too long. But I knew it was an excuse because I had earlier requested sending even longer faxes and they were granted. And I noticed that the "Supervisor Remarks" section of my request was left blank. I asked Mr. Fraser to ask whoever was responsible to provide a formal reason for rejecting my fax request. Later a Supervisor signed the section: "Please send this document via regular mail." Merely pointing out an alternative but slower means of delivery was apparently not a solid reason for rejecting my fax. The real reason was, of course, the federal Conservative government intended to protect the Bush administration from the damaging information in my letter.

Two. After my fax request was rejected, I did put a copy of my letter to Sen. Reid in mail on October 24, 2007. At the mean time, I wrote a letter to MLA Jenny Kwan. There were two purposes in my writing to MLA Kwan. One was to ask her to fax my letter to Sen. Reid on my behalf so that Sen. Reid would receive my letter sooner than the regular mail. That's why I sent my letter to MLA Kwan to her constituent office in Vancouver, rather than to her legislative office in Victoria. Two was to convince her, as an opposition MLA in BC Legislature, to intervene in the BC government-run NFPC's treatment of me, especially in light of their rejection of my fax request.

The response I got from MLA Kwan's offices was very confusing at best. For more than a week, I was told that they had not received my letter, which was quite unusual for a letter from Port Coquitlam to Vancouver. It was not until Wednesday, November 14th when a staffer, Stewart, in her office told me that he had in fact received my letter on October 26 and turned it over to MLA Kwan on that same day, without the knowledge of any other staff members in her offices, and that he had subsequently been out of office for quite some time. He also promised that he would fax my letter to Sen. Reid later that day, November 14th.

Three. On October 30, 2007, I decided to re-send my letter to MLA Kwan, together with a one-page note I wrote her on that day, this time by making another fax request to NFPC. This was essentially how my 13-page submission last time came about. Again, having counted the number of pages, LUO Mr. Fraser signed my fax request: "fwd to Programs for possible consideration for faxing."

Two days later, a supervisor from the Programs Department told me that my fax request had been rejected with the ridiculous reason: "There is no letter attached." I guess they ran out of excuses for turning down my fax request.

Four. On November 1st, 2007, in protest of the repeated obstructions of my written communications with Sen. Reid by federal government and NFPC, I started another hunger strike. On November 8th, 2007, in desperation to get the letter to Sen. Reid, I called a relative of mine and asked him to record my letter - as I read it - as a voice mail and send it to Sen. Reid's office via email. However, my telephone conversations with this relative of mine were repeatedly interrupted by either the federal government or NFPC. For several times, whenever I read the part of the letter on President Bush's activities on Thursday evening, September 13th, the telephone line was disconnected. As I said before, President Bush's activities on Thursday evening, September 13th, which revealed his personal knowledge of my telephone activities earlier that day at the FPH, was the information that the federal government did not want me to get out to Sen. Reid.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that my 6-page FPH update article was finished on October 10, 2007 and had been sent out to other politicians without much difficulty before October 23, 2007 when my letter to Sen. Reid provided new information that was damaging to President Bush. So it would appear that this new information was the reason why I had so many problems in getting this letter out.

Also, this new information, together with my FPH update provided the reasonable and logical conclusion that President Bush knew my telephone activities from the Harper government almost instantaneously on September 13, 2007. This is because (1) all of my calls made prior to President Bush's televised speech were local calls; (2) I did not tell anyone about those calls; and (3) I had established in my FPH update article that my calls made at the hospital were monitored by the federal government. (Of course, the federal government has been monitoring my personal and/or legal telephone communications for at least 6 years. That's why I could not find a lawyer. Please see my websites jyu1.blogspot.com and www.sfu.ca/~jyu1 for details.)

Lastly, NFPC, being a correctional facility, is an apolitical organization. It, by itself, should not or would not obstruct my personal communications. It likely was taking orders from the federal government who had been working hand-in-hand with the Bush administration against my cause for a long time.

PM update:

I started running technical difficulties again when I tried to post the 13-page documents, mostly with the website Zamzar, since yesterday. I have just been able to post it on tuzulo.com.

The 13-page documents, consisting of letters I wrote to various law makers while in prison, was submitted to the Court on November 28, 2009, to support my application to stay the proceeding. Later, I found out by phoning Court Registry that Judge Steinberg had essentially kept those documents in his pocket. I complained and the Registry had to track down him to get hold of these documents. Till this day, I am not sure if these documents are in my Court File (New Westminster No. 68600).


Update (20090812):

This blog was originally published on June 6. I took it down on June 16. I re-published it today.


Update (20140124):

I visited New Westminster Court Registry on Tuesday January 21, 2014. I did find the said 13-page documents in my file with a yellow post-it note on the top page. The note, which essentially says that those documents were obtained from the judge or judge's (I paraphrase), was hand-written by someone with the initial "D.M.". This was consistent with my own personal notes from my hospital days. My notes indicated that the clerk I spoke to over the phone was Diane.

I have requested a copy of my whole file.

Okay, all right. I'll try to be a politician

But I can only be a nice politician.

I can never be a politician

After announcing in my last blog that I would return all my books, I did go to the library with all the six books. But I hesitated in returning them. I felt I owe people an explanation.

As I said before, I was dragged into politics without my prior consent. I was bothered by the fact that politics had complicated my situation and made my primary goal - which was to get my life back - seem harder to reach. Despite the complications, however, I had always used "doing the right thing" as my guiding principle along the way - usually with great personal costs. When I found out that I could not untangle myself from politics, I played along, hoping that I would be taken out politically. That's why I borrowed books to send out political messages.

However, in the past few weeks, with the realization that my depression had gotten markedly worse, I became increasingly convinced that this was all a mistake. To be taken out politically, I need to win politically. However, I could not possibly win this game, not only because I do not have the necessary experience and skills, but more crucially because I am just too nice. I can never be a politician. That's the reason why I wanted to return all the books and stop such activities in the future.

No, this is not a clever way of praising myself. I know very well from my own miserable experience that "nice guys finish last". Indeed, I did not even hide the fact that I had tried to change myself by, say, reading Machiavelli stuff. But I failed. I guess niceness is in my genes. Of course, everyone knew I am a nice guy already, including people who were not so friendly to me, such as Dick Cheney or Niall Ferguson.

Besides having the tendency to shy away from conflicts, I am also a sympathetic person - another trait of a nice guy. As I said elsewhere, I think that we needed more sympathy in our societies. I still maintain that view because I firmly believe the lack of sympathy is the root cause of moral decline in our societies. Besides, being a nice/sympathetic guy, I naturally subscribe to the social and political philosophy I have been advocating, a philosophy that requires "extensive sympathy" to work.

In my dealings with President Obama, I have always had extraordinary amount of sympathy toward him because I had great hope for him. (After all, I risked my life in electing him.) Note that this was in addition to the unusually large amount of sympathy I had towards an average person by simply being who I am. Understand this part of me, then you will understand why I hesitated for four days before posting my first blog that was critical of him; and why, while I had attached great importance to the integrity in documenting my journey of almost 5 years, I lied in two of my recent blogs during the G20 Summit in order not to embarrass him.

I should note that in each of those two instances, Mr. Obama did not take my critical revelations of truth well. In the first instance, Mr. Obama responded emotionally as reflected in his inauguration address that contained countless nuts, putting the entire Sino-U.S. relations in jeopardy. In the second, Mr. Obama could not give a coherent response to the unflattering truth I revealed about him, as reflected in the changing themes of his speeches during his post-G20 European tour. One of the themes, as BBC acutely put it, was "Yes, we can" again. Mr. Obama was, in effect, resorting to punching below the waistline again on that day.

Soon after he came back from Europe, the biggest news across all major media was the hijacking of a U.S. freighter and the taking hostage of its captain by Somali pirates. As a maritime expert pointed out on BBC, this was highly unusual. Very soon, multiple U.S. navy vessels were dispatched to the area, making people wonder why so many military assets would have to be deployed to deal with a few pirates on a small life boat. President Obama was reportedly on top of the situation but refused to answer questions from the media.

I was doing further research on China's planned war with India at the time. (Indeed, I had just determined that it was on or around February 2 that I first realized China's war plan. ) When the words "Indian Ocean" were mentioned by the media in connection to the hostage situation, I realized that those piracy activities were not that far from India. Of course, I knew China had earlier sent its navy vessels to the Gulf of Aden to protect its merchant ships from Somali pirates. All these made me realize that (1) the Chinese vessels very likely had a secret mission as part of the planned war with India; and (2) the hostage situation was very likely engineered by the Obama administration so as to send war ships to the area to counter the Chinese vessels.

As I probed deeper, I found that the Chinese vessels were dispatched on December 26, 2008, the birthday of Mao Zedong. I do not usually remember Mao's birthday. I remembered it this year because, while composing this blog - which was still to be titled then - on Christmas Day, I noticed Mao's birthday while browsing the Internet. Indeed, it was because I regarded Mao's birthday as a good date that I hurried up with my writing and posted the finished blog in the evening, which would still have been Mao's birthday in China. That's also why I gave this blog an unusual title, A Christmas Update, with an apparent emphasis on time. (I should add that I started writing that part of my story on Christmas morning because I felt particularly depressed, it being a holiday of all. -- One thing I learned about coping with my depression was to break my routine, or to do something fresh or unusual.)

I did not overtly make the connection to Mao's birthday in that blog because I knew what the impression of an average Westerner had on Mao and I knew I could not possibly change that perception in short order. Indeed in all my writings, I had tried to avoid the subject if I could.

(Perhaps a few words on Mao is in order. I know that Mao had been portrayed as a horrible person in western media for ideological reasons. I agree that he was a brutal dictator. People here should realize, though, that to the Chinese people, he will always be regarded as the undisputed founder of the new China. And because of that, I admire him greatly. Without a strong, independent China he founded, Chinese people would still live in destitute. That said, I should point out that any comparison between Mao and me is unfortunate because the only similarity I could think of is that both of us are true advocates for the less advantaged in society. Yet the differences between Mao and me are huge. For one thing, Mao was a strong man and a revolutionary but I am only a modest person by nature. I subscribe to Confucianism - in its modern sense - but Mao disdained Confucius. Mao was a brutal political leader adept at the power game. I am a nice guy hopelessly stuck with my life. And finally, Mao was a dictator at his core. Because I had lived both in China and in Canada and saw these two political systems up close and personal, I am a firm believer of democracy.)

Back at the situation at hand, I first wondered: given all these coincidences, did I give people the impression that I had known China's war plan as early as on December 25, and that I was in support of this mission? This was the first question that came to my mind because I was researching on the question of when I first realized China's war plan. Frankly on that early a date, I did not have a whiff of impression of China's war plan.

I also wondered: Why did the Chinese navy send out its war ships on Mao's birthday on an apparent anti-piracy mission? Was it just a coincidence, or did it have a political significance? I knew that both Mao and I had been compared to the sun. The constant headline of "Captain Phillips Held Hostage" also reminded me that Mao had been called the "Great Captain". I wondered if the Chinese navy mission was initially conceived to cross the Pacific Ocean to rescue me (or to be seen to rescue me in order to put pressure on the U.S. and Canadian governments), as I had said many times that I was in a virtual prison here; and by posting my blog A Christmas Update on that same day, if I had created the impression that I had "sent off" these ships to the Indian Ocean.

If that's the case, I could even be regarded as the real person behind China's planned war with India. This scenario was highly plausible because under this scenario, a message from the whole "Captain Phillips Held Hostage" episode was that the Obama administration would take hostage of me if China-India war did break out. Indeed, helicopters were hovering above my head again to perhaps reinforce the message.

But I knew I had nothing to do with China's planned war with India. That's also part of the reason why I had so resisted accepting Mr. Osama's "endorsement" of me for the 5th generation of Chinese leadership in his Georgetown speech on April 14.

Probably because of my resistance, Mr. Obama must have gone back to all the intelligence reports he had on me and concluded that I had done nothing wrong and he himself had broken the law by deliberately putting the lives of American citizens in danger. That's why he gave a speech at CIA on Monday April 20 in which he talked about "hard/easy" while looking away from the camera - an extremely rare occurrence for him. I knew he was afraid that I would blow the whistle on him and he was apologizing to me for punching below the waistline. That's actually how my blog title, "It's not easy to be a politician", came about. Note that the markets dropped heavily on that day, too.

Being a nice guy, I readily accepted his apology, and with a reading of Norman Spector's column on Tuesday April 21, I again sympathized with Mr. Obama and hid the damaging information about him from my blog posted on April 23. Mr. Obama responded by assuring me that he would come to my side in his weekly address on Saturday April 25. He not only made 4 points, signaling his "improved endorsement" of me, but also used Mao's famous "serve the people" in his speech.

Not wanting to compete with Hu Jintao, I proposed on April 28 to stay here so that I would also have a chance to learn from Mr. Warren Buffett in person. It had always been a dream of mine, as Mr. Obama must have surely known. However, I do not know whether all of Mr. Obama's nice gestures were just meant to appease me so that he could get through his 100 day celebration on April 29 without a hitch, or he just particularly disliked my idea of working alongside Mr. Buffett. In the end, he did not come along to my side at all.

Note that he was visibly more relaxed in the morning of April 29, probably knowing that, even if I wanted to blow the whistle on him, it would be too late now. In his town hall meeting that day, he made 5 points again. At the beginning of the town hall speech, he remarked that "it's good to be in the middle of America", or something along the line. -- One reason I was drawn to Mr. Buffett and regarded him as my hero was precisely because of the American heartland values that Mr. Buffett embodies. I believe Mr. Obama was again borrowing ideas from me to help himself look good politically. (Even worse, a TV reporter from BBC later in the evening borrowed my words "lest I offended anyone" from my blog to apply on Mr. Obama. In effect, she knew what Mr. Obama wanted and she was doing the job for him already.)

I do not know how to describe my feelings that night. Please, folks! I didn't write my blogs to seek office, even after the realization that politics had intruded into my life. I wrote them because they were the truth, they were what happened along my journey, they were a reflection of me - a true me, a "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" me. You all know it is not easy for me to write. Faking a likeliness of me in words while keeping the real me away from the public is both shameful and cruel. (Of course, I would not mind people subscribing to my philosophy, as long as they are genuine in their efforts. And genuine Mr. Obama was not. Eventually, I believe people will see through all his rhetoric and oratory and realize that he is just another politician driven by personal ambitions.)

The next day, I could see that Mr. Obama was still a little nervous. I thought about blowing the whistle, but I was so depressed that I just did not have the energy or motivation to do it. Instead, I retreated again, borrowing one more book in the evening and hoping that by giving up the idea of working for Warren Buffett, Mr. Obama would not think that I was going to compete with him for the spotlight.

Instead of coming to my side, Mr. Obama made four points on countering the A(H1N1) virus in his weekly address on May 2, as if I was the virus. If I had any doubt on Mr. Obama's underlying hostile tone, it was quelled by CBC Radio's interpretation with the phrase "barely understood" in its reporting of the speech that morning. Feeling that I had had enough of Mr. Obama's about-faces, I brought my total number of books on loan to six that day, signaling that I just wanted to be out.

Even with that clear signal that I wanted to get out of politics, Mr. Obama would not let me go. On Wednesday, May 6th, Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu Jintao had a telephone conversation. They talked about cooperation in dealing with the virus, of course.

I did not know what else I could do, until May 14 when I thought about returning all the books once for all, signaling that I was out of politics, instead of waiting to be taken out politically.

And that is what I am going to do today, for sure.


Update (20090518):

If you read my above blog carefully, you could raise a legitimate question: "Since everyone knew that you were a nice guy and nice guy could not succeed in politics, why did you have to blow the whistle on Mr. Obama to explain your reason for stopping your 'political activities', i.e., borrowing books?" Indeed, that is a valid question, even with my worsening depression. And the answer is that I left out something more alarming.

What really pushed me to blow the whistle on Obama was a piece of news I read on Bloomberg website last Tuesday night, May 12, about the possibility raised by a respected Australian scientist that the A(H1N1) virus was man-made. I had some suspicion already that the flu outbreak was another work by the Obama administration to put further strain on other countries still coping from the global economic downtown, especially those populous ones such as China. This news seemed to have backed up my suspicion scientifically.

Indeed, I was so alarmed by it that I could not fall sleep. -- Putting the lives of a few American citizens in danger in the hostage story was one thing. The so-called swine flu outbreak was something totally different. A potential flu pandemic could put the whole world population in danger. -- I got up in the middle of the night and stayed up for several hours, changing my recent sleep pattern. Since, as I said before, there was video surveillance inside my apartment, the Obama administration must have sensed that I would become more likely to blow the whistle on him now. Not surprisingly, the Down Jones Index dropped 184 points the next day. (I should say that U.S. stock markets under the Obama administration are still driven by insiders, just like in their Bush years. This is not surprising given that Mr. Obama surrounds himself with so many people with close ties to Wall Street.)

And Mr. Obama quickly adjusted his domestic politics in anticipation of my revelations. On Wednesday May 13, he reversed his earlier commitment to allowing the release of torture photos. On Thursday May 14, he did another about-face by retaining the Bush-era military commission for terrorism suspects. Both decisions were meant to appease the opposition so that he could get away with breaking the law. I don’t know if it will work.

Of course, I noticed that a high-ranking WHO official had contradicted the claim of the Australian scientist since the initial report. I believe in science and hope that it will eventually help to pinpoint the origin of the virus. At the mean time, I think the world deserves to know my strong suspicion.


Update (20090602):

Like I said, I am out of politics now. I don’t really want to write any more. However, the development in the past week made feel that I had to speak out.

Let me start on the North Korea situation, considering that I disclosed just a few weeks ago that their rocket launch in April had the implicit backing from the Chinese government.

Essentially, the rocket launch was meant to create a phony war situation in northeast Asia so that China could concentrate its war efforts on India. It would not lead to a real war, as, just like China’s planned war with India itself, was known to the Obama administration. That’s why U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on a Sunday morning talk show before the launch that he was not concerned. That’s also why I hesitated a little bit in urging North Korea not to do it.

Last Monday, North Korea conducted a underground nuclear test, to the surprise of a lot of countries, including China, as Mr. Gates observed. China’s stand has always been a “nuclear-free Korea peninsula”. If North Korea becomes a nuclear state, it will undoubtedly trigger an arms race in the region to the detriment of China’s own security. Therefore, unlike the rocket launch, the North Korea nuclear test could not have the backing of the Chinese government. Indeed, the nuclear test last week caused the greatest security damage to China among all the countries concerned.

While the North Korea regime had its own reasons to develop nuclear weapon, such as ensuring the continuation of their family dictatorship or exacting a higher price in the ensuring denuclearization negotiations, they could not have made such a move without a major backer. Indeed, judging from their war-mongering after the test, one had to conclude they did have a backer, unless the regime was suicidal.

And that backer could only be Russia, its other traditional ally in the region. Indeed, the whole history of North Korea after the Korean War has been a history of maintaining good relations with these two countries and, in periods of animosity between China and Russia (or former Soviet Union), maintaining a delicate balance in their dealings with these two allies.

And I can see that Russia had an incentive to back North Korea’s nuclear test. For a long time, it has not been happy with my G2 proposal of China-U.S. cooperation. And I left out some critical information in my above update regarding the spread of A(H1N1) virus by the Obama administration.

The truth of the matter is, while the Obama administration did not oppose China’s planned war with India, it did not support the war either. Far from support, it wanted to ensure China bear maximum cost for its war efforts. The spreading of A(H1N1) virus was aimed at exactly putting more cost on China’s war efforts. Knowing this aim of the Obama administration, one then can easily understand why the virus targeted mostly young to mid-aged adults, besides being highly contagious; and why the Obama administration appeared to take a rather leisurely approach to the public health emergency created by the new virus and made U.S. one of the most affected countries despite its high quality health care system; and why many of China’s confirmed cases came from the United States; and why Keiji Fukuda, the high-ranking WHO official from America, immediately contradicted the scientific claim made by the respected Australia scientist Adrian Gibbs that the virus could come from a lab.

I should add that the reason that I withheld those information was that I wanted a trouble-free post-politics life here. Indeed, I feared being tortured again by the governments as retaliation. Don’t believe Mr. Obama has changed much from Mr. Bush. Yes, he closed Guantanamo Prison. But what about the so-called Afghan Gitmo? What Mr. Obama is good at is political theater. He closed Gitmo because that was the symbol of the previous administration’s torture policy. It was for the same reason that he scheduled his speech on this subject on the same morning as that made by former Vice-President Dick Cheney. In my case, I believe the incident where he or his spokesman “misspoke” on torture was intended to send me a message. (More research needed to find the details.)

As for my G2 proposal that Russians were so unhappy about, I do not have a formal training in international relations and it is very hard for me to write about my ideas. But I believe the essentials could be found from what I have already written. (G2 being an embryonic concept, it did not elicit an official response from the Russian government. But I saw a Russian researcher reportedly spoke vehemently against it.) I did not envision G2 as U.S. and China working together to dominate the world. Rather, I see China’s role as a counter-weight against U.S.’s hegemonic tendencies. Through China, it will give voice to the many developing countries who are traditionally underrepresented in international affairs.

Actually, I don’t know what the letter G entails. As I said, I learned of the name G2 from the media. Initially, I focused much attention on Sino-U.S. relation because, from my own experience, it was a relation fraught with potential conflicts, (of which I had foiled a few.) As I learned more from my own experience, I found that the Sino-U.S. relation was much more complicated than I originally thought. The first two “political” books I borrowed from SFU library last August perhaps summarized my feelings about the relationship. -- If these two countries cooperate well, the relationship will benefit both sides. If not, both sides could get hurt.

Later, in my search for China’s democratic future, I found the philosophy that could underpin China’s democratization as well as Sino-U.S. relationship. In U.S., it’s called Pragmatism. In China, it’s called Confucianism. (In deference to the Americans, I had always used pragmatism up until this blog.) Indeed, as Joseph Grange’s book illustrated, this common philosophy has the potential to become a global philosophy.

As such, the cooperation I proposed was really a global cooperation in the end. But it has to work between U.S. and China first. (I think the current North Korea nuclear crisis presented just such an opportunity for U.S. and China, as Mr. Gates acknowledged.) It doesn’t exclude anyone. Actually, I am glad to see that some European politicial leaders had called on Europe to join G2, in which case it will become a G3.

Of course, maybe this was all some naive idea from a nice guy who could never be a politician. But here are some more explanations in response to Russia’s unhappiness. Now, if you would all excuse me, I really don’t want to have anything to do with politics any more.