Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Output from the Chinese revolution conference

This past weekend (May 28 and 29, 2011), a significant conference of Chinese dissidents convened in Flushing, New York, titled, "The Centenary of the Revolution of 1911 and the Contemporary Democratic Revolution." It was also subtitled, "Commemoration of Twenty Second Anniversary of June 4," a reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989.

The conference seems to have birthed a new umbrella organization, or coalition: The China Democratic Revolution Federation. The program of speakers included Lianchao Han, Li Dayong, Greg Autry, Liu Guokai, Wu Fan (by video), Huang Xiang, Yan Xiong, Yi Rong, Zhao Yan, Zi Yang, Ruan Jie, Xin Haonian, Tang Baiqiao, Liu Guohua, Li Fengzhi, Guo Baosheng, Bian Hexiang, Mao Xiaomin (by video), Zhang Kaicheng, Ye Ning, John Kusumi, Steve Mosher (by video), Sun Yun, and Feng Congde.

The proceedings also heard an impromptu speech from a young man who will turn age 27 this year. He is identified as the originator of this year's Chinese youth movement and the calls for a 'Jasmine' revolution. What this means is that China's "Generation Y" is beginning to have a voice and a big impact in the Chinese democracy movement.

If you speak Mandarin, the following link points to a three-minute news report about the conference, done by NTDTV (New Tang Dynasty TV):

If you read English, the following link points to reflections about the conference, by Greg Autry, the co-author of a new book, 'Death By China':

Also in English, we have to repost here the speech that was given to the proceedings by John Kusumi, the founder of the China Support Network:

Advice for a revolution

A talk given to the conference for China's Jasmine revolution
May 28, 2011 • Marco LaGuardia Hotel, New York City

By John Kusumi

I am happy that the organizers of today's conference brought together so many top revolutionaries -- leading figures in the fight and the struggle of China's pro-democracy movement.

It is 2011, and the world is having many revolutions this year. The conference topic is the matter of change in China, but this year the world has experienced and witnessed the changes in Tunisia and in Egypt, and we see struggles continuing in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and elsewhere.

In fact, there is a European youth movement that coincides with the Arab youth movement. Europe has seen unrest in Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Britain, Portugal, and Spain.

Inevitably, there will be a Chinese youth movement that prevails in changing China from a despotic tyranny to a more free and democratic society.

I would like to use my time today to consider and to compare the Chinese and Egyptian revolutions. I'm making use of Egypt for purposes of discussion, but my thoughts also extend to the other revolutions as well.

Egypt recently displayed 'people power' and unseated its dictator. That is excellent news, as far as it goes.

However, in Egypt they are not finished with having a pro-democracy revolution. The following words are good for China as well as Egypt: Any pro-democracy revolution must change two things: (1.) the party in power; (2.) the system of the society. In Egypt, they did the former -- the first thing. We are waiting to see the latter type of change. The second task is to make the system democratic and run by elected civilians, not by the military. The military was not elected and it did not get there by a democratic process.

Egypt is not finished with step two in the process, and so we must continue to be watchful and to pay attention to what happens in Egypt.

However, even if we expect a successful transition -- let's suppose that Egypt arrives at having a freely elected government -- they are not out of the woods! There are further perils -- hazards and impediments that may stop life from getting better.

I continue to have advice for a successful Egypt and for a successful China. Here is what I would say to Egypt now:

(1.) Do not accept any loans from the IMF (International Monetary Fund); and,
(2.) Please ensure that your government must own and operate its own central bank.

I wonder, do Chinese dissidents understand that there is division and struggle and fighting within the free world? Differences arise about the subject of banking and currencies. Many people believe that currencies must at least be pegged to a commodity standard.

In the old days, currencies could be changed into a fixed quantity of gold. In more recent times, the free world has essentially fallen into the hands of private bankers, who create fiat money in ways that are mercurial and arbitrary. And, there is no backing for the currency. This is not the gold standard. This is “the ‘trust me’ standard.”

As I noted above, a true revolution must change more than the party in power. It must change the system of the society. In the Western world these days, too much power has been given to private bankers who mis-manage the nation's power to issue currency. There is no excuse for this, because the issuance of money is a power of government. Government can and should do this itself, without delegating this task to the private sector.

The currency mis-management has raised the price of food -- and that was a central complaint of the Egyptian people as they took to the streets.

So, as I said above, Egypt is not out of the woods! A true system change would abolish private central banks, and also abolish the gambling and speculation which drives up the price of food commodities. It is not just Egypt, it is the whole world which needs these reforms.

And so, it is not just the job of the Egyptians that I speak of! It is a job for Chinese and yes, Americans as well. In many poor regions of the world, a high price of food means a matter of life and death. Let's remember: If we are reformers, I see it as our job. We must work for banking, currency, and speculation reform.

Ultimately, this matter is like Wall Street reform. For the population, this is a life-and-death matter. And the issue must be put to every government on earth. I believe that is why we are seeing such unrest this year, and it is not limited to the Arab street. We see it on the street in Europe, and we will soon see it on the street in China, by way of your efforts that are under discussion today.

Thank you for letting me contribute these thoughts to the conference.

John Kusumi is the founder of the pro-democracy China Support Network, formed in 1989 as the world responded to the slaughter of innocents at the bloody Tiananmen Square massacre.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

To locate the 4/23 speech

The full text of the CSN speech by JPK, delivered to a Falun Gong rally in Flushing, New York on 4/23/2011, is located here:


Saturday, April 23, 2011

Tweet of Saturday, 4/23/2011

Speech today! It's an important anniversary of Falun Gong persecution in China, +abuse of Tibetans. Rally@ public library, Flushing NYC 1PM

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

China clashes with Tibetan protestors at Kirti

From Students for a Free Tibet, this is important:

UPDATE: A young monk from Kirti monastery has died after lighting himself on fire prompting a protest by up to 1,000 monks and lay people. Chinese forces have flooded the town and have surrounded Kirti monastery. Read more about the incident.

Take Action:

1. Call your Embassy in China: Alert them to this incident and urge them to press the Chinese government to respect the right of Tibetans to peaceful protest. http://is.gd/iyKs5d

2. Call Chinese authorities in Sichuan: Demand the immediate release of those detained and for them to uphold the basic rights of Tibetans. http://is.gd/bxGCAe

3. Call the Chinese Embassy in your country: Tell them that people worldwide are watching the situation in Ngaba, Tibet closely and demand the release of all those detained in today's protest. http://is.gd/Gj00Mt

4. Organize a solidarity protest this Friday, March 18th. Send details of your protest to info@studentsforafreetibet.org and we'll help to spread the word.

Friday, March 04, 2011

Presence on Facebook

For those who want to follow / contribute to the China Jasmine Revolution on Facebook, find below a list of Jasmine-related Facebook pages.

The first one is approaching 10,000 members, and the others are 100 <= x <= 1,000.

I feel it is smart to join and cross-post at more than one of these, because you never know when the evil people will cause a problem for one of these pages.

http://www.facebook.com/jasminerevolution.cn (membership: 9,551)
http://www.facebook.com/Chinarevolution (membership: 824)
http://www.facebook.com/ChinaJasmineRevolution (membership: 483)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/中國茉莉花革命/190173991012902 (membership: 189)
- also known as: -
http://www.facebook.com/NoCPP (membership: 162)

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Internet posters of #cn220 release a statement on Feb. 22

(Repost) The Boxun blog has posted the following English translation of a message that claims responsibility for the Chinese Jasmine calls to revolution.

Announcement from the initiators of China's "jasmine revolution":

We are the initiators of the "jasmine" revolution

We have seen how the Chinese society has already collapsed completely, how poisonous food products are breeding like flies and how the younger generation has already suffered deeply from this. The autocratic regime in China have lost their believes and become an organization that share the booty, incapable of saving itself, day by day it is becoming more and more fascistic. The political system is rotten and corruption has run amock. The independence of the courts is being reversed and government officials and their children have monopolized all the resources of the system. Society has become extremely polarized and there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor. Prices are rising, especially real estate prices, causing seething popular discontent. The human rights situation for people in China is disgusting, arbitrary detentions and kidnappings are widespread. News is heavily censored and the livelihoods of media professionals are smashed one after another. The 35 articles of The Constitution perform practically no function; people's properties are recklessly plundered and demolished homes lead to death; sometimes people even light themselves on fire. China has already been reduced to a dark hole of resources, the environment is polluted, the eco-system is destroyed and our children and grandchildren are left a legacy of nothing but trouble.

We deeply feel that the root of all this is the autocratic regime. What makes us even more troubled is that the rulers have already closed off our increasing numbers of communication channels. When investigating government offices we are not only competing with the children of government officials, but also with business interests. We have no way of matching the capital of the big wigs of "the nation advances, the people are left behind." We can do nothing but to bear the weight of high real estate prices and high inflation on our shoulders and struggle to eke out a living; we never see a future.

We only possess a virtual space where we can feel that we exist. Last week we initiated China’s “Jasmine revolution” because we hoped to borrow momentum from the democratization of North Africa and the Middle East and we urge China to reform or change; to change the unfair and unjust situation of the present - a situation of gradual degradation.

We were pleasantly surprised by the activities that took place on February 20th, but we also feel grief and indignation that over a hundred people including Tang Jitian, Teng Biao, Jiang Tianyong, Liu Guohui, Gu Chuan, Chen Wei, Ran Yunfei, Zhu Yufu, Jiang Danwen, Yao Lifadeng, Li Tiantian, You Jingyou, Zhang Lin, Wu Lebao, Qian Jin, Li Wenge, She Wanbao, Li Yu, Zhang Shanguang, Ding Mao, Zhou Li, Wang Sen, Pu Fei, Wang Wusi, Ni Wenhua, Liu Pingdeng, Liao Shuangyuan, Huang Yanming, Lu Yongxiang, Xiao Yong, Zhang Jianzhong, Lou Baosheng, Wei Shuishan, Mo Zhixu, He Yang, Li Renke, Cha Jianguo, Lu Gang, Zhang Shihe (Laohumiao), Chen Xintao, Huang Yaling, Ji Zhiyong, JinYuehua, Sun WenGuang, Li Xiongbing, Zhao Fengsheng, Huang Yaling, Li Heping, Wei Zhenling, He Huan, Li Di, Wei Qiang, Zhang Xianchi, Xue Mingkai, Li Jinfang, Feng Zhengfu, Wang Lihong, Li Xinai, Wang Yongzhi, Shi Xiaobo, Wang Yuqin, You Gui, Di Minglei, Wu Wenjian, Wu Chaoyang, Hua Chunhui, Deng Taiqing, Zhang Dajun, Xu Zhiyong, Wang Yongzhi, Wang Wu, Jia Chunxia, Ye Du, Ye Haiyan, Lan Wuyou, Huang Wei, Shi San, Wei Lanyu, Luo Yuheng, Duan Qixian, Zhang Wei, Hu Shigen, Gao Hongming, Xu Yonghai, Zhang Hui, Zhang Jiankang have suffered from being put in house arrests or taken into custody by the authorities. Among these people, Tang Jitian, Jiang Tianyong, Teng Biao, Liu Guohui, Gu Chuan, Chen Wei and Ran Yunfei have been taken into custody without legal procedures and have still not been able to communicate with the outside world.

The above-mentioned people had nothing to do with the “Jasmine” revolution of February 20th, and by taken them into custody or putting them in house arrest the authorities have illustrated just how recklessly they violate human rights .

The night of February 21st we had a long discussion to confer if we should collectively give ourselves up to the law to avoid that the above-mentioned people, who are still in custody and who had nothing to do with this, get into trouble, but we are many people who have participated to different degrees and we could not reach a uniform decision about collectively giving ourselves up to the law.

We call on the authorities to immediately release these people, who had nothing to do with this. Regardless of how the authorities decide to respond, we will continue to mobilize at the locations that were announced for February 20th (the locations have been slightly changed). The locations that have changed will be announced on Wednesday this week. If we are unable to announce this online due to the current conditions of the internet, we ask our friends to gather at the locations of last week. We call on our friends to enthusiastically participate. A small step for us is a great leap for changing the despotic status quo.

The initiators of the "jasmine" revolution

February 22nd 2011

Beijing Interferes With Journalists: IFJ

The International Federation of Journalists has issued the following statement.

Media Release: China
February 22, 2011

Journalists Blocked When Reporting ‘Jasmine Revolution’ Protests in China

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) is deeply concerned by reports that police and security agents intervened when journalists attempted to cover protests dubbed the “jasmine revolution” in China on February 20.

Many non-mainland journalists were blocked or harassed when covering the protests in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou on the day.

A Hong Kong journalist told the IFJ he was closely followed by a security officer who prevented him from making contact with a number of dissidents in Guangzhou. The journalist was harassed by the officer when investigating the case of a human rights lawyer, who was injured in a beating by five plain clothes officers after he tried to attend the Guangzhou protest.

“The security officer blocked my path to reach the injured lawyer and tried to snatch my cell phone when I recorded his unpleasant behaviour,” said the journalist, who requested anonymity. The officer also damaged the journalist’s phone in the incident.

The English service of state-controlled Xinhua News Agency reported on the protest but the stories later disappeared from its website. Xinhua’s Chinese service did not report the story at all.

“It’s only a show to foreign media - I’m not surprised,” a mainland journalist told the IFJ.

“We haven’t received any orders from the Central Propaganda Department regarding the ‘jasmine revolution’ so far but no relevant reports were published in Chinese media – it’s because anyone who publishes will be fired right away.”

The IFJ’s monitoring of China’s media in recent years has discovered that the authorities will often order punitive action, such as sacking and demotions, against journalists who are working to freely report the news.

“Protests in three separate locations in China are a matter of legitimate public interest, and we applaud those journalists who bravely attempt to cover these events under intense scrutiny and at risk to their livelihoods,” IFJ General Secretary Aidan White said.

“A number of leaders of China’s central authorities have publicly affirmed that public has the right to know about what is happening in their communities.

“Without the right to speak, these affirmations are hollow.”

China authorities further restricted online messaging services and articles after the protests were announced on an overseas website on February 19, the day before the protests took place. Relevant information was totally blacked out and the website was attacked fiercely afterwards.

The IFJ urges central authorities to respect the rights of its citizens to enjoy their freedom of expression and freedom of the press, underwritten by Article 35 of China’s Constitution.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

High Time to Re-think U.S. China Policy

Comments on Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s most recent message on “How to Stay Friends With China” on the eve of Hu Jintao's formal state visit to Washington, DC.

By Ning Ye and John Kusumi
Jan. 2011

On the eve of the summit meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao, the Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski -- the former National Security Advisor to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and one of the most important front-running "old China hands" -- published an article. His op-ed, “How to Stay Friends With China”, is an apparent attempt to pre-frame U.S. China policy to (mis)guide the White House under the codes of a decades-long, never-changing stereotype of blindfolded China advocacy. The drumbeat of that advocacy has continued ever since the top secret Cohen Memo was presented to former President Richard Nixon on November 7, 1969, regardless of drastic macro-changes in the political/economic landscape of North America and Asia as we see today. In effect, Brzezinski issued a brainwashing dictum to the current Obama administration.

To some degree, Mr. Brzezinski may be one of the extraordinary figures among the ranks of such top-notch godfathers of U.S. China policy, as for example unforgettable figures such as John King Fairbank, Jerome Cohen, Henry Kissinger, and Alexander Haig. Mr. Brzezinski made certain excellent remarks about issues he expressly addressed or at which he implicitly hinted.

He notes that a U.S.-China summit during the Carter administration "marked the beginning of China's three-decades-long economic transformation - one facilitated by its new diplomatic ties to the United States."

Mr. Brzezinski is not simply a witness for what he styled as China’s "economic transformation" over the course of several decades. He himself has played an indelible leading role in designing and devising the engine for that “facilitation," making all such “transformation” accelerated. Henceforth, history and human commemoration must remember his name, whether in good light or bad, for accountability.

Mr. Brzezinski may be absolutely right to point out that "China's three-decades-long economic transformation" from an under-developed, third class banana republic to the world's number two economic superpower -- and expected to surpass the United States, becoming the world's number one economy -- has been "facilitated by its new diplomatic ties to the United States." What this old-fashioned China advocator on Pennsylvania Avenue forgot to mention is explicit language: such facilitation -- helping and driving such a transformation -- could never be realistically achieved, perceived or even imagined without the far reaching efforts and colossal contribution that was made by the author personally, in collaborating with his fellow China hands of the same special interest group that exerts decisive influence 'inside the Beltway.'

Then what has come to fruition from such a broad based "China transformation"? Using the author's own observation and his wonderful voodoo language:

"President Hu's visit takes place in a different climate. There are growing uncertainties regarding the state of the bilateral relationship, as well as concerns in Asia over China's longer-range geopolitical aspirations. These uncertainties are casting a shadow over the upcoming meeting."

It may be self-evident that the picture of such a post-transformation China being "facilitated" by the U.S. Government, misguided by Mr. Brzezinski and his collaborators, may not be good news to the people of the United States, while "China's longer-range geopolitical aspirations" have been showcased in its ambitious military confrontation with the United Nations on the Korean peninsula. Mr. Brzezinski may not be completely ignorant or may pretend to be completely ignorant about the nasty part of "China's geopolitical aspirations" which may not be bright or optimistic. It may even be seen as traumatic.

Brzezinski writes, "China's seeming lack of concern over North Korea's violent skirmishes with South Korea has given rise to apprehension about China's policy on the Korean peninsula. And just as America's unilateralism has in recent years needlessly antagonized some of its friends, so China should note that some of its recent stands have worried its neighbors."

Instead of presenting a realistic picture to both the administration and the people of the United States, Advisor Brzezinski made up his bold mind to take a completely different approach, one bearing a clear-cut trade mark of his "Sinologist School": He has apparently decided to kick away such a "shadow", by invoking his three-plus decade, never-ever changing prescription of painkillers or sleeping pills, rather than anything else, being collectively offered to the people of the United States by such a handful of China advocators and lobbyists since 1969 -- if not 1949 or before. (The roots of such a special interest group can be traced back to the year around 1949, when so-called "Stewart Service" within the U.S. Department of State enthusiastically acclaimed the head of Chinese Communist Party "Chairman Mao" as "China's George Washington," a liberator and founder of freedom for the United States.)

Therefore, Advisor Brzezinski feels it imminently necessary to struggle against the following tendency which apparently concerns him and his fellow old China guards in Washington, Cambridge and elsewhere:

"The worst outcome for Asia's long-term stability as well as for the American-Chinese relationship would be a drift into escalating reciprocal demonization. What's more, the temptations to follow such a course are likely to grow as both countries face difficulties at home."

"A drift into escalating reciprocal demonization"? This sort of micro-scale manipulation of U.S. China policy in prohibiting "verbal demonization" by total control of the administration's central nervous system through linguistic cleansing has echoed what was offered and hidden by such "scholars" as Professor John King Fairbank and then young professor Jerome Cohen, from Cambridge, in 1969, through their "Cohen Secret Memo". The Cohen Memo offered the White House brand new linguistic codes when speaking about China, for example dropping all use of such terms as "Communist China", "Red China," and "Chicong." Therefore, efforts to prevent "reciprocal demonization" (telling the truth about China) can be traced back to November 7, 1969.

Nothing is new here. With such a policy guideline in place, the linguistic cleansing codes for banning "reciprocal demonization" may be sufficient enough to render all U.S. legislative efforts to maintain this country’s stature as the beacon for the "aspiration" of the rest of the mankind null and void. For instance, the U.S. Congress passed an act in 1997, namely the "International Religious Freedom Act" which directs the administration "to issue private demarche and public condemnation" against countries which are listed having religious persecution. The question is: If the administration faithfully observes the 1997 act and "publicly condemns" China's religious persecution, does such adherence to Congressional law violate another set of controlling laws -- the laws from the mouths such old China advocators as Mr. Brzezinski and his collaborators? We need not wonder why the U.S. Government has from time to time voluntarily punted the initiative to speak out for the oppressed in Communist China, and instead has long chosen to keep silent. Mr. Brzezinski, the godfather of U.S. China policy has directed the administration to continue avoiding “reciprocal verbal demonization” with communist China.

Nevertheless, credit should be given to Advisor Brzezinski for some of his well grounded observations and viewpoints, marking his distinction from many of his other colleagues within the "China policy circle" whose IQ may occasionally be open to question. Brzezinski writes, "Our [U.S.] weakening infrastructure is merely a symptom of the country's slide backward into the 20th century."

Here Brzezinski appears brilliant -- more evidence that he does not belong to the group of brain-dead China policy advocators. To point out to the general public that "our weakening infrastructure is merely a symptom of the country's slide backward into the 20th century" requires not just courage and boldness, it also requires sharpness and common wisdom. Things may be even worse than what Mr. Brzezinski observed. It is not just "weakening," neither is it just relating to "infrastructure."

The totality of this once great nation, once a beacon to the rest of the mankind, has been drastically declining, absolutely and relatively, due to the quick rise of its strategic, lethal adversary on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. The national contagion of economic -- not just economic alone -- impotence, lack of vigor, lack of self- criticism, lack of imagination, paralysis and impotency in development of thoughts, wide-spread judicial corruption, self-forfeiture of the world’s moral leadership and prior high ground in advocacy of the Western value system, vis-à-vis the energy and creativity on the side of our major adversary (not "friend"), have all contributed to such a "weakening infrastructure" and national "slide back to the 20th century." Yet one cannot attribute such colossal wrongs to "waging the cold war" by "our lone shoulder." It has been 20 years since the U.S. administration declared victory in the cold war, even though it is a half-done success.

Having clearly noted the “symptom” of America now, against the backdrop of the most recent 30 years, Mr. Brzezinski presents one of the foremost crucial points of what he wants to sell to the White House, as well as to the full power house of Washington:

"Neither side should delude itself that it can avoid the harm caused by an increased mutual antagonism; both should understand that a crisis in one country can hurt the other."

The bottom line of godfather Brzezinski’s above-cited comments is that the constitutional democracy of the United States and the totalitarian China are both living in a co- existent, co-survival eco-system. In this light, we can never blame British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain for his role in negotiating the Munich Pact with Adolf Hitler in September 1938: "I have brought to you, the entire Europe, the enduring peace and lasting mutual cooperation (with co-survival of Nazi Third Reich under the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler!), congratulations!"

Under such a Chamberlain-esque "co-survival" doctrine, there would be no legitimacy for such a crisis-causing opposition movement as the White Rose Movement, because a crisis inside the Nazi Third Reich would definitely "hurt" the United Kingdom and all allied nations! With such a "co-survival doctrine," one's crisis will hurt the other. By this token, one can rationally explain why China's opposition movement has virtually received zero support from the entire West while trillions of hot dollars scampered into the treasury of Beijing's dictators. The reason? "Crises" caused in Communist China will definitely hurt the United States and the allies. Under such a long standing U.S. foreign policy fraud, it follows naturally that the outcry from imprisoned Dr. Liu Xiaobo, and from thousands of Falun Gong practitioners being brutally eliminated in a 21st century genocide, will be neglected and unheard.

Again, at first glance, Mr. Brzezinski’s absurd misleading remarks are just a vivid expression of the state of mind shared by all those "old China hands" who place the national security interests of the Volks Reich of totalitarian China on par with those of the United States, if not above. This is misplaced “patriotism” toward some “motherland” other than the United States, but it has been in place for the last several decades.

But this sort of textbook fraud is more than what we saw in the classic Julius and Ethel Rosenberg case of misplaced "patriotism." There may be the same degree of enthusiasm, but quadruple the harmful consequences. Things that become wrong at this catastrophic magnitude are not so simple. If one carefully checks the linguistic codes employed by these powerful and influential godfathers as they frame up U.S.-China policy, one may find poetic voodoo codes (such as "friend", "strategic partnership", "constructive partnership," "peaceful coexistence," "engagement," "authoritarian," the impermissible "antagonism," and so on) used to mislead, misinform, and misguide the general public by depicting a never-changing honeymoon in diplomacy and foreign policy, the likes of which has never been found in the real world among sovereign states. Such a "one's crisis will inevitably hurt the other" co-survival system has never ever existed in human history since the world map was divided into geopolitical landmasses, not even seen in such relations between allies.

The school of godfathers for U.S. China policy from time to time paint themselves as "pragmatic," rather than "idealistic" policy makers. Therefore, in typical class teachings, their doctrine is: there is no perpetual friend, neither a perpetual foe, but perpetual interests. Such "pragmatic diplomacy preaching" completely changes its tune when communist China comes into the picture: "there are no perpetual friends except for China, but perpetual interests for a few."

Whenever the question is raised about Communist China, one may never expect a clear-cut answer. Americans are from time to time fed with mysteriously concocted plates full of voodoo codes without clarity of thought. Three or four decades have elapsed since these classic China lobbyists started to frame up “waging a cold war” mostly at the wrong targets, while having missed the right one, at colossal cost to ordinary American people. Over a course of decades, the macro-geopolitical landscape has changed drastically in favor of the totalitarian Beijing model (a topic for a separate article), having caused crisis after crisis inside the United States. However, the outdated voodoo codes of these China advocators have never changed or re-formulated. The old fraud used to mislead the Washington decision makers, defrauding the general public of the United States, by these now-aging godfathers of 30-40 years before -- from the midst of the last century -- is still swallowed whole today.

This country's China policy was framed starting with the secretive Cohen Memo in November 1969. The result of this policy is that China has now become one of the world's "G-2" superpowers in all respects after being strengthened with huge financial and technological inflows from the entire West, led by the United States in last three decades, while maintaining its democracy-suppressing totalitarian political institutions and political culture intact.

With such a drastic change, featuring what Mr. Bezezinski styled as "weakening infrastructure" and "sliding back to the 20th century" having caused 26,000,000 job losses and double digit unemployment, and the virtual collapse of U.S. banking and financial systems, vis-à-vis the quantum leap of China's economic stature, U.S. China policy is frozen in the past, where it has been since 1969.

When such front-running godfathers of China advocacy as Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Professor Jerome Cohen, and General Alexander Haig started advocating, preaching, selling their "new thinking" of a U-turn on U.S. China policy in late 1969, if not earlier; when double digits of Chinese army divisions were killing U.S. soldiers in battlefields of Vietnam; the presentable and persuasive rationale behind such a policy was to utilize China, one of the poorest and most backward nations within the international totalitarian bloc, to fight against the leading Communist superpower the USSR, the then-top strategic threat against this nation's national security and the collective security system under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 40 years after forming such a China policy, the geopolitical landscape of mankind has drastically changed.

China has now become the world’s number two economic superpower, predicted to overtake the United States and become the World’s number one superpower. China's economic power is twice that of Russia, and four times that of India.

Politically, the increasingly influential “Beijing Model” has provided the rest of the world an alternative institutional model of civilization diametrically opposed to the conventional Western value system and Western style of constitutional democracy, and may have sweepingly re-written the takeaway from world history.

In the military arena, China is spending its hard foreign currency reserve to quickly gain a certain supremacy in numerous competitive areas by developing advanced military technologies to use in electronic, magnetic, laser, outer space, and submarine weaponry. The most recent development is China’s successful test flight of its prototype answer to the F-22 stealth jet fighter, namely, China’s Jian-20. Today, China has all this powerful new military hardware, an infrastructure to underpin its new “Beijing Model”.

Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski's 40-years-obsolete "China advocacy" appears completely detached from such a reality, and hence is completely out of touch.

To enable the majority of Americans to clearly see the fallacy of such obsolete, old fashioned China policy advocacy by these China policy godfathers using their voodoo linguistic codes, this nation may need an overhaul by sweeping clean the related vocabularies in describing China first. A brainstorm to re-think China issues will be absolutely impossible without such a linguistic cleansing to weed out decades-old China voodoo codes from our nation's so-called "realist" China policy, thereby opening the way to remake China policy with a healthy and capable way of thinking.

Ning Ye is a Chinese dissident and attorney. John Kusumi is 1989's founder of the pro-democracy China Support Network.