Before I start, a qualifier: As I mentioned before, both Dalai and I are Chinese even though he would not admit it. There is obviously similarity in our respective ways of thinking. Therefore, it is possible that some of the following comments might just be made by him without his knowledge of my writings. (But this similarity is also very useful to muddle the water and to confuse people.) Also, I only really started paying attention to him just a few years ago and can not be sure if he had made similar comments before. Therefore, I can not be sure that all of the following examples are valid nuts. But my point here is to show overwhelming evidence that he was cracking nuts in each of the two occasions: his trip to Vancouver last September and his current trip to Washington. There are also incidental happenings from my memory.
Let's start with his trip to Vancouver at the end of last September. As I mentioned before, his trip was an integral part of Obama's plan to deal with the potential fallout of my being brought out by the Chinese government during the National Day celebration period.
- On Monday, September 28, 2009, the headline across the front page of 24 Hour was: "'We' are the world" in reporting his talk on Sunday. Almost all the newspapers in Vancouver quoted him as saying: "We really need to embrace the concept of the whole world as 'we'". I believe he said those words in order to help out Mr. Obama for his nut-cracking of my word "us" in his inauguration speech.
- Another widely reported sentence was: "Real change must start with individuals, then family, then community", which was distinctively Confucian. As you know, Confucianism, in its still-to-be-developed modern form, is the basis of my proposal for China's democratization and international relations. If I have any strength politically, it was in my ideas on China's democratization. I am not sure Dalai had said similar things before. But it appeared that his intent was to minimize the potential impact of my ideas' becoming public and to confuse people.
- He also said cheerfully something like: "People are basically good". Note that on August 20, I have written: "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."
Indeed, all these nut-cracking seemed to be targeted only at my recent postings at that time. My posting, "The many nuts in Mr. Obama's inauguration speech", was done in early August. The top two postings in my main blog were the last two installments of my Chinese democratization proposal based on Pragmatism/Confucianism. I got the feeling that Mr. Obama was hoping that people would only pay attention to my recent writings and move on. Frankly, that would have been a disappointment. For me, how I get to my destination is much more important than the mere fact that I eventually get there. As I repeatedly said, the past 5 and ½ years is a journey for me.
Indeed, this kind of short-term thinking was evident in Mr. Obama's actions before. When my open letter to his daughter and American youth was near the top in early September, he pushed to give a school speech in order to bond with the youth. When my blog on the fraud of his "winning" the Nobel Peace Prize was on top, his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton performed a great political theatre at Copenhagen by switching concept on transparency as a part of a concerted effort to blunt China's plan to bring me out.
And the same short-term thinking from Obama administration heavily influenced Dalai's demagoguery and nuts-cracking during his trip to Washington last week.
First of all, the big picture for his current trip. In my PowerPoint presentation to UN Security Council at the end of last month, I had already listed several reasons why the Obama administration wanted to confront China militarily at this time. From Dalai's visit to Washington, we can add one more critical reason.
It appears that not only was I being considered for the next leadership role in China (This was confirmed by the other nut, "leadership role", that was passed on to Dalai by one of his aids in his comments after the meeting with Obama), the consensus of the Chinese leadership seemed to have moved towards democratization. (That's why a major stop of Dalai's visit to Washington was National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-CIA organization funded by U.S. Congress, as I mentioned in my blog on Urumqi Riot.) From authoritarianism to democratization, this is a very significant change in China and my democratization proposal would weigh prominently.
President Hu Jintao appeared to continue consolidating his power. How the Chinese government intends to even signal to the Chinese public about political reform, I do not know. It is a difficult situation for the Chinese government. Obama knew it. That's why his administration has been and is continuing to make Google and Internet access an issue with Beijing at this time. That's also why we heard Google and Internet access became part of Dalai's rhetoric in the past week as well. (When Dalai criticized Internet access in China, he used the phrase "right and wrong". Anyone who followed my journey knows that I used the phrase very often in my blogs. ) -- While I am generally in favour of greater Internet freedom, the issue has to be seen in the broader context of China's political transition at this time. Maintaining social stability should always be the first priority, especially in a hostile external environment. Without social stability, no political reform can be successful.
If Beijing brings me out as the No.5, I will cooperate given the delicate situation, even though I do not really look forward to a career in politics. Since the Obama administration knew the inherent risks in political reform anywhere, they took it as a particularly good moment to confront China. This is consistent with his earlier actions, such as instigating Urumqi Riot and his subsequent comment of "strongman vs. strong institutions", etc. -- Once again, the U.S. government demonstrated that their real interest was not in China's becoming democratic, but to weaken China or to create problems whenever they could. Their recent aggressive gestures towards China, from Taiwan arms sale, to Google and Internet access, to Dalai visit, to escalating trade dispute, were a reflection of their confrontational policy towards China at this time.
Within this big picture, Dalai had two tasks at hand during his visit. Besides helping Obama deal with the fallout from my file as he did last September, he also needed to create problems and confusion for China and Chinese people during the coming period of political reform.
Many people may have heard Dalai talking about human rights and democracy in the past week. For example, he made headlines everywhere by saying that CCP should retire gracefully. My memory is that he first said that on June 25, 2009, after I had published most of my ideas on China's democratization, which essentially spelled the end of the communist rule, but also praised the government's achievement in the past 30 years. Indeed, It was from then on that I developed a strong feeling that he was stealing from my blogs. For example, in an interview with CNN on August 31, 2009, he said that Chinese government knew "what's in my mind". That's almost the same as what I said in my open letter to Malia Obama earlier that month: "Your powerful father is almost able to read my mind." While what I said was based on facts and logic, it's unclear whether Dalai could support his claim the same way as I did.
Nuts-cracking is one thing. Stealing my ideas really really upsets me. The ceremony that NED put on for him on the second day of his visit to Washington was, frankly, just for the purpose of propaganda and information warfare at this time of political transition in China. Indeed, NED's press release mixed in bits of my ideas on China's democratization. Obviously, I was furious at such brazen tactics initially. But again, NED is a quasi-CIA type of organization. What can I expect?
People should know, though, that Dalai, just like his political masters, was never interested in China's democratization. As a tool of his political masters, he is expected to be in lock steps with them on every issue. And he is. For example, he signaled his support of President Hu Jintao in an article published on Globe and Mail in March 2007 when there appeared to be an internal debate among Chinese leadership about political reform, as I mentioned before. In another case, the first installment of my democratization series apparently shook him so much that he immediately checked himself into a hospital. I got the feeling that that was his sly way of sending a message to his political masters: "Please do not abandon a sick old man like me." He knew that once China started implementing my plan for political reform, his usefulness to the West will be greatly reduced.
Additional observations:
- Since a lot of Buddhists would feel insulted by Mr. Obama's overreaction to my Haiti earthquake blog, Dalai was made sure to crack the word "suffering" and talked about "religious harmony". Note my UNSC presentation is on top of my main blog page. Similarly, because I have asked the question again about the murders of 9-year-old Cecilia Zhang and 5-year-old Tamra Keepness in the same blog, it became imperative for Dalai to hit back with the word "childish".
- While I have said more than once that I would rather be seen as someone who looks up to Martin Luther King, Jr, than a politician, Dalai was reported to have said similar things about Obama. According to an AFP report, "The Dalai Lama described Obama as a historical figure in the vein of President Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery, and civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr." Whether Dalai's comparison made sense, I'll let people decide.
- I said last February that "I fully agree with [the Governor-General] that Mr. Obama's arrival at the White House was a major step for all of humanity." Dalai is reported to have said that Obama election was "a global inspiration". Of course, I actually did play a major role in that election. Some might even say a deciding role. And I risked my life in doing so.
- Everyone who read my blogs knew I am not in a very good physical shape. Yet Dalai described Obama as "energetic", a word in a famous quote by Warren Buffett that I often used. Actually, I believe I have used it in court.
- Since I said many time that America is a great a country and that I admire it greatly, we heard Dalai opened his comments to the media at the White House with similar words. But there are critical differences: (1) I think, coming from my own experience as can be seen in these blogs, U.S. government is hypocritical when it says to promote human rights and democracy around the world. Dalai spewed some pure demagoguery in this regard. (2) I have already said that China should not become another American-style power, i.e., another hegemony. Indeed, any student of Chinese history knows that China will never become a hegemony because that concept is against its culture. For Dalai to compare China with former Soviet Union is, again, just demagoguery for the purpose of invoking people's memory of the Cold War. (3) The fundamental problem in Sino-U.S. relations, especially since China has signalled its willingness to embark on democratization and genuine cooperation, is that the U.S. government does not want to give up its sole superpower status, and Dalai knew it and indeed, he thrives on Sino-U.S. conflict. (4) The values underlying U.S.'s domestic and foreign policies are inconsistent and that inconsistency is at the root of American hypocrisy. In contrast, my proposal for China's democratization and international relations uses the same value domestically and internationally. That's probably another reason that the U.S. felt threatened by my ideas.
****
Ever wondered why Dalai's frequent tours are concentrated in western countries? This is because Dalai's political masters are the western governments, of which the United States is the most important one. As my story showed again and again, the U.S. government has always maintained a containment policy toward China in order to safeguard its own sole superpower status. From time to time, many other western governments supported the U.S. efforts to contain China, mistakenly judging it to be in its own interest. My story touched upon Japan, Britain, France and Canada.
In Canada, part of the reason that the governing Tories initiated the parliamentary motion to award Dalai a Honorary Citizenship was to show the U.S. government that Canada was on board with respect to containing China. Dalai understood this. He also understood that his sole usefulness to his political masters was to create problems for China. That's why, on the occasion of receiving the Citizenship, he used such inflammable language as "cultural genocide" to describe the effects of Tibet railway when he knew the railway would bring enormous benefits to Tibetan people, as vividly evidenced by his latest interview with Al Jazeera. In short, his demagoguery was his way to pay back his political masters.
That's only part of the unsavory truth underlying Dalai's Honorary Citizenship. The other part was that the Canadian Parliamentarians wanted to signal to the world that the cover-up of the murders of those innocent children was justified. After all, the cover-up was not just a Liberal one or Conservative one. It is a Parliamentary cover-up. Dalai understood this as well and attacked my person viciously on behalf of his political masters. Since Dalai was such a "moral authority", seeing him calling me a lunatic obviously helped our MPs sleep soundly at night. Now you understand why we are seeing a world-wide moral decline? It comes from the very top, folks.
Let's take a closer look at his supposed "moral authority" for a moment. A very large part of it came from his winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, soon after the June 4 event in Beijing. As my report on Mr. Obama's "winning" the Prize showed, the Prize selection process was so politicized that the most powerful government on earth could own it if it wanted to. And if you care to do a little research, you will find that the Prizes in many other years were also politicized. Indeed, a lot of Chinese democracy activists were surprised to learn that the long-exiled Dalai was given the Prize in favour of those who risked their lives in Beijing in 1989. The political consideration went into the Prize was that Dalai was much more useful than those students to the West in their containment of China. Indeed, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's citation with the phrase "the liberation of Tibet" made its political consideration and objective plain for all to see. When I learned this history, it also confirmed my own repeated experience that the western governments' foreign policies were never intended to serve the welfares of the Chinese people - and by extension, any groups of Chinese people - including their developmental, democratic and human rights, but to serve their own interests. There is nothing wrong with that. What's wrong and hypocritical is for western politicians to undermine other countries' interests under the disguise of promoting human rights and democracy.
Rebiya Kadeer came to my mind currently. As I reported in my blog on Urumqi Riot last year, this woman, as an integral part of the plan orchestrated by the U.S. government, most likely through CIA itself, was at least partially responsible for instigating violence there that saw 197 dead and many many more injured. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, she is continually supported by the U.S. government through the quasi-C.I.A. organization NED, and her stature has been on the ascend. A documentary film was made about her. A book was also published. Pundits and reporters showered praises on her. Demagoguery went into a frenzy. With enough packaging, it looks she is well on her way to become another superhuman or demigod. Maybe five or ten years later, we will have another Nobel "peace" laureate whose sole mission is to create problems in another part of China on order of the U.S. government.
Given that Dalai and Rebiya are two peas in the same pot, it's no wondering Dalai defended her recently by essentially refuting my main conclusion about her role in the Urumqi Riot through an Australian MP, Michael Danby. While my conclusion was based on facts and logic, all Dalai could offer to back up his support of her was "his point of view" and "his authority". Not a single fact because, frankly, he did not have any. I will put up an easier challenge here for Dalai: (1) Simply explain the inconsistency of casualty numbers between Rebiya's article on the Wall Street Journal and webpage of World Uyghur Congress, the organization that she chaired; and (2) Since more than half a year has passed, Dalai should also provide adequate evidence to back up whatever Rebiya's claim of the casualty number is now. If not, those numbers were just fabrications and made up for the sole purpose of instigating violence, because violence was the only effect of propagandizing those numbers and I can not see any other motives for the fabrications.
From today's Rebiya, people can get a glimpse of yesteryear's Dalai. Indeed, a little research did confirm he was supported by the CIA in the 1960s with $1.7 million a year. CIA also trained Tibetan resistance fighters in the United States, until US and China started talking about establishing diplomatic relations. Hence Dalai's nickname the "CIA Monk". Now that he has acquired a more imposing stature, he is funded directly by the U.S. Congress.
Although he does not have to deal directly with the CIA, his job to serve U.S. interest remain unchanged. I remember that while I was in prison, he was awarded a Congressional Gold Medal. According to Wikipedia: "The decoration is awarded to an individual who performs an outstanding deed or act of service to the security, prosperity, and national interest of the U.S." Very accurate and fitting description indeed.
Why was he awarded the medal on October 17, 2007? Because the 17th CCP Party Congress was going on in Beijing and there was a chance that I might be brought out from Canadian prison by the Chinese government on that day. (I might have mentioned this in my previous writings.) The huge pomp and circumstance staged for Dalai on that day was meant to draw worldwide attention away from me in case I was brought out by the Chinese government as the next leader of China. This in turn would draw attention away from the cover-up of the murders of those two innocent angels as well as the torture of me at the mental hospital.
With this and that award or medal added to his collection each year, an image of an impressive "moral authority" was created. Meeting western politicians not only is his necessity, it also gives them some reflected glow. He then becomes a "moral cover" for some western governments and politicians. Only that such a "moral cover" is essentially bought. Watching him on TV throwing the word "moral" about made me feel disgusted.
I watched Larry King interviewing him on Monday night. There was a moment in the interview that was quite telling. King asked him what he wanted from the United States. Dalai was obviously unprepared for this question. There was a second of an awkward smile on his face. He flustered a bit and went on to repeat his mantra of three commitments - sans nuts this time, I might add - and eventually dodged the question completely.
Obviously, whatever he wants, he can not get them from the U.S. government, despite his total political loyalty. The U.S. interest and his interest are not necessarily aligned and he knew it a long time ago. According to CIA officer John Kenneth Knaus, Dalai himself admitted that the U.S. involvement in Tibet in the 1960s was "not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese." It was so then. It is still so now. And Dalai knows it.
It is the height of hypocrisy for him to say that he can represent the interest of Tibetan people. Indeed, if what he has been doing in the past was not in the best interest of the Tibetan people, let alone the Chinese people, how is he going to ever regain their trust?
That's the saddest part of Dalai.
