布什政府是如何扶持胡锦涛的

我在分析被扣水兵事件的那篇博客中提到，自从我在三月初发表了《中国外空试验的内情》一文后，胡锦涛得以继续掌权，在很大程度上是得到了以布什政府为首的西方政府的扶持。这里的“西方政府”主要是“美英政府”。得出这一推论的根本原因当然是胡锦涛跟布什本着他们之间在我的事情上的“共同利益”结成了统一战线；文中我也引用了胡锦涛写手的文章来加以佐证。在这篇文章中，我将用我所知道的一些具体事例来说明布什政府是如何扶持胡锦涛的。英国政府虽是个配角，也顺便提一下。

布什政府扶持胡锦涛的第一个手法是运用媒体。布什先生自己说过，他拥有世界上音量最大的喇叭。有这么一个好东西当然要好好利用它。我也多次说过，西方媒体虽然相对自由，但不一定公正。不用说美国之音、BBC之类官方或半官方的媒体，其他私营媒体很多也是主动当政府的传声器。(毫无约束的言论自由其实也并非全是好事。比方说，有些人如Niall Ferguson在言论自由的保护伞下，故意以假乱真欺骗民众。再比方说，有些人利用言论自由故意侮辱别的宗教，挑起争端，等等。)

据我观察，自三月以来，美英政府利用媒体的具体做法就是：一方面捧胡锦涛，一方面打压他的主要竞争对手温家宝。至于“江系人马”，由于我在《内情》一文中披露了这次在政治上不成功的外空实验是由他们主导的，削弱了他们的实力，因此他们在那之后好像就没有挑战胡锦涛了。温家宝在中共党内是属于务实型的，不属于哪一派；但我感觉他一直对我很关心。

很多人都注意到温家宝在二月底以个人名义发表了一篇长文，表达了他的执政理念。这篇文章之所以要用个人名义发表，是因为温家宝的执政理念跟胡锦涛主导的官方理念有所不同，最主要的当然是他透露出来的政治改革的信息。我虽然读中共文献的时间不长，但看两遍也能体会出其中的政改信息。西方这么多能人智库研究中国这么多年，读懂这么一篇文章应该说不难吧。

而且，温家宝发表这么一篇文章是需要极大的政治勇气的。目前，政改在中共内部几乎还是一个禁忌话题。我在体制外呼吁政改，就遭到整个体制的沉默回应；作为体制内的高级领导人，温家宝发表这么一篇文章，他要顶住的压力可想而知。

如果西方政府和媒体是真的希望中国早日启动政改的话，他们应该对温家宝的文章大力宣扬才是。而事实恰恰相反，很多西方媒体在第一时间故意对该文作出错误解读，其目的自然是为了使胡锦涛的权位不受到挑战。如美国之音报导的题目就是《温家宝罕见为中共定调，政改仍是政治禁忌》。明明是温家宝亲自打破了中共高层讨论政改的禁忌，美国之音却偏偏说温家宝的意思是“政改仍是政治禁忌”。其他媒体的解读也大多如此。对美联社的报导，香港中评社在其《西方解读温家宝文章误会颇多》的文章中一语中的：“美联社记者看得懂，但是内心拒绝看懂”。再比方说华盛顿邮报的报道说，温家宝是在“警告中国越来越不耐烦的改革派和知识分子” ；其实只要仔细想想就清楚了，如果温家宝真的是象华盛顿邮报所说的那么保守的话，他何必还要用个人名义发表这篇文章呢？

在贬温家宝的同时，当然也要捧胡锦涛。BBC国际台记者麦吉弗林3月7日发表的所谓分析文章《胡锦涛领导中国向何处去？》就是一例。具体我也不用分析他的这篇所谓分析的文章了，因为他大部分都是在凑合不同“专家”的意见跟我《内情》一文中透露出的事实唱反调或搞SPIN，然后在文章结尾处没忘了说句胡锦涛“正是中国目前所需要的领导人”。捧胡锦涛的活动一直在持续，如时代周刊最近就将胡锦涛选为一百位最具影响力的人物之一。

其实，捧胡锦涛的不仅仅是受美英政府影响的媒体，还有他们长期支持的 分裂势力。比方说，达赖喇嘛3月10日在加拿大环球邮报上发表了一篇文章，其中就有赞扬胡锦涛的语句。我在《内情》一文中提到了李登辉表扬胡锦涛，随后其他台独分子如李秀莲等也在说胡锦涛的好话。

说到这里，就该说到布什政府扶持胡锦涛的“杀手锏”了，即唆使台独势力兴风作浪。大家从我去年揭露的那起由张东岳案引发的企图在台海制造冲突的阴谋中可以看出，台独势力怎么走、走多远，关键时候都是由布什政府在背后操纵的。

那么，为什么台独势力兴风作浪能让胡锦涛坐稳大位呢？这一说法好象有违常理，其实不然。我第一次意识到个中道理是在“江胡之争”的标志性事件──陈良宇下台之时。

陈良宇下台这个事件给人印象最深的地方就是事发的突然性。中共中央政治局是在九月二十四日审议有关陈良宇问题的报告的。据报道，新华网在前一天还在报道十九日陈良宇主持上海市委常委会的消息；同样在前一天晚上，“上海国际田径「黄金大奖赛」热力上演，陈良宇与韩正、龚学平、蒋以任等上海的「四套班子」成员集体亮相上海体育场，为本地的田径巨星、「飞人」刘翔加油。众多上海市民通过电视直播，还看到陈良宇微笑的画面。”

我当时的直觉是，此事很可能跟当天上午陳水扁隔海的一番“修宪”言论有关。据我观察，在陈良宇下台之前的那段时间里，江胡两派一直是相持不下的。而陳水扁的“修宪”言论也很突然。因此在直觉上，似乎是一个突发事件引发了另一个突发事件。(当然，陈的“修宪”言论是否是由布什政府指使的还很难说，因为当时的“倒扁”运动进行得轰轰烈烈，陳水扁很有可能是为了应付个人政治危机而抛出这个言论来转移视线的。但是，就象我在《内情》一文中介绍的，至少在8月21日布什给胡锦涛打电话之后，他们两人基于他们之间的“共同利益” 结成了统一战线，布什有理由帮助胡锦涛。)

事后看了冼岩(胡锦涛)写的几篇关于陈良宇的文章，我的直觉得到了印证。他在《邓小平挥泪斩杨家将，江泽民忍痛散上海帮》中说：“由于胡锦涛是台前领导人及未来责任人，所谓江胡联手只能是江泽民效壮士断腕，大力约束旧部亲信，甚至不惜让胡锦涛杀猴立威。”这样看来，陈良宇下台基本上是一个“权力格局调整”，“肃贪反腐只是副线”。在陳水扁抛出“修宪”言论、国家危难的时候，必须要尽快“化解两虎相争、天行二日的困境”。“由于胡锦涛是台前领导人及未来责任人”，解决的办法“只能是江泽民效壮士断腕，大力约束旧部亲信，甚至不惜让胡锦涛杀猴立威。”

即使布什政府以前不知道可以利用台独势力来扶持胡锦涛的话，这个道理既然我能通过陈良宇事件观察得到，他们当然也能观察得到。这样分析下来，陳水扁在三月四日拋出的“四要一沒有”主張受到布什政府唆使的可能性就很大了。理由如下：

1. 虽然我写《内情》的目的之一是为了让胡锦涛下台，但胡锦涛下台也就意味着我的事情得以曝光。这一结果是布什总统极不愿意看到的；因此，布什必须尽一切力量让胡锦涛稳住。
2. 虽然通过西方媒体可以为胡锦涛造一些势，但对中国国内影响毕竟有限。就像由陈良宇下台这一事件所揭示的那样，让胡锦涛的权位稳住的最有效办法就是让台独势力制造事端。陳水扁在我的《内情》一文发表后不到48小时就大造事端，其最终目的肯定是为了让胡锦涛稳住。
3. 台湾内部政治跟去年“倒扁”之时很不一样，陳水扁应该没有什么理由在此时搞出这么大一个台独动作；而且，他在此之前两个星期还公开说了，相对去年的“终统”言论，今年不会有什么动作了。
4. 从中国政府的反应来看，胡锦涛似乎有所默契。在去年陳水扁的“终统”言论后，胡锦涛亲上一线，说出了“任何逆历史潮流而动的人都逃脱不了失败的命运”的重话。而这一次陳水扁“四要一沒有” 的台独性质可比“终统” 要严重得多，但胡锦涛却一点反应都没有。

这样我们就看到一个奇怪的现象：一方面台独势力兴风作浪，不断挑衅中国政府和人民，在台独路上越走越远；另一方面，其主要领导人却大肆赞扬中国政府最高领导人胡锦涛。这背后都是布什政府在操纵。

当然，布什政府也不总是在唆使台独分子，有时也呵斥呵斥。如上个星期，布什政府看看对胡锦涛的扶持取得了一定的效果，台独走得也够远的了，于是各高官就出来对台独分子狠狠骂两句。今天布什给胡锦涛打了一通电话，看来胡锦涛的大位果然又坐稳了。布什政府这一松一紧，尺度掌握得非常好；也便于从两边捞取利益。──在关键时候对台独松松绑，既扶持了胡锦涛，又可以从中国这边赚取象伊朗这样的利益；时不时对台独呵斥两句，让他们别忘了谁是主人，同时也吓唬吓唬他们赶快掏钱买军火(大部分都是二手的) 。

嗨，看来当美国总统还真是蛮惬意的啊。

六个小时后的补记：

关于布什政府利用台独势力这个“杀手锏”来扶持胡锦涛的例子还可以再举一个,这样大家可以看到一个明显的PATTERN。

这个例子就是陈水扁在今年元旦发表的台独言论。当时胡锦涛的权位也是济济可危。原因主要是我在12月27日发表了《１３亿中国人民就是我的上天》(英文)一文，圆满解答了各方的、有些甚至是故意刁难的疑问。就象我在《内情》一文中透露的，正是因为《１３亿》一文的发表，“江系人马”挺我的理由充足到令人无话可说的地步，用外空试验来将我"捧上天"的决定就是在那时作出的。

其实，如果胡锦涛不是这么恋位的话，他应该在那时就该妥协一下。他当时的想法在其12月31日的文章《从胡锦涛被选为接班人的原因看其执政思路》中有所透露。第一，他搬出邓小平，他是邓小平钦点的，这是他最大的政治资本；第二，“胡锦涛并非随波逐流的人”，也就是说他一点都不要妥协；第三，他说了一大堆不要政治改革的理由。

果然，陈水扁在第二天就帮他了，在他的元旦讲话中大肆鼓吹台独分裂主张。同样地，胡锦涛心照不宣，没什么反应，跟他在去年陳水扁“终统”言论后亲上一线的表现再一次形成鲜明对照。

中国外空试验的内情

温哥华时间１月１１日下午，当我还在因为上桥抗议加拿大政府隐瞒张东岳一案的真相而出庭受审的时候，中国军方进行了一次外空试验，用导弹摧毁一颗废弃了的中国气象卫星。但是，中国媒体对此事一直没有正式报导。约一个星期之后，西方媒体披露了此事，当时中国外交部的一个发言人显然还“不知情”。中国官方一直等到十多天后的２３日才证实了该试验；但此后仍然闪烁其辞，并没有说明此次外空试验的真实原因。

本文将以问答的形式披露这次试验的内情。

问：你是谁？你为什么能回答这个问题？

答：我是一个很平凡的人。我之所以知道这次外空试验的内情，是因为我被中共内定为第五代接班人。

问：这么说，你是个政治人物？

答：我不认为自己是个政治人物。我是个加拿大移民；我知道加拿大政府和皇家骑警是杀害多伦多华裔女童张东岳的幕后元凶，我也知道布什政府出于政治考量帮助加拿大政府掩盖此案的真相。在过去两年半时间里，我一直在为张东岳讨还公道、声张正义而不懈努力。因此，我更希望公众将我看作是一个为维护社会公道正义而呼喊和奔走的人。

由于此事跟加拿大和美国的政府高层或政治人物有关联，我的经历难免会牵涉到很多政治的因素；美国、加拿大、英国等国的主要媒体和精英人士也大多知道我的这段经历。但从我个人来说，我从小就对政治不感兴趣；我也有自知之明，知道自己的个性特别不适合参政。从职业角度来说，我最崇拜的人是美国著名投资者沃伦·巴菲特。即便是现在，如果让我在为巴菲特做事和投身政治两者之间选择的话，我会毫不犹豫地选择前者。

所以，当我在２００５年夏秋之交意识到中国政府希望我回国效力的时候，我的心情是很矛盾的。一方面我当然是希望祖国好、也乐意为祖国的发展和富强作贡献；但另一方面，“不要参与政治”是我父亲的遗训。而且，我不希望给人造成一种误会，以为我为张东岳所作的努力是受中国政府指使的。这也是我在这一段时间里尽量避免跟中国官方打交道的原因。

我是在去年年初加拿大大选期间，从当时反对党党魁、现任总理史蒂芬·哈珀的竞选纲领中才意识到中国政府不仅希望我回国效力、而且是要培养我作第五代领导人的。(虽然现在还没有人站出来承认，我的博客在上次加拿大大选中的确曾起到了很关键的作用。)但我只要一有机会，我都会一再宣称我的真实想法，即对参政不感兴趣。

总之，只要我人还在加拿大一天，我就是一个普通的加拿大人。但无论我走遍天涯海角，我的赤子之心是不会改变的。

问：那为什么在你的博客《１３亿中国人民就是我的上天》(英文)中，你要求中国政府考虑你作第六代领导人？

答：《１３亿》一文是一个逻辑演绎的结果，它完稿于两个月以前。我的推测是，正是因为该博客的发表，中共领导层中以曾庆红为主的“江系人马”才主导决定了进行这次外空试验。

该文的简单背景是这样的：布什政府对我博客中两处跟核武毫不搭竿的文字硬作出有关核武的错误解读，还要给我打上“核恐怖分子”的标签，一些所谓精英分子也跟着叫嚣要把我送进大牢。为了消除误解，我提供了我的文字的正确解读，也分析了布什政府的错误解读；在此过程中，我意外地发现，中美两国之间存在着确保相互摧毁的核武平衡。另外，当我在去年七月底、八月初意识到那两个错误解读之间还有一个“天大的巧合”之后，我便试图寻找一个合理的解释。运用事实与逻辑，“１３亿中国人民就是我要找的上天”就是我能找到的唯一答案。

在此我需要补充说明的是，我之所以在该文中诚惶诚恐地提出以后做第六代(而非第五代)领导人的构想，除了文中所说的我年纪轻、经验不足和健康状况很差等原因之外，还有一个更深层的原因：我觉得目前中共的体制有太多弊端，最突出的问题就是腐败，我是很不情愿加入这个“大染缸”的；而且，根据我这一年多的观察，现任领导人胡锦涛一心想的是他的“核心”大位，不用说启动政治改革，他甚至不会从制度上来根治腐败。━━我的想法是，到第六代上台的２０２２年，这方面的情况可能会有所好转。

问：你能不能具体说一下，为什么胡锦涛一旦“核心”地位确立，他不会在政治体制改革上有所作为？

答：好的。

我所知道的具体信息，大多来自网上一个名叫冼岩的人所写的文章。我也是几个月前才意识到，冼岩实际上是胡锦涛写手的笔名。(李扬可能是江泽民写手的笔名；自从被我暴光以后，他就销声匿迹了。)其实，由于冼岩的文章是公开的，我的博客也是公开的，任何人只要将两者结合起来，就能发现其中的故事。所以，冼岩的身份并不是什么秘密；不用说美、加政府，就连这些国家中那些关注我情况的媒体和精英人士也应该都知道他的真实身份。

在我揭示胡锦涛对中国政治体制改革的真实想法之前，我有必要先介绍一下中共高层的权力格局以及我作为第五代在其中的“角色”。我在此用了一个引号，是因为我的所谓“角色”完全是被动的━━正因为我不想参政，我当然不想介入中共的内部事务，所以我尽量避免对其内部事务作任何评论，以免给人造成误会。这也是我在这次外空试验后一直保持沉默、不与中共合作的一个原因。

问：一个原因？还有其他的原因吗？

答：有。另一个原因是，我认为这次外空试验完全没有必要，也在国际上引起了一些担忧和误会。我的“不合作”在很大程度上就是因为我反对这个试验。

问：你能不能具体解释一下，中共需要你怎样跟他们“合作”？

答：外空试验暴光以后，主导试验的中共“江系人马”一直希望我能将我现在正在写的文章中的内容暴光。这些内幕一旦暴光，胡锦涛的权力很可能会被削弱；同时我也将浮出中共台面。那时，外空试验的真实原因不用宣布大家也可以猜得着：中共是想借这枚打到外空的导弹来把我“捧上天”。

其实，说“江系人马”主导了试验有点不准确。２月２日在中央党校开班的领导干部学习《江泽民文选》专题研讨班实际上是个“倒胡”的安排。从这个研讨班的阵势来看，胡锦涛在中央高层实际上已成为孤家寡人。但我当时还没有意识到这些。我是在看了冼岩(胡锦涛)２月６日的两篇文章后才意识到的。

他的第一篇文章《我看黎鸣骂于丹》中有几个影射我的关键词：榆木脑袋、孔子、信仰。这篇文章是专门写给我看的。他推测我可能正在写材料，而研讨班马上就要结束，这篇文章就是来专门给我捣浆糊的。这跟他２００６年１１月２日的《解剖何祚庥这颗榆木脑袋》一文的用意一模一样，只不过那时的截止日期是美国的中期选举投票日，即 １１月６日。(见后文)

第二篇文章《毛泽东为什么、又是如何支持上海“一月夺权”的？》部分是写给参加研讨班的人看的。他是想利用大家对我的陌生，将我比作毛泽东，先行在他们中间制造恐惧。实际上，我倒是发现胡锦涛及他的一帮御用文人一方面打压我，另一方面却偷偷地学我的点子，还学得不像。

问：你说的“捧上天”是什么意思？

答：“捧上天”或者“捧成神”，我不知道该怎么表述。这也是我写这篇文章的困难之一。我是无神论者；现在别人要将我“神化”，我觉得不可思议，也无所适从。但我知道，这一切都源自于布什政府对我博客两个地方的错误解读之间的那个“天大的巧合”。现在想起来，中共“江系人马”早就有“神化”我的意思了。

我在博客中已经透露过，我第一次意识到布什政府对我博客有误读是在去年二月份。当时我从一位中国异见人士的文章中得知，以前在中国，核武器曾被称作为“纸老虎”。这位异见人士其实是曾任我母校校长的方励之教授。他后来在四月份的时候又写了一篇文章《一千年前的五月一日--“景星”高照》。(我要特地声明一下，我无论是对方励之教授的学术还是他的为人都非常敬佩，但我不知道他是否知道我。)据报导，几天以后的五月一日，江泽民带着全家高调登泰山、看日出。

冼岩(胡锦涛)的诸多文章中也有类似表述，只不过他多半是反对“神化”的。这也很自然。

其实，美、加等国政府以及关注我的精英分子都知道中共的这个打算。比方说，我的《１３亿》一文贴出后不几天，美国副总统切尼在一次公开演讲中就用了accident of history, nice guy, calculating等词汇来暗指我的事。一月底，台独活动分子李登辉也对媒体放话，说他要学孔子周游列国，还夸奖胡锦涛，等等。

总之，中国这次外空试验基本上是从国内政治的需要来考量的，而不是为了展示军力。仔细想想也是，我的事情暴光以后，中国令人意想不到的核武实力也就随之暴光，打卫星根本就算不了什么。

但是，有两点中共没有想到：

一，办我案件的检察官不惜通过撒谎来找理由将我在温哥华的庭审延期；否则的话，中共可以一下子将我从牢狱捧上天空。(我认为加拿大政府不知道中共的外空试验计划，他们可能是发现了我在找外国领馆寻求领事保护。 为了避免闹成国际风波，检察官在政府的干预下，找理由将我的庭审延期。)

二，后来我又这么不跟中共合作。我知道他们是很失望的。

在这里，我要特别对加拿大人民强调一下：虽然我在加拿大受到了极不公正的待遇，加拿大仍然是我的第二故乡。千万不要因为中国这次外空试验的时机，就认为它是针对加拿大的。我再重复一遍：中国这次外空试验基本上是从国内政治的需要来考量的，而不是为了展示军力。另外，我相信中加之间的困难是暂时的。

问：那你现在为什么又决定爆料了呢？

答：我有两点考虑：一是我发现国际上那些利用中国这次没有成功的(从政治意义上来说)外空试验来炒作“中国威胁论”的政客反而是象切尼那样知道事情内幕的人。我觉得我有必要说出真相，以正视听。

第二点是，我觉得胡锦涛应该受到人民的问责。如果他因此下台，也没有什么不好的。说不定新上台的是一个对政治改革更有兴趣的领导人。

看过我博客的人都知道我对中国政治改革抱有很大期望。我近距离地观察了西方的、特别是加拿大的政治体制和政府治理，深深感到民主不是个坏东西。我们不能因为布什讲民主，我们就不讲民主。一个好的制度将会有助于提高中国的综合实力。当然，在中国推进政治体制改革要注意两点：一是要用渐进的方式，避免出现苏东那样的社会剧变；二是任何时候都要维持一个强有力的中央政府。

顺便说一下，布什号称要以在全球推行民主自由为己任，大家千万不要信以为真。先看看伊拉克，再看看下文中布什政府对我和胡锦涛的不同对待，其真实目的就一清二楚了。

问：你接着讲中共的权力格局吧。

答：好的。

就像胡锦涛是由邓小平隔代钦点的一样，我估计我是由江泽民推荐的，而且我估计江泽民是从巴菲特那里知道我的。我依稀记得一篇报导，在我给巴菲特写了第一封信后不几个月，他就给江泽民写了一封信。

江泽民在名义上退休以后，仍然在幕后通过国家副主席、中央党校校长曾庆红发挥着某种影响力。正如冼岩(胡锦涛)在其２００６年９月２５日的《邓小平挥泪斩杨家将，江泽民忍痛散上海帮》一文中所说，“外间盛传的胡曾联手，实质即江胡联手”。

他们两位领导人的合作是非常必要的。因为改革开放二十多年来，中国政府过分强调效率而忽视了公平，也产生了势力庞大的既得利益集团，他们必须保证国家政策向左调整。而据我从２００５年秋季起开始的观察，他们的合作也是比较顺利的。但问题出在，我作为第五代迟迟未能浮出台面；这里面主要责任在胡锦涛。

其实，从中国政府的角度来看，让我浮出台面的最佳时机应该是在一年前的这个时候。那时，我刚刚戳穿了一个由美国布什政府主导的、由日本小泉政府、当时的加拿大总理马田以及台湾分裂势力参与的企图挑起台独重大事变的阴谋。如果不是因为这个阴谋被我捅了个正着，过去一年来美国肯定会或明或暗地唆使陈水扁在台独路上走得更远，台海局势也会更加紧张，甚至上空很可能早就硝烟弥漫了。(详情请参见我的博客。)

其实，当时我也隐约感到了中国政府想让我浮出台面。在２００６年３月初的一场记者招待会上，外交部长李肇星激情抒发其爱国情操，还说了这么一段话：“山不在高，有仙则名，国不在大，热爱和平、主持公道就好。”(我本人出身在一个名叫麒麟山的小山旁。)是啊，当时只要中国政府出面对加拿大的新政府要求“主持公道”，我估计哈珀总理是乐见其成的。毕竟在那个时候，隐瞒张东岳案真相的是他的政治对手马田，而且我在１月下旬的大选中是站在他一边的。如果当时把这个问题解决了，就不会有后来陈敏的冤案，也不会有蒋国兵离奇的“自杀案”，更不会有达赖喇嘛获得加拿大荣誉公民的事了。

问：那后来中国政府为什么又没有将你的事情(或张东岳的案情)暴光呢？

答：不是他们不想暴光，而是胡锦涛邀功心切，想趁他四月访美的时候亲自暴光。但他访问白宫时又把这件事办砸了。

我在四月初意识到胡锦涛的打算时，心里就有一种不祥之兆。这种不祥之兆在我２００６年４月１５日的博客中通过对中国政府的批评有所流露。因为我是过来人，知道这件事情暴光有多困难。特别是对于布什总统来说，于公于私他是绝对不希望暴光的。于公来说，他企图挑起台独事变的阴谋会被暴光，中美之间的核武平衡也将随着暴光；于私来说，掩盖张东岳案的真相将是他总统任上的一个污点。再说了，在人家的地盘上暴光，容易吗？

事情的发展果然不出所料。虽然胡锦涛送了布什一套《孙子兵法》，“不战而屈人之兵”，心理上可以沾沾自喜一下；但中国在这场外交推手中既输了面子、又输了里子。一般人可能还记得王文怡大闹欢迎仪式的情形；胡锦涛被弄得措手不及，后来还被布什扯住衣袖。

其实，这场外交推手还有很多内情。布什政府当然知道胡锦涛想通过提张东岳案来暴光的打算。他们将计就计，通过媒体释放了一个烟幕弹：在胡锦涛访问白宫的前一天，华盛顿邮报头版刊登了一篇报导，说布什要向胡锦涛提一个在中国的北韩妇女的人权问题。这篇报导的目的就是来迷惑中国代表团的，它给中国代表团制造了这样一个假象：你们提一个个案，我们也提一个个案，看似咱们打了个平手，但显然我们的个案更具轰动效应，我们不亏。当然，中国代表团没有料到布什的秘密武器是大闹欢迎仪式的王文怡，头条新闻因此被她抢去了；而且她跟我一样，也是个“抗议者”，胡锦涛自然不会再提我或张东岳的事了。我也没见布什提所谓这个北韩妇女的人权问题。

看完这一幕，我心里当然很失望。主要还不是因为胡锦涛暴光未成，而是觉得中国领袖人物在万众注目的国际舞台上给人一个木讷的形象。更为糟糕的是，美、加、英等国的很多媒体和精英人士都知道中国代表团输了里子。这件事对加拿大总理哈珀肯定也有很大影响。

但我还是想着要为中国领导人加分。在２００６年５月３日的一篇关于加拿大大选的博客里，我加了一段赞扬中国领导人的话，还特意用了ＳＭＡＲＴ这个词。我知道这边的媒体和精英人士在紧紧地盯着我的博客，我希望以此来替胡锦涛挽回一些形象损失。

问：后来呢？

胡锦涛在美国暴光未成失去了一个机会，随后事情即发突变(五月上旬陈敏的冤案)，加拿大政府的态度也发生了很大变化，从那以后中国政府就越来越被动了。从胡锦涛个人的角度来说，他失去了亲自暴光的机会，我的事情对他就没有任何好处，甚至功高震主，还有可能损害他的威信，影响他成为“核心”。从这点上来说，在我的事情上，他其实跟布什有着“共同利益”。

这样，中央高层围绕着我的事分成了两派。“胡系人马”对我能否浮出台面不甚关心、甚至暗地里阻挠；“江系人马”当然是挺我的。我是在八月底隐约看出中共高层的不和的。布什政府当然也看到了，而且他们是决不会放过这种弱化或者分化中国政府的机会的。

不难想象，我在这边的作为也会影响到中美之间的互动和中共内部的互动。我可以用我８月２０日的博客作为例子。这个博客的背景是这样的：别人可能早就注意到了前面我提到过的那两个错误解读之间的“天大巧合”，但我是在蒋国兵案发生后的七月底、八月初才意识到这个巧合的。我一方面知道我能解释些什么，甚至知道要分两部分来解释。另一方面，对这个“天大的巧合”本身，我当时认为是没法解释的；而我又是一个理性的人，没法解释的东西会让我觉得不踏实。这种不踏实在我８月２０日的博客中流露了出来。其实，我所写的全都是事实。

第二天，布什总统亲自给胡锦涛打电话。布什这通电话的一个很重要的目的是告诉胡锦涛，他们可以基于他们之间的“共同利益”结成统一战线。这可以从中美双方对此次通话内容的不同表述中看出。中方的报导强调的是“加强经济对话、促进两国经贸关系进一步发展”，根本没有提及北韩核问题。布什是主动对媒体爆料：“我与胡锦涛谈到，应该携手向朝鲜领导人传递一个信息，就是有比继续开发核武器更好的事情可做。”其实，他们心里都很清楚这段话的真实涵义：他们要“携手”对付的对象不是朝鲜领导人，而是我。(将我比作金正日，是由来已久的，详情请参阅我的博客。)布什当然不知道我是在八月初才意识到那个“天大的巧合”的，这个博客仅仅是我的解释的第一部分，所以他还以为我是在“玩弄”核武器这个话题。要知道，那段时间朝鲜在核武器问题上是比较安静的；反而是在布什总统对胡锦涛说了这番话以后，媒体才开始炒作金正日将会为核武问题而访问中国的假新闻。

意外的是，这一次布什政府对我的文字的过分解读也为中美关系带来了一个好的发展。我先是听到美国国务卿赖斯和助理国务卿希尔多次强调中美合作不是“零和游戏”，后来中美又建立和启动了中美战略经济对话。

这次胡布通话以后，布什还同胡锦涛通过两次电话，而且都是在胡锦涛大位不稳的时候打的，以此表示支持吧。

问：上面说的是布什主动帮助胡锦涛；那有没有胡锦涛站在布什立场上说话的情形呢？

答：有，而且很多。我举几个例子吧。

一，冼岩(胡锦涛)２００６年１０月３０日的文章《有一种声音，可以刺破苍穹》是对我１０月２７日博客的回应。那些用他们老道的政治眼光读我博客的人，会得出我想在美国中期选举期间暴光的错误结论。冼岩文章中有三点可以提一下：(1)“被西方评为‘千年第一思想家’的马克思，当年名声雀起也源于对当时社会现端的深刻批判。”这里将我跟马克思相比，是想利用西方一些人对马克思的成见来引发大家对我的恐惧。(2)“当所有人都被主流理论告知、当大多数人已经相信皇帝穿着漂亮的新装时，《大路》就是那个小孩，喊出了一声‘事情并不仅仅是你们说的那样！’”将我比作“道破皇帝新衣的那个小孩”源自于我写于２００４年的第一篇报告，冼岩在他的其他文章中也经常用这个比方。(3)“在信息时代，话语掌控者克服恐惧的最好方式不是批判与封杀，而是不予理睬。”胡锦涛在告诉他的美国同盟：我们都是话语掌控者，我们不要怕，对付他的最好办法就是不理他！

二，冼岩(胡锦涛)２００６年１１月２日的文章《解剖何祚庥这颗榆木脑袋》至少对我有三处攻击。(1)题目里的“榆木脑袋”是说我的脑袋有问题--这一点跟他２００７年２月５日的文章差不多。(2)开卷语“揣着明白装糊涂”及“揣着糊涂装明白”是说我故意装糊涂--跟前一天加拿大国家邮报专栏作家ＡＮＤＲＥＷＣＯＹＮＥ对我的攻击一模一样。(3)“精神层(原)子弹”无非是说，我引用毛泽东的“一切反动派都是纸老虎”的名言是为了表达核战的意思，这完全是布什政府的错误解读。当然，通篇文章就是想给我捣浆糊，因为他看到美国中期选举的日子逼近，而我的博客还没有什么动静，他可能以为我还在写。这篇文章就是来搅乱我的思想的。

三，冼岩(胡锦涛)２００６年１２月１２日的文章《弗里德曼去了》是专门针对我几个小时以前才贴出来的博客《加拿大，操纵者的天堂》(英文)来吓唬我的。我的这篇博客记录了我当天在法庭上受到的不公正待遇，并指出，即使在加拿大这么一个民主国家里，其民主和法制也有不少猫腻--这正是张东岳案得以被掩盖至今的根本原因。(1)冼岩题目中的弗里德曼应该理解为纽约时报的那位著名专栏作家；该专栏作家在那段时间对我的状况很关注，甚至流露出为我暴光的意思。冼岩的这个题目无非是说，因为我攻击了西方的民主制度，弗里德曼是不会帮我了。其实，我并没有全盘否定加拿大的民主制度，我写的博客全都是事实。(2)“道破皇帝新衣的那个小孩，处境总是不妙”。见上面第一例。这句话的目的就是吓唬我，说我在北美这边更孤立了，处境不妙了。(3)“正如人类在宇宙大自然面前总显得渺小一样，一切思想在现实面前也终究是渺小的”。“理论是灰色的，而生命之树常青！”这两句话是一个意思：我虽然有思想(我的一些观察和观点受到包括布什在内的几个国家的政要的关注和接受--详情参见我２００６年１1月2４日的第一篇博客--因此冼岩经常会或多或少地带着点嫉妒用思想家一词来描述我)，但我在现实面前是无能为力的，甚至将无立身之处！

四，冼岩(胡锦涛)２００６年１２月１４日的文章《一個讓所有宗教徒都無法勇敢面對的問題》的中心问题就是：“你怎麼知道你所信仰的對象是上帝（正神）而非撒旦（魔鬼）？”言外之意，“信神的風險極大”，我应该放弃寻找我的上天；即使我找到了我的上天的话，也难以保证我找到的不是个魔鬼。真是匪夷所思！

问：我知道你已经说得够多的了，但你还没有说到胡锦涛对政治体制改革的态度呢。

答：在冼岩(胡锦涛)的文章中，有很多地方流露或显示了胡锦涛对其“核心”大位的欲望，这里我就不一一列举了。我仅以冼岩(胡锦涛)２００７年１月２０日的文章《“文艺复兴”没自由派的事》为例。这篇文章标题的涵义很明白：由于你在外空试验上的不合作，你就是个自由派(以前曾说过我是左派)。中华民族的复兴没你的事，别幻想着什么第五代、第六代了吧！

下面这一段话很能揭示胡锦涛内心关于政治改革的真实想法：“在此有必要解释一下，笔者不久前在《俞可平为胡锦涛解套》一文中，曾猜测17大有可能启动有限的政治改革。但进一步的考察表明，上述判断似乎过于“乐观”，因为笔者找不出执政集团需要在近期内启动政治改革的理由。”《俞》文仅仅在两个星期之前发表，而这两个星期以来发生的唯一变化就是胡锦涛由濒临下台到重新坐住大位(因为“江系人马”主导的外空试验在政治上遭遇的挫折)。可见，胡锦涛一旦觉得自己的权力巩固了，就根本不会有政治改革的念头。

顺便提一下，俞可平关于民主的原文发表在中央党校的刊物上，应该不会是胡锦涛的旨意。

还有一些细节的东西，等以后有机会再写吧。我的博客：jyu1.blogspot.com


２００７年３月２３日补记：

我今天对上面这个博客做了一些文字上的修改。同时，我觉得有必要做两点说明。

我写这篇文章的目的是为了披露中国外空试验的内情，以正视听。我之所以知道内情，是因为我的第五代接班人的“角色”。我要再一次强调的是我在文中用的这个引号，因为我的所谓“角色”完全是被动的。由于本文记述的是中国政府和我之间的“互动”，有关我的言行的解读很自然地就应该理解为中国政府(或中国政府中某个派系)的解读。虽然我在本文中多处用了“从中国政府的角度来看”、“从胡锦涛个人的角度来说”等条件语句，但为了行文简洁，我不可能每个地方都这么说。因此，除了我在文中有特别说明(如布什政府对我的文字的解读，或我自己强调的正确解读)，本文中有关我的言行的解读都应该理解为中国政府(或中国政府中某个派系)的解读。当然，我在以前的博客中对我自己言行的动机和正确解读已用英文有详细介绍，大家可以参阅。

至于文中提到的中国政府为我暴光的可能性，我的看法是：由于我长期以来过着令人难以忍受的生活，我对任何人或组织为我暴光都是欢迎的，而且越早越好。当然，我最希望的是由加拿大的人或组织来暴光，因为说到底，张东岳案和我的事情都是发生在加拿大的事。我其次最希望的是由除中国之外的其他国家的人或组织来为我暴光，因为我不希望我的事情演变成中加之间的一场外交风波。这是因为，如果我的事情演变成中加之间的外交风波，张东岳谋杀案很可能就会成为一个悬案。要知道对我来说，没有什么比为张东岳伸张正义更重要了。(当然，一年前的这个时候，我意识到避免战争比伸张正义更为重要，所以我不惜主动将我的中共第五代接班人的“角色”部分暴光；虽然从那以后我的事情就变得更加复杂了，但我并不因此而后悔。)



２００７年５月２２日补记：

由于这篇博客的主要内容并不是有关中国政治体制改革的，因此我对有关政改的看法一带而过。最近我重读了其中有关西方民主的段落，觉得有必要作一些补充说明。

西方民主存在于西方国家的具体国情中，它对于西方社会来说行之有效，但对于其他国家来讲，并不一定就能行得通。实际上，非西方国家完全照搬西方民主而取得成功的寥寥无几。在中国，照搬西方民主更是肯定行不通的。我们现在看到的西方民主一般都经历了几百年的发展，是一种相对比较成熟的民主模式。如果考虑到其赖以生存和发展的文化土壤，它发展到今天的这个样子用的时间实际上更长。想将西方民主完全照搬到中国是不合实际的。但是，西方民主中某些做法对中国的政治改革有借鉴意义。这也是我在文中写这段话的本意。

我觉得中国特色社会主义民主这个提法是科学的、理性的，也指明了中国民主发展的方向。它预示着中国的民主发展将会为中国带来一种不同于其他任何国家的政府治理体制，也必将为人类文明贡献出又一朵绚丽的奇葩。

Canadian Election 2006 (8): My “limited participation”

Domestically, the election campaign went on pretty well for the opposition parties – to their own credits. As I wrote in my previous report, “by steadily and clearly spelling out Conservative’s plan for the country day after day, [Mr. Harper] helped to turn the election campaign into a forum for policy debate.” The media, who was “in the loop”, also appeared to be fairer to the Conservatives, perhaps a sympathetic response to Bush administration’s “theatrical” assistance to the Martin Liberals.

A significant break came just after the Christmas holidays, i.e., the news came out that RCMP launched a criminal investigation into Liberal government’s income trust leak. It looked like that my major objective of de-electing Martin Liberals would very likely become a reality.

I wrote four blogs and one report during the campaign. I will give the correct interpretations here to avoid any further misapprehension.

December 29, 2005 blog

This blog was a reflection of my relaxed mood after learning the income trust probe by RCMP.

By mentioning my mother, whom I cared very much, I implied that she was part of my consideration in my “limited participation”. Indeed, my mother is 75 year old and very frail. If at all possible, I would like to spare her of the anguish of having to watching me at the center of a nasty political storm. (My mother was largely kept in the dark about the details of my struggle in the last few years. For example, she did not know that an innocent child had been murdered in connection to my experience here in Canada; she did not know that I had fasted; she did not know I had to check myself into a shelter; she did not know I had climbed a bridge and was put in jail, etc. Any one of the above news would have devastated her.)

January 4, 2006 blog

This blog might have come as a surprise to people “in the loop” who were immersed in the campaign. But I went directly to the heart of my consideration. The message was that I did (and still do) care about China and wanted to be open and honest about it. I was in fact starting to tell everybody why I was not going to fully participate in the campaign.

January 5, 2006 blog

I won’t get into the daily rhythms of the campaign. But my message to the opposition parties was: Remain cool and stay on course. The blog should also give people “in the loop” a sense that Chinese government’s backing of me was very likely for real.

Also, as I was gathering materials for my upcoming report, I decided that I should include Bush administration’s (media) nuclear bomb in it. I knew this event was related to General Zhu’s nuclear comment earlier, but I did not want to say so in my report lest it ignited a “phony war” between U.S. and China during the election. So I mentioned them separately, within a very short time span of each other.

January 7, 2006 blog

Again, we need to get into the daily rhythms of the campaign to understand my message to the opposition campaigners: Maintain the momentums in the polls. There was also a message to the Chinese government that, although I knew they were backing me, I did not always agree with the ways my file was handled. More to the point, I was not on the same page with them on my file.

(I actually knew that the Chinese leadership has a very sophisticated understanding of sustainable development as well as an awareness of China’s deteriorating environmental realities. In fact, I was quite impressed by it. – Local governments are a whole different story, though.)

January 17, 2006 report

The content of my report was a reflection of my difficult position in the campaign. On the one hand, I wanted to inform Canadian electorate about Martin Liberals shameful record on Cecilia Zhang crime and their utter deceit with respect to Canada-U.S. relations. On the other hand, I wanted to keep Chinese government away from making any news during the rest of the election period. As I was conscious of the appearance of a conflict of interest in writing and publishing such a report during the campaign, I provided some justification for writing the report: “In fact, I consider it my responsibility as a Canadian resident to right the wrongs in our not-so-perfect society.”

My biggest concern was, of course, Chinese government might react to my report. That’s why I deliberately toned down the part of the story about Matthew Li. In particular, I completely buried my conjecture that Bush administration had tried to “parachute” him into Beijing.

After my report was published, I realized that the gap between publishing it online and getting it onto the mainstream media still existed. Publishing it near the end of the campaign had an unfortunate consequence for me – I was running out of time for myself. That’s why I am still struggling today.

The Chinese government was evidently disappointed at me after I published my report. Through Li Yang’s last article on February 15, they essentially said that I was going to be on my own. I have not seen his articles on the Internet since.

Looking back, I think that I have done the right thing despite the difficult situation I was in. I am satisfied with my action although my personal situation remained difficult. As for the Chinese government, I hope they will have understood why I took the decision as I did. (By the way, my disinterest in a career in politics should not be interpreted as anything negative for the Chinese government. On the contrary, I think successive Chinese leaderships have been doing rather well in managing the historic transformation of one-fifth of humanity since the late 70’s. And the trajectory continues. -- The current 5-year plan, which emphasizes the development of rural areas, is a smart social-economic policy modification aimed at attacking the greatest inequality in China, i.e., the gap between cities and countryside. This policy also makes sound strategic sense because only when the living standard of the vast majority of Chinese people improves, can domestic demand be truly stimulated and international trade surpluses be fundamentally reduced.)

Canadian Election 2006 (7): My decision of “limited participation”

In this section, I will try to re-count how I arrived at my eventual decision of “limited participation”, which took place mostly towards the end of the campaign. Obviously, it is impossible for me to remember what went on in my mind on each particular day during the campaign. This description is thus only a rough, streamlined version of my thought process at the time. Also, my understanding of those events now is obviously different from my understanding then, largely because of the recent development across Taiwan Strait.

As you can imagine, I was almost constantly torn by two competing desires during the campaign. On one hand, my desire to join in the fray was very strong because I felt my long journey was finally about to come to an end and justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself would finally be done. Specifically, I wanted to achieve a number of objectives with varying degrees of importance to me, such as (I did not have such a list on paper at the time, but they should be all somewhere in my mind.):

• Martin Liberals should be punished in the polls for the murder cover-up.
  
• Bush administration’s role in the murder cover-up and the utter deceitful campaign rhetoric by Paul Martin and David Wilkins should be exposed.
  
• Criminals should be brought to justice. In particular, there were, I believe, more than one suspects involved in Cecilia Zhang crime.
  
• Underlying issues should be discussed.
  
• I should get compensated and get my life back.

The ideal way for me to achieve all my objectives was to join in the campaign and get my story out in the open. If I failed to get my story out, I might have to compromise or postpone some of the objectives.

On the other hand, I also saw that both United States and Chinese governments were eager to battle it out over my story in the context of Canadian election. My instinct to de-escalate conflicts told me that I should keep one side away because, as a Chinese saying goes, one hand cannot clap. I could not do much about the Americans, so my only choice was to keep the Chinese from making any news during the election period. Waiting and seeing in the first couple of weeks, I gradually arrived at my decision of “limited participation” aimed toward the end of the campaign period as I figured my story would have a lesser chance of developing into a full-blown spat between U.S. and China during Canadian election.

My other two considerations against participating in the campaign were (1) the appearance of a conflict of interest; (2) my legal situation.

The appearance of a conflict-of-interest

As I wrote in the background section, Martin and Bush were on the same (wrong) side of the lineup around the issues of my story, while the Chinese government was on the right side. Still, I was surprised to see the apparent eagerness of Paul Martin to draw the Chinese government into the fray at the beginning of the election campaign. What’s more, Bush administration appeared to be ready to take on the Chinese government too, as reflected in Rice’s repeated emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in her article.

I dismissed Martin’s apparent eagerness (and Bush administration’s readiness) to bring China into the election as Martin Liberals’ campaign ploy. Indeed, I could imagine that China would become another punch bag for Paul Martin in that scenario. And if the campaign were to turn into an international spat, or, a “phony war”, between United States and China, the spat would necessarily take voters’ attention away from the real issues that mattered to them, i.e., Martin Liberals’ shameful record in Cecilia Zhang crime. At the same time, Martin could don the role of an international statesman because political theaters were his strength. (But remember, it was Paul Martin himself who made my story international by seeking help from Bush administration to prop himself up in the first place.) Finally, the deterioration of Canada-U.S. relations – real or not – could be blamed on me or China.

As for Rice’s implied suggestion that I was doing China’s bidding, my conclusion was that although there was not much substance in it, there was nevertheless an appearance of a conflict of interest on my part. The little “substance” they had against me appeared to have come from two sources: (1) Chinese government was very likely backing me; and (2) I wrote in late September a Chinese article Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. But to me, the appearance of a conflict of interest came about fundamentally because I wanted to be honest about my affection for China if it were to become an issue. (And it looked like it would become an issue if I joined the campaign fray.)

In my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself, I had always viewed myself as an immigrant trying to right a wrong. (I still do.) Canada’s interest was first and foremost in my mind. (It still is.) Actually, China never entered my mind until last summer. In fact, because of the verbal threat by Li Peng’s son, I had been afraid of going back to China for quite some time. (Note that only a month after my sister and her family landed in Canada I was harassed by New Westminster police. The defendants, in particular, Matthew Li, had to put pressure on me here in Canada once they realized that they could not easily carry out their threat – delivered by Li Peng’s son - against me or my family in China.)

When I realized Chinese government was backing me last summer, my feeling was mixed. On one hand, I was of course glad because I desperately needed support, even just moral support. On the other hand, I knew Chinese government’s backing of me was mostly based on a desire in my service and I had no interest in a career in politics. (I still don’t.)

Bush and Martin governments knew that Chinese government was backing me and at times sending me messages through Li Yang’s articles. They then suggested that I would do Chinese government’s bidding. It’s obviously that there was a gap in that reasoning. I did not point out their flawed reasoning until the rising tension across Taiwan Strait and the looming prospect of a real conflict because of legal considerations, which I will get to later in this section.

As for Rice’s suggestion that national interests were at play in this Canadian election, my interpretation was that Bush administration was trying to change the subject, from a political scandal of a murder cover-up by themselves to the grand topic of national interests. To me, Rice’s suggestion might not be as idiotic as Martin’s accusation that I – who else could it be? – would “split up” Pacific Gateway from the rest of Canada, it still was quite unsubstantiated.

Judging from the words of Paul Martin, Matthew Li and the mysterious figure “No.7” as I described in Chapter 5 of my previous report, the little evidence – or, 把柄, to use Matthew Li’s words – Bush and Martin government had against me seemed to have come from the Chinese article I published in late September, Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. So let’s examine this article carefully as I had done many times myself.

I started writing that article in mid-September, after my email to the New York Times reporter did not solicit any response. As I mentioned before, my primary objective of writing this Chinese article was to try to establish some credibility for myself in the overseas Chinese community as I felt there was not much chance for my story to get onto the mainstream media directly. Actually, I had at least half a dozen potential topics in mind (or as computer notes). It’s just that I wrote too slowly that I only ended up with one and a half finished articles before the election campaign started.

Bush administration and Martin government knew my real purpose. As I noted in my previous report, the first time Mr. Matthew Li called in the interactive talk show on Channel-M in Vancouver in October, he bragged about his access to the Office of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, in an apparent attempt to sound more credible and respectable in the Chinese community than me.

My article was about media bias, a topic I felt pretty heavy about. (Imagine if the media were truly free and unbiased, I would have been in the news in summer 2004!) In it, I guess I revealed two things that were “offensive” to Bush and Martin people. One was that I appeared to be rooting for the Conservatives. That was pretty serious because, to them, it was “oxymoronic” for me to do that. But I guess my real “crime” was that I was positive towards the idea of increased trade and better relations between Canada and Asian countries. (But as immigrants from these countries, who wouldn’t?) And that became their so-called 把柄 against me. They then extrapolated it to the limit and essentially accused me of either doing China’s bidding or splitting-up Canada. This is just, well, too far-fetched.

However, with Martin Liberals’ inflammatory campaign rhetoric, I could conceivably be asked to confirm my affections towards China. Therefore, although I could honestly say that there was no conflict of interest on my part if I joined in the campaign, I had to conclude that there was an appearance of it.

Legal considerations

My attempting to get on the news by climbing the Pattullo Bridge had nothing to do with the Chinese government. The major reason that I had left out Chinese government in my writings until February 27 was that I did not want to unnecessarily complicate my legal situation, considering that (1) I have been without a lawyer since the end of November and (2) I had a hostile media trying to put me down at every opportunity.

The idea of climbing the bridge came from a Caucasian, who, I believe, has absolutely no connection to China. This person gave me the idea – solicited, I might add – on at least two occasions and during one of which there were at least two other witnesses.

The first time I got the idea from that person was, I believe, in September. If I had been doing the bidding for the Chinese government, I would have done it much sooner than October 31 because, as I said, from reading Li Yang’s articles, my feeling was that the Chinese government had wanted to see my story break as soon as possible.

October 31 was one of the last few days when I could do it without causing an “unwanted” winter election for Canadian public. It was very unfortunate that the police at the scene locked down my cell phone during my protest because I had established communication with a news outlet at one time. – If my story had broke before the election was called, there would not be an appearance of conflict of interest problem surfacing during the campaign. (But what more could I have done to get on the news? Haven’t I protested and fasted in minus 20 temperatures on the Hill? Haven’t I written (too) enough so that people could find a couple of 把柄 in my writings? )

Canadian Election 2006 (6): Events that changed my perspective

Li Yang’s article the next day

Incredibly, the day after Ms. Rice’s article, Li Yang published an old article entitled A brief analysis of American’s strategic direction in Iraq on the usual Chinese website (creaders.net). The article basically argued that the Americans were in trouble in Iraq, thus read like an encouragement to me.

This was another key moment when I was totally in odd with the Chinese government. Maybe they thought they were helping me by sending me encouragement because, as is well-known, I have depression. But in actual effect, not only did I find their apparent eagerness to join in the fray extremely foolish, I also felt that, instead of helping me, they only succeeded in making my life even more difficult.

• Memo to the Chinese leadership: United States may be able to meddle with other country’s affairs (and get away with it). Not China. If China wants to become any kind of power at all in this century, it should be careful to stay clear of the image of an American-style power.
  

Apparently, Chinese government has no idea about the sacredness and intricacies of elections in a democracy. But they should know that I am an “immigrant without privacy”, “living in a virtual solitary confinement”. Indeed, it did not completely surprise me that, right after this old article of Li Yang’s re-appeared, some people “in the loop” knew about his identity - a politically motivated leak by Bush and/or Martin government. So you can see the Chinese government achieved nothing but making me more determined to keep them away from doing anything during Canadian election.

Update 20060417:

On Iraq War, I am obviously against it. But now that the Americans are in it, I wish them speedy success. In fact, the sooner they can stabilize the situation there, the better.

Because of Bush administration’s role in Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up, they were my opponents in my struggle to seek justice for Cecilia. So when Li Yang said that they were in trouble, I saw it as an encouragement to me. Just like earlier when Li Yang said “China should strive to be American’s friend”, I interpreted it as a reminder that “I should strive to be American’s friend”. It was like an analogy.

Am I making myself clear? Gee, do I hate writing! It looks like the more I write, I more I need to write.

Canadian Election 2006 (5): Events that changed my perspective

Condoleezza Rice’s article on Washington Post

In the second week of the eight-week campaign, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote an article, The Promise of Democratic Peace, for Washington Post on December 11, 2005. On the surface, Ms. Rice’s article had nothing to do with the Canadian election. So why did I call it Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election in my last blog?

Because there are several instances of nut-cracking contained in her article.

“Fundamental character”

As I said before, my guiding principle is to do the right thing. That’s the primary motive behind my unrelenting efforts to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang. Therefore people could conclude that I have a strong character. I also believe that, if the perception that Mr. Warren Buffett has been paying attention to me turns out to be true, it would also be due to my character.

However, when Ms. Rice used the word as part of the phrase “fundamental character of regimes”, the connotation suddenly became political. It revealed Bush administration’s plan to put emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in the coming battle in the context of Canadian election.

“Conservative temperament”

In my email to the reporter at the New York Times in late August 2005, I used words such as “cautious” and “conservative” to describe the conclusions I made about Cecilia Zhang case. Therefore, people might say that I have a conservative temperament. (Depends on the circumstance!)

What Ms. Rice was trying to convey in this nut-cracking, especially to Canadian Conservatives, was that I may be conservative, but I am not a Conservative. (Again, I won’t feel comfortable to be granted any simplistic ideological label.) It was essentially an attack on both the Conservatives and me because of the perception that we were working together. It was also a jab at my poor English as I had earlier made the (embarrassing) mistake of not be able to distinguish between “liberal” and “Liberal”.

(But does it really matter what my political views are when all I want is to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang? For such a basic right-and-wrong issue, anybody with a conscience should be supportive of me.)

This was exactly the same kind of attack as their earlier one on my blog entry Summer hibernation where the key word was “oxymoronic”, meaning that the Left and the Right should work together to defeat the Liberals. Wrong on the issue, Bush administration resorted to ideological wrangling. This is the kind of politics that turns people off.

“Strategic logic”

I write about this nut-cracking last because it had the most impact on my decision of “limited participation” towards the end of the campaign.

I emphasized many times that, when I drew my conclusions about Liberal government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder and the implications on Paul Martin personally, I relied upon facts and logic. My logical thinking is plainly reflected in my (too) many writings. As I wrote in the introduction of my previous report, it is precisely because of my sound logic in arriving at the truth of Cecilia Zhang murder that I was attacked on other fronts, such as attack on the format of my writing, personal and political attacks, etc.

In this instance of nut-cracking, Ms. Rice again appeared to be emphasizing the connection between Chinese government and me. What’s more, she seemed to suggest that national interests were at play here in Canadian election. This latter point came as a surprise to me because I had always thought that Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up was a scandal for Bush administration. (I still do.) I’ll talk about the role it played in my decision of “limited participation” later.

Canadian Election 2006 (4): Events that changed my perspective

Paul Martin’s speech at UN conference

In the initial phase of election campaign, while the opposition parties talked about policies, Paul Martin resorted to patriotic rhetoric. On the surface, Martin seemed to just focus on bashing the Americans. But that was only part of Martin’ plan.

On December 7, just a week into the election campaign, Paul Martin had this to say at a news conference at UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal: “To the reticent nations, including the United States, I’d say there is such a thing as a global conscience …”

Martin’s words revealed that he had more than United States in mind. Curious audience must have been wondering: What were the other nations that Martin was trying to bring in for a spat? The answer was China.

(Incredibly, US ambassador David Wilkins repeatedly fell into Martin’s trap and willingly became his punch bag. Even the White House reacted by scolding Martin with “cheap electioneering”.)

Martin’s words were widely reported during the campaign. The reason, I guess, is that a lot of people found Martin’s choice of words "striking". But I knew he was cracking nuts.

• “Conscience” was a word I repeatedly emphasized in my “private” emails soliciting help at the grassroots level in early 2005.
• Another word “reticent” also struck me because I first learned it when my English teacher during my SFU days used it in the written assessment of my classroom performance.
  

Canadian Election 2006 (3): Events that changed my perspective

Paul Martin’s interview on CKNW

Please refer to Chapter 5 of my previous report.

Canadian Election 2006 (2): Background

As I wrote in the introduction of my last report during the election, the campaign strategy of Martin Liberals “was to wait for my story to break so that they could turn the campaign into a nasty spitting match”. Martin Liberals knew that the issues contained in my story would be the deciding ones of the election.

My other assumption was that opposition parties also knew about my story and were prepared to deal with it once it broke. Looking back, it indeed looked like the election was going to be largely decided on the issues of my story.

Personally, right at the start of the campaign, through some very unusual - but to me, not surprising anymore – circumstances, I was suddenly left without a lawyer to represent me in dealing with the mischief charges associated with my protest on Pattullo Bridge. Because the strict and unfair bail conditions - which were mostly a result of my lack of legal access at the initial court appearance - brought me considerable hardship, which lasted till this day, I had to take the two court appearances on my own in the middle of the campaign very seriously. My legal problem took away some of my time and energy in the first week of the campaign and also in early January.

Despite these and other personal difficulties, at the beginning of the campaign, I felt my long journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang was about to finally come to an end. In fact, despite my tough financial situation, I bought a new computer and signed up for two Internet Service Providers so that I would not encounter those wired “technical difficulties” like I had done before. I was prepared to join the campaign fray.

Of course, I was aware that both United States and Chinese governments had fought at the background of my story in the summer, but I was not too concerned about it. Even for their throwing nuclear bombs at each other over my head – figuratively speaking - I had always thought, despite my initial surprise, that it was just a “phony war”, to use a catch phrase of the time.

To me, what my story is about has always been quite straightforward – it’s about right and wrong. On the wrong side were Martin government, Bush administration and Matthew Li. It was a huge scandal and embarrassment for these two governments. On the right side Canadian people would, once my story broke, undoubtedly join the opposition parties and me.

As for the Chinese government, they were naturally on the right side. From reading Li Yang’s articles – many of which, I believe, contained Chinese government’s messages to me - since last July, my feeling was that they had always been eager to see my story break, in stark contrast with the cover-up by Martin government and Bush administration. This was understandable as they could then gain some diplomatic or moral points over the Bush administration from the fallout of this scandal. They could also, maybe, in a way, get back to Bush administration for their attempt to “parachute” Mr. Matthew Li into Beijing.

However, several events in the early goings of the campaign together changed my perspective and resulted in my eventual “limited participation” which took place mostly at the end of the campaign. These included Paul Martin’s interview on Vancouver radio station CKNW on December 5; his speech at UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal on December 7; US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s article on Washington Post on December 11; and Li Yang’s re-publishing of an old article on December 12.

Canadian Election 2006: What happened? (1)

I did not really want to write this article for two reasons. First, I am typically a "reticent" person and I find it unnatural to write a story of which I was at the very center. I had always hoped that a journalist would interview me. Secondly, I have never wanted to get involved in politics and still don’t. Writing about my experience with politics therefore creates the appearance of a contradiction.

However, in my zeal to disperse the “crazy speculation” in my last blog entry, I unwittingly made a promise. So I felt a certain obligation.

Originally, the title of this article was Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election. Then I found that just focusing on Condoleezza Rice’s article along would not be sufficient to show what happened in the last election campaign. So I ended up with a more ambitious title. Sigh.

I nevertheless hope this exercise may not turn out to be a bad thing. I always feel it’s important to let people have the truth. In particular, Canadian public deserves to have the truth. Also, given the recent rising tension across Taiwan Strait - which was related to my story - I feel it is important to put everything on the table so that there will be no international misunderstandings, intentional or otherwise. So, after some hesitation, I decided that I would broadly outline my part of the story in the context of last Canadian election and hope others will fill in the rest.

PowerPoint: Month in review

• According to pundits, from “immaculate conception” a month ago to “useful idiot” yesterday, I am “running hard to nowhere”.
  
• I do not mind being called an “idiot”. My favorite movie is Forrest Gump (1994) where the best line is “stupid is as stupid does”.
  
• But I do have a little problem with the word “conception” as it implied that I had just invented something. I had not. What you see in me is what you get. Always.
  
• I wish you could get a better me. Unfortunately, this is what you can get for now. Just imagine: unemployed or underemployed for ten years; living in a virtual solitary confinement; neck-deep in debt; and chronically depressed. It’s almost magic that I have not fallen apart.
  
• I’ve got a good idea for you to get a better me: Simply interview me. Give me a clear question, I will give you a clear answer in return. Look, this fairly long blog entry summarizing Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up was based on my response, which was written in just one evening (after a day’s fast and protest on the Hill), to a reporter’s questions. But this long blog entry took me more than a month to do.
  
• Sometimes I hopelessly feel my writing cannot keep up with the development. Wanna help, anyone? – Of course, you need to consider the Bush factor, I understand.
  
  Misapprehension
  
• Mr. Travers’ misapprehension of my blog Summer hibernation was buried so deep in his March 14 column that it only dawned on me a couple of days later. At first I shook my head in denial. Then I got worried and I almost had an anxiety attack. Then I was angry. Then I was very depressed.
  
• Upon careful examination, the only possible misapprehension appears to be that I was suggesting a nuclear winter (and making fun of it). A nuclear winter is the result of mutually-assured destruction (a term I only learned this week). But it’s well-known that United States has a deciding advantage in term of nuclear capability. Therefore, this misapprehension was a bit far-fetched.
  
• Mea Culpa (posted October 4, 2006): My above analysis of Sino-U.S. nuclear relations is amateurish and indeed wrong. Instead, there is very likely a so-called “asymmetrical nuclear balance” that would still result in a mutually assured destruction in an all-out nuclear war between these two countries. I believe U.S. policy makers knew this fact already. My updated understanding is here.
  The right apprehension
  
• Let’s be honest: If you are “in the loop”, you know what I meant by that blog. As I wrote in a “private” email in early June 2005, oxymoron is “a very famous one [word] in Canadian politics”. I blogged here about its origin and how Mr. Jean Chretien made it famous (I believe his assistant Warren Kinsella should get the credit). Canadian mainstream media even bullied me using the word, which may have caused a bit of over-reaction on my part in that email.
  
• As I talked about in this blog, Chretienites’ strategy in dealing with the Gomery Commission was to try to lump me with Mulroneyites and to create the impression that Judge Gomery was too cozy with Mulroneyites. Their plan was to influence the media to get my story out at the right time, thus causing the fall of Martin government and derailing the Commission. As is well known, I am cheap and also rumored to be a Lefty. That’s why Mr. Kinsella created this memorable line for Mr. Chretien for his “hole-in-one” performance at the testimony: “To call them [golf balls] Westmont cheap -- it would be a oxymoron.” So, the original meaning of oxymoron in Canadian politic is the Left and the Right working together.
  
• There is also a perception that the Harper Conservatives and I were working together. This perception came about mostly because Mr. Harper had the most to gain once my story came out. Some of the Liberal verbal attacks, such as “the Conservatives getting in bed with the separatists”, had its origin in my “private” emails, too.
  
• In following my story in the media, I tried to be strictly an observer. Very rarely my tongue slipped and a piece of advice came out. But really, isn’t it a no-brainer that for any political party to succeed anywhere, it needs to hold the political center? However, my “advice” apparently made a lot of people unhappy as if I was going to change the Conservative party. For example, read Gerry Nicholls’ March 11, 2005 column on National Post.
  
  The come-about
  
• I was exhausted both physically and mentally after coming back from Ottawa in mid-June 2005. (Did I mention before that I believed that I was harassed by Ottawa Public Health?) So I took a lot of rest for the following two months.
  
• Some pundits were extremely critical of my failure to bring down the Martin government. Naturally, I did a lot of thinking. My conclusion was that in order to defeat the Liberals, the Left and the Right needed to be united. (Another no-brainer.) – I had indeed written to both parties in the fall to offer similar advice.
  
• My habit was to try to maintain some continuity in my blog if there was a big time gap. For example, see this one, and this one. And humor was my way to inform the world that although I was down, I was not out.
  
• When I tried to “activate” my blog last summer, the first word came into my mind was “hibernate”, not only because I had opportunity to use a newer version of MS Windows program after I came back (Did I mention that I only had an old laptop with one gigebyte hard drive when I was in Ottawa?), but also because I had some opportunity to catch up with some sleep. Then I realized it was summer time. Therefore, a blog entry came about that served as a sorta political principle for the next few months.
  
  Bush administration’s take
  
• Bush administration knew about the right apprehension. In a speech on October 6, 2005, Mr. Bush said: “Islamo-fascism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure.”
  
• So why did Bush administration react with [media] nuclear bombs? -- I have said many times in my blog and elsewhere that the Martin Liberals were quite nasty. What I found out lately was that Bush administration could be equally malicious. Just read former US ambassador Paul Cellucci’s strange comments directed at me. Do you find a tone of terrorism there?
  
• Another reason was that Bush administration uses a special brand of logic. It is called strategic logic, as discussed by Condoleezza Rice in this “action plan” for Canadian election, published on Washington Post on December 11, 2005. It will be the subject of my next article.
  
  
  Memos to Prime Minister Harper:
  
• Glad to see that you are setting the right tone with the US government. Now that Mr. Martin is gone, some people may think that you have to choose between Mr. Bush and me. You don’t.
  
• It’s not because I was not willing to put myself on the line that I did not (fully) participate in the last general election. I just did not think it’s fair to the Canadian people if the campaign was to become a battleground for the big powers. -- The last thing I wanted was to be seen as someone who either causes worsening of Canada-US relations, or challenges US interest on its turf, especially with the perception that Chinese government was backing me.
  

从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的(4)

(Just when I thought I was making progress, I got stuck again quite unexpectedly. – Let me quickly wrap up this article and see if it helps me moving forward.)

So far I have described the circumstances surrounding General Zhu’s nuclear comments. In my previous report, I also briefly touched on my belief that it was my blog entry Summer hibernation that prompted US government’s decision to de-classify documents regarding President Kennedy’s alleged plan to attack China with nuclear bombs in the sixties. (Given the “crazy speculation” coming out of media circles in the past two weeks, which caused my being stuck, I will apparently have a lot more to say on this topic later. -- As they often say, what would we do without pundits?)

Therefore, although Sino-US relation – probably the most important bilateral relation in the world - looked good on surface, it already had certain well-hidden signs of “cold war” rivalry. That’s why Lee Teng-hui’s public comments about China and United States engaging in “Cold War II” alerted me.

By the way, given Lee Teng-hui’s well-known 日本情结, it’s not surprising that Japan is part of this grandest conspiracy. Two cases in points:

1. 去年12月14日，日本首相小泉为自己参拜靖国神社辩护说，这是他个人的“精神问题”。“精神问题” 一词源自我11月6号博客文章。
   
2. 2月4日，日本外相麻生太郎美化日本对台湾的殖民统治。当他的言论受到广泛抨击时，他反而说别人是“断章取义”。“断章取义”一词源自我1月17号的报告。
   
   ***

Finally, when I embarked on my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and myself), I asked myself why I was doing this. I ended up with eight reasons. Each one of them was important to me. However, events of past few months taught me that none of them is as important as peace. Because without peace, we have nothing.

Let me take this opportunity to go over Cecilia Zhang’s wishes again and repeat this one: “My other wish is that there are no more wars in the world and equality is everywhere.”

There is wisdom in innocence, folks.

从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的(3)

(I know this article is coming about very slowly. But hey, at least I am making progress!)

As I have said before, I don’t want to get into politics – anywhere. But I am a naturally curious person. I am thus a little relieved to know (sort of) the answers to the questions in my mind. This led to a period of online activities towards the end of August 2005.

But I did not feel good. My mood was reflected in the first entry on my new blog Chinese, eh? – As a Canadian immigrant, I felt I was in a dilemma and that there was not much I could or would do. Indeed, I thought what Chinese and US governments did to each other was quite “pathetic”. And I certainly did not want to be any part of it. What I could do was to be a bridge between China and western societies and to promote understanding between these two. One issue I cared about was China-bashing in the media as I had experienced many along my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and blogged about before). Not only was China-bashing bad for China, it’s also bad for Chinese immigrants here. Sometimes it was simply a subtle form of racism. Besides, a lot of western journalists, when they criticized China, did not seem to have a sound knowledge of it.

Of course, now that a fly had gotten into my stomach, I needed to get it out. – I had to say something about General Zhu’s comment. Actually, that was the initial objective when I started a separate blog because I wanted to separate it from my main (and single) issue about Cecilia Zhang. In other words, despite the perception that General Zhu’s comment was connected to my situation, I attempted to disassociate myself from it. Talk about tough life!

By then, more than a month had passed since Zhu made his comments. Bashing him right after I started the new blog would seem – well, wired – for me. I guess I had become too self-conscious. It would have been much easier for me to criticize Zhu without knowing the circumstance surrounding his comments. Instead, I felt particularly awkward as if I was taking on a heavy task.

At the mean time, I felt it was important to let people know my true intention and interest. And I certainly knew that the ultimate solution to my quandary was to get my story out before it got even more complicated. I decided to contact a reporter at New York Times. The reasons I picked Times were: (1) I had tried virtually all mainstream Canadian media before; (2) I became more sure of US government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up (and thus a US media outlet should be interested in my story); and (3) I thought I would have the best chance with Times amongst US media outlets. The letter I wrote to the reporter was quite long. Indeed, I spent a lot of energy and quite a few days on it. In it I reiterated that my goal was to be able to work for Warren Buffett someday. I figure that I had made a strong and convincing case for myself. I fell short of saying that I did not have any “political ambition” only because it would have been presumptuous for me to do so. I sent out the letter to the reporter on August 27, 2005 via email, knowing that my email would likely be monitored and then broadcasted. I specifically mentioned in my letter that August 30 is Mr. Buffett’s birthdayand “a date of significance for me”. In my mind, I think I had decided that it would be the date on which I would say something about Zhu’s comment. I hope this fact did not lost on those people who were closely following my journey. Indeed, after I had posted the blog entry “Rein Zhu in” on that day, I felt – well, just like I said – that I had finally got the fly out of my stomach. And you can see I did not touch that blog for a long time afterwards.


(To be continued…)