tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-119143442024-03-07T16:09:04.920-08:00China Support Network BlogOff-the-cuff and on-the-ground views from China Support Network activistsCurry Kenworthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03951400763908058179noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-11068374837174734742014-06-03T20:23:00.001-07:002014-06-03T20:23:30.426-07:00Activist remembers Tiananmen massacre<div>
Note. Charlie Grapski is, and was in 1989, co-founder of the China Support Network. He has just published these recollections of what he did in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre -- the famous event of June 4, 1989:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
June 4. This anniversary is one of the most significant anniversaries in my life. My political "virginity" was lost 25 years ago today and tomorrow - as I saw what was happening in Tiananmen Square and said to two friends - "we have to do something."<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Throughout the 80s in college I had hoped to find a leader to follow and learn from. But in the early 80s - activism was not very widespread on campuses across the country. My nature is actually quite shy - despite what most know as my public persona. And I was far more interested in science than politics. But I had an inner voice calling me for years - telling me something was wrong in the world and that something needed to be done about it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was that total naiveté that was perhaps the best aspect of my character at the time. I had no idea what I was doing - I "just did it" (its not just a slogan for sneakers - but for citizens).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Within a few weeks of "doing it" - not knowing a thing about what I was doing - I was using the early internet to coordinate with people around the world - even finding one person in my own back yard - the hard way. This was years before the world wide web. The internet was mostly a haven for scientists - and thus for many of the students and scholars studying in the US who had been involved in the protests the previous months and whose lives were threatened by their government if and when they returned home.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I coordinated with people, gave my first public speeches (a shock when I was told I was going to do so - at the University of Central Florida - never having spoken in public before), took over the annual general meeting of Amnesty International, co-authoring a document about how they could keep young people and students involved (in the years following Live Aid).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And I wound up in Washington, D.C. I was using the office of a then freshman congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, to help get a bill through the House Judiciary Committee - where it was stalled because of certain members insisting on incorporating anti-abortion clauses in the legislation aiming to protect those students and scholars who spoke out in our country from having to return on their limited J-1 visas for certain harassment - if not worse.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then I was asked to help get eight of the leaders who had escaped China and had made it to Paris - but were being denied US visas - come to America. OK, I said, again having no idea what I was doing - but just understanding that it needed to be done. So I just did it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then a whirlwind tour of Congressional offices with these amazing young leaders (not all were students - one Wan Runnan, was the CEO of China's equivalent if IBM, and Yan Jiaqi who was the aide to the Party Secretary Zhou Zhiang who was removed for his support of the student movement; perhaps the closest relationship I formed among the group was with Li Lu, who recently was named a likely successor to Warren Buffet at Berkshire Hathaway, and then was the vice-commander of students on the Square) along with press conferences and talks at places like the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the National Press Club, and televised in the then fairly new to most people C-SPAN an event at the Heritage Foundation. Again - I have to reiterate - I knew absolutely nothing about what I was doing - only that I needed to be doing something - and what came naturally is how I learned - including from my mistakes (I even at one point, I am not sure if this was a mistake or not, turned down a meeting with the Vice President as a substitute for a meeting with Bush Senior. Then, when they relented and offered a meeting with the Secretary of State, which was acceptable except for wanting us to cancel a previous commitment, had to turn that meeting down as well!).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That was twenty-five years ago today. In a sense - as a citizen - I am turning twenty-five (and that's better than my actual birthday coming next Monday) today. Yet I was so busy I had lost track of time until I had a moment to reflect during the evening - and realized the date.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have probably made more mistakes in those twenty-five years than right moves - but at least, I can say, I was moving - I was going - somewhere. Where? I hope heading toward, with my own contributions being but small pieces of a larger puzzle, a future of democracy - true democracy - that was dreamed of by those students on Tiananmen Square in the days before the tanks arrived - and then crushed them, literally, where many lay in their tents. That dream, however, is still alive. It lives, at least, within me. And I hope I have helped over the past two and a half decades encourage and instill that hope in others.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Charlie Grapski </div>
<div>
June 3rd, 2014</div>
</div>
John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-17351907642447448792012-06-08T01:06:00.001-07:002012-06-08T01:06:11.917-07:00No Fifth Dictator!On June 3, 2012, I gave the speech, "No Fifth Dictator," at the Times Square commemoration of the anniversary of Tiananmen Square's June 4 massacre of 1989.<br />
<br />
That occasion is in this video: http://youtu.be/I2x4jcQSx88<br />
<br />
In addition to that, on June 4, 2012, I attended an event held outside the public library of Flushing, NY - an event organized by dissident Tang Baiqiao and related groups.<br />
<br />
That second occasion allowed me to reprise my speech. There is no video from it, but the text of my speech reads similarly to the prior day's version. Here is the full text from June 4 in Flushing:<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">No Fifth Dictator!</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Remarks by John Kusumi as delivered on June 4, 2012 </span><br />
<br />
This is the 23rd year that we have gathered for an anniversary commemoration of the Tiananmen Square massacre.<br /><br />Tang Baiqiao is very right to have a different feeling about this year. This year, things are different. This is a year in which things are coming together; the stars are aligning favorably for the Chinese democracy movement.<br /><br />The Communist Party - we can say - has been losing face all year long. It's like, one scandal after another has embarrassed and humiliated the Communist Party. They have had the Wang Lijun incident. They have had the Bo Xilai incident. They have had the Chen Guangcheng incident. And they have had Tibetans lighting themselves on fire to protest the brutal crackdown in Tibet.<br /><br />And they have had Ya Weilin - a member from the Tiananmen Mothers, group of parents of the victims - and Ya Weilin hung himself. He is now dead at the age of 73. He hung himself out of grief over his dead son - his son that was killed on June 4, 1989. 23 years of time did not heal the grief. And Ya Weilin's suicide has been a very public event. It has been visible on the newswires, world-wide. It is been another point of embarrassment, of shame, of humiliation for the Communist Party.<br /><br />So we know, right now, they are a discredited party. We can ask the question, 'What about the degree of losing face?' And what happens when the degree of losing face becomes 100 percent?<br /><br />Right now, the Communist Party would like to give to China a fifth Communist dictator. A fifth administration of the CCP. To follow Mao, follow Deng, follow Jiang, and follow Hu. Now, they want to give Xi Jinping to China as the fifth Communist dictator!<br /><br />No way, no how! There should be no fifth Communist dictator! And so, right now is the opportune time: the Chinese people can and should take matters into their own hands, and make a movement right now that demands no fifth dictator from the Communist Party!<br /><br />We can see what happens if we all do nothing: the party will give a fifth dictator to China. We can see it coming! We have no excuse to not be knowledgable! We know what would happen next - we don't want a fifth Communist dictator.<br /><br />And so the time is now for the Chinese people to take matters into their own hands - to make the push - to change that government - and to insist that there will not be a fifth dictator. Instead, there will be a democratic election to decide the next leader of China.<br /><br />Thank you for listening to my speech.John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-36313712400468057602011-05-31T08:52:00.000-07:002011-05-31T09:30:43.710-07:00Output from the Chinese revolution conferenceThis 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If you speak Mandarin, the following link points to a three-minute news report about the conference, done by NTDTV (New Tang Dynasty TV):<br />http://ap.ntdtv.com/b5/20110529/video/63375.html<br /><br />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':<br />http://www.deathbychina.com/blog/?p=103<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Advice for a revolution</span></span><br /></div><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">A talk given to the conference for China's Jasmine revolution<br />May 28, 2011 • Marco LaGuardia Hotel, New York City</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">By John Kusumi</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Inevitably, there will be a Chinese youth movement that prevails in changing China from a despotic tyranny to a more free and democratic society.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Egypt recently displayed 'people power' and unseated its dictator. That is excellent news, as far as it goes.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I continue to have advice for a successful Egypt and for a successful China. Here is what I would say to Egypt now:<br /><br />(1.) Do not accept any loans from the IMF (International Monetary Fund); and,<br />(2.) Please ensure that your government must own and operate its own central bank.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Thank you for letting me contribute these thoughts to the conference.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-52389745581259882632011-04-24T08:32:00.000-07:002011-04-24T08:49:43.589-07:00To locate the 4/23 speechThe 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:<br /><br /><a href="http://chinademocracy.blogspot.com/2011/04/western-powers-leaving-jews-in-gas.html">http://chinademocracy.blogspot.com/2011/04/western-powers-leaving-jews-in-gas.html</a>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-15898433524475923452011-04-23T04:25:00.000-07:002011-04-23T04:26:28.857-07:00Tweet of Saturday, 4/23/2011Speech today! It's an important anniversary of Falun Gong persecution in China, +abuse of Tibetans. Rally@ public library, Flushing NYC 1PMJohn Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-8949708309874053912011-03-16T12:43:00.001-07:002011-03-16T12:44:07.228-07:00China clashes with Tibetan protestors at KirtiFrom Students for a Free Tibet, this is important:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Take Action:<br /><br />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<br /><br />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<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-4816155894584257132011-03-04T07:38:00.000-08:002011-03-04T07:44:10.805-08:00Presence on FacebookFor those who want to follow / contribute to the China Jasmine Revolution on Facebook, find below a list of Jasmine-related Facebook pages.<br /><br />The first one is approaching 10,000 members, and the others are 100 <= x <= 1,000.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://www.facebook.com/jasminerevolution.cn (membership: 9,551)<br />http://www.facebook.com/Chinarevolution (membership: 824)<br />http://www.facebook.com/ChinaJasmineRevolution (membership: 483)<br />http://www.facebook.com/pages/中國茉莉花革命/190173991012902 (membership: 189)<br /> - also known as: -<br /> http://www.facebook.com/pages/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E8%8C%89%E8%8E%89%E8%8A%B1%E9%9D%A9%E5%91%BD/190173991012902<br />http://www.facebook.com/NoCPP (membership: 162)John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-2880289680619025592011-02-23T08:08:00.000-08:002011-02-23T08:13:44.940-08:00Internet 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.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Announcement from the initiators of China's "jasmine revolution": </strong></span><br /><br />We are the initiators of the "jasmine" revolution<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 .<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The initiators of the "jasmine" revolution<br /><br />February 22nd 2011John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-51030921542788005132011-02-23T08:03:00.000-08:002011-02-23T08:04:24.367-08:00Beijing Interferes With Journalists: IFJThe International Federation of Journalists has issued the following statement.<br /><br />Media Release: China<br />February 22, 2011<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Journalists Blocked When Reporting ‘Jasmine Revolution’ Protests in China</strong></span><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Many non-mainland journalists were blocked or harassed when covering the protests in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou on the day.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“It’s only a show to foreign media - I’m not surprised,” a mainland journalist told the IFJ.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“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.<br /><br />“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.<br /><br />“Without the right to speak, these affirmations are hollow.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-61770252342875221232011-01-18T10:18:00.000-08:002011-01-18T10:20:02.637-08:00High Time to Re-think U.S. China Policy<span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">By Ning Ye and John Kusumi</span><br />Jan. 2011<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.'<br /><br />Then what has come to fruition from such a broad based "China transformation"? Using the author's own observation and his wonderful voodoo language:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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!"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski's 40-years-obsolete "China advocacy" appears completely detached from such a reality, and hence is completely out of touch.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><hr /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Ning Ye is a Chinese dissident and attorney. John Kusumi is 1989's founder of the pro-democracy China Support Network.</span>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-27907847159976968822010-12-10T12:49:00.000-08:002010-12-10T12:50:27.107-08:00Liu Xiaobo statement re The Internet(This is a reprint of a previously-published essay by Liu Xiaobo.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Laureate Liu: The internet is God's present</span><br /><br />Today there are more than 100 million internet users in China. The Chinese Government is ambivalent towards it. On the one hand, the internet is a tool to make money. On the other, the Communist dictatorship is afraid of freedom of expression.<br /><br />The internet has brought about the awakening of ideas among the Chinese. This worries the Government, which has placed great importance on blocking the internet to exert ideological control.<br /><br />In October 1999 I finished three years of jail and returned home. There was a computer there and it seemed that every visiting friend was telling me to use it. I tried a few times but felt that I could not write anything while facing a machine and insisted on writing with a fountain pen. Slowly, under the patient persuasion and guidance of my friends, I got familiar with it and cannot leave it now. As someone who writes for a living, and as someone who participated in the 1989 democracy movement, my gratitude towards the internet cannot be easily expressed.<br /><br />My first essay on the computer took a week to do - I was ready to abandon it several times. Under the encouragement of my friends, I finished it. For the first time, I sent an article by e-mail. Several hours later I received the reply from the editor. This made me aware of the magic of the internet.<br /><br />With the censorship here, my essays can only be published overseas. Before using the computer, my handwritten essays were difficult to correct and the cost of sending them was high. To avoid the articles being intercepted, I often went from the west side of the city to the east side where I had a foreign friend who owned a fax machine.<br /><br />The internet has made it easier to obtain information, contact the outside world and submit articles to overseas media. It is like a super-engine that makes my writing spring out of a well. The internet is an information channel that the Chinese dictators cannot fully censor, allowing people to speak and communicate, and it offers a platform for spontaneous organisation.<br /><br />Open letters signed by individuals or groups are an important way for civilians to resist dictatorship and fight for freedom. The open letter from Vaclav Havel to the Czech dictator Husak was a classic of civil opposition to dictatorship.<br /><br />Fang Lizhi, a famous dissident, wrote an open letter to Deng Xiaoping, China's leader, to ask for the release of the political prisoner Wei Jingsheng. This was followed by two open letters, signed by 33 and 45 people. These three open letters were regarded as the prelude to the 1989 democracy movement, when open letters rose up like bamboo shoots after rain to support the protesting students.<br /><br />Back then it took a lot of time and resources to organise an open letter. Preparations began a month before; organisers had to be found to look up the people. We talked about the content of the letter, the phrasing, the timing, and it took several days to reach consensus. Afterwards, we had to find a place to typeset the handwritten open letter and then make several copies. After proofing the document, the most time-consuming thing was to collect the signatures. Since the government was monitoring the telephones of sensitive people, we had to ride our bicycles in all directions of Beijing.<br /><br />In an era without the internet, it was impossible to collect the signatures of several hundred people, and it was also impossible to disseminate the news rapidly all over the world. At the time, the influence of and the participation in letter-writing campaigns were all quite limited. We worked for many days, and in the end we would only get a few dozen people to sign. The letter-signing movements in this new era have made a quantum leap.<br /><br />The ease, openness and freedom of the internet has caused public opinion to become very lively in recent years. The Government can control the press and television, but it cannot control the internet. The scandals that are censored in the traditional media are disseminated through the internet. The Government now has to release information and officials may have to publicly apologise.<br /><br />The first senior official to apologise was in 2001 when Zhu Rongji, who was then the Premier, apologised for an explosion in a school that caused the death of 41 people. At the same time, under the impact of internet opinion, the authorities had to punish officials - for Sars, mining accidents and the contamination of the Songhua River.<br /><br />The internet has the extraordinary ability to create stars. Not only can it produce entertainment stars, it can also create “truth-speaking heroes”. It has allowed a new generation of intellectuals to emerge and created folk heroes such as the military doctor Jiang Yanyong (who publicly warned about the threat of Sars and forced the Government to take action).<br /><br />Chinese Christians say that although the Chinese lack any sense of religion, their God will not forsake the suffering Chinese people. The internet is God's present to China. It is the best tool for the Chinese people in their project to cast off slavery and strive for freedom.John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-36489433900348589902010-12-10T12:48:00.001-08:002010-12-10T12:48:44.482-08:00Barack Obama statement on Liu XiaoboThe White House<br /><br />Office of the Press Secretary<br />For Immediate Release<br />December 10, 2010<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Statement by the President on the Awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize</span><br /><br />One year ago, I was humbled to receive the Nobel Peace Prize – an award that speaks to our highest aspirations, and that has been claimed by giants of history and courageous advocates who have sacrificed for freedom and justice. Mr. Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving of this award than I was.<br /><br />All of us have a responsibility to build a just peace that recognizes the inherent rights and dignity of human beings – a truth upheld within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In our own lives, our own countries, and in the world, the pursuit of a just peace remains incomplete, even as we strive for progress. This past year saw the release of Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, even as the Burmese people continue to be denied the democracy that they deserve. Nobel Laureate Jose Ramos Horta has continued his tireless work to build a free and prosperous East Timor, having made the transition from dissident to President. And this past year saw the retirement of Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, whose own career demonstrates the universal power of freedom and justice to overcome extraordinary obstacles.<br /><br />The rights of human beings are universal – they do not belong to one nation, region or faith. America respects the unique culture and traditions of different countries. We respect China’s extraordinary accomplishment in lifting millions out of poverty, and believe that human rights include the dignity that comes with freedom from want. But Mr. Liu reminds us that human dignity also depends upon the advance of democracy, open society, and the rule of law. The values he espouses are universal, his struggle is peaceful, and he should be released as soon as possible. I regret that Mr. Liu and his wife were denied the opportunity to attend the ceremony that Michelle and I attended last year. Today, on what is also International Human Rights Day, we should redouble our efforts to advance universal values for all human beings.John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-39385612378071955882010-12-08T05:55:00.001-08:002010-12-08T05:55:42.643-08:00UN panned for snubbing Liu Xiaobo<p>From The Telegraph:</p> <p>By Max Wind-Cowie 12:36PM GMT 08 Dec 2010</p> <p>For the first time since 1936, the Nobel peace Prize winner will be represented by an empty chair on Friday. Why? Because China has succeeded where no other state – bar the Nazi regime in Germany all those years ago – has. They have prevented either this year’s winner, Liu Xiaobo, or any member of his family from traveling to Oslo to accept the prize.<br /><span id="more-13046"></span><br />The Nobel Committee has, rightly, come in for some flak over the last few years. Awarding the prize to Al Gore – for jetting around the world arguing that people shouldn’t, er, jet around the world – and to President Obama were demeaning to the prize and to its purpose. But this year they got it right. China’s economic reforms are, in the long-term, meaningless without political liberalisation to empower its population.</p> <p>Many, many Chinese are waking up to that simple fact; and Liu Xiaobo represents them, their hopes and their continued oppression at the hands of their own Government. In awarding him the prize, the Nobel Committee highlighted his sacrifice and the struggle of the Chinese people for freedom. But this award goes beyond that – it has also, unintentionally, served to highlight the hypocrisy of world bodies that mouth platitudes about human rights while ignoring Beijing’s brutality. </p> <p>Continue here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8188845/The-UNs-Nobel-decision-is-an-act-of-betrayal.html</p>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-32959873112393327462010-10-11T04:26:00.000-07:002010-10-11T05:27:44.188-07:00It takes a criminalTo run a United States China policy like that which has prevailed - ever since Tiananmen Square, 21 years ago - it takes a criminal.<br /><br />American politicos who read this post will immediately think of Hillary Clinton, because some years ago she published a book titled, "It takes a village."<br /><br />Well, that's no excuse for U.S.-China policy. That operation has been run, not by a village, but by criminals such as George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.<br /><br />I am not the only one who feels similar sentiments about U.S.-China policy.<br /><br />On Friday, October 8, 2010, Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize and now the world has learned the story that Liu is still in jail, now being a political prisoner for the third time since the Tiananmen crackdown began.<br /><br />At the moment, Liu Xiaobo may be experiencing so much world attention that he is "China's most famous dissident."<br /><br />But, the long time holder of the title, "China's most famous dissident" is Wei Jingsheng, someone who fills a role for China analogous to Lech Walesa of Poland, who ran the Solidarity movement against the Communist government (back when Poland had a Communist government; Walesa and the freedom fighters won).<br /><br />Wei referred to Hillary Clinton last week, in a TV broadcast that was beamed into China by Voice of America. Let's look carefully at Wei's words:<br /><blockquote><p>Currently, because of China's economic development, international society is hot on China's economic growth, and therefore grants political concessions to the Chinese authorities. Human rights gradually evolved into a political deal. Nowadays, both the West and China are too lazy even to do a deal. Little has improved on human rights in China, with more and more international concessions. Human rights are put aside. Even the newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State equivocated with "human rights are not our main topic" during her visit to China. Reduced pressure from the international community has made it more difficult for the Chinese people to realize their hope for democracy.</p></blockquote><p>Wei used carefully-chosen words. He referred to "the newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State," and "her visit to China." It was 2009 when Hillary Clinton was new in that job, and when she made her first visit to China and made her remark, downplaying human rights. That remark infuriated the human rights community, and led to my call from here for Hillary Clinton to resign.</p><p>Last week, in response to news of the Nobel Peace Prize going to Liu Xiaobo, I was highly critical of the U.S. news media, saying:</p><blockquote>As they jumped on a bandwagon called free trade--which gutted the U.S. economy--they decided that human rights issues inconvenienced free trade. They have now delivered 10 years of one-sided news; they've been largely silent about human rights abuses in China.</blockquote><p>Wei and I were really going to the same topic in the same week. He criticized Clinton; I criticized the media. But the bottom line in both cases is really the same. It was well stated by Wei Jingsheng:</p><blockquote><p>Reduced pressure from the international community has made it more difficult for the Chinese people to realize their hope for democracy.</p></blockquote><p>In sum, the bought-off leadership of the West is making it harder for us to do our job. By now, mine is a long standing call, which I can repeat at any time:</p><blockquote><p>Hillary Clinton, resign!</p></blockquote><p>:-)</p>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-90599071010412687232010-10-08T11:14:00.001-07:002010-10-08T11:14:54.675-07:00Barack Obama's statement on Liu Xiaobo<p> I welcome the Nobel Committee's decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr. Liu Xiaobo. Last year, I noted that so many others who have received the award had sacrificed so much more than I. That list now includes Mr. Liu, who has sacrificed his freedom for his beliefs. By granting the prize to Mr. Liu, the Nobel Committee has chosen someone who has been an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and non-violent means, including his support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.</p> <p> As I said last year in Oslo, even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal to all human beings. Over the last 30 years, China has made dramatic progress in economic reform and improving the lives of its people, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. But this award reminds us that political reform has not kept pace, and that the basic human rights of every man, woman and child must be respected. We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Liu as soon as possible.</p><p>- per WhiteHouse.gov, Oct. 8, 2010<br /></p>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-44202678118784527972010-10-08T11:10:00.000-07:002010-10-08T11:11:42.176-07:00Dalai Lama statement about Liu Xiaobo<div class="mbl notesBlogText clearfix"><div><p>I would like to offer my heart-felt congratulations to Mr. Liu Xiaobo for being awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.<br /></p><p>Awarding the Peace Prize to him is the international community’s recognition of the increasing voices among the Chinese people in pushing China towards political, legal and constitutional reforms.</p><p>I have been personally moved as well as encouraged by the efforts of hundreds of Chinese intellectuals and concerned citizens, including Mr. Liu Xiaobo in signing the Charter 08, which calls for democracy and freedom in China. I expressed my admiration in a public statement on 12 December 2008, two days after it was released and while I was on a visit to Poland. I believe in the years ahead, future generations of Chinese will be able to enjoy the fruits of the efforts that the current Chinese citizens are making towards responsible governance.</p><p>I believe that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s recent comments on freedom of speech being indispensable for any country and people’s wish for democracy and freedom being irresistible are a reflection of the growing yearning for a more open China. Such reforms can only lead to a harmonious, stable and prosperous China, which can contribute greatly to a more peaceful world.</p><p>I would like to take this opportunity to renew my call to the government of China to release Mr. Liu Xiaobo and other prisoners of conscience who have been imprisoned for exercising their freedom of expression.</p><p>October 8, 2010</p></div></div>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-33137975083465245382010-10-08T03:38:00.000-07:002010-10-08T03:40:43.472-07:002010 Nobel Peace Prize citationAs relayed by the Associated Press, here is the full text of the citation awarding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiabo.<p>___</p><p>The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace. Such rights are a prerequisite for the "fraternity between nations" of which Alfred Nobel wrote in his will.</p><p>Over the past decades, China has achieved economic advances to which history can hardly show any equal. The country now has the world's second largest economy; hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. Scope for political participation has also broadened.</p><p>China's new status must entail increased responsibility. China is in breach of several international agreements to which it is a signatory, as well as of its own provisions concerning political rights. Article 35 of China's constitution lays down that "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration". In practice, these freedoms have proved to be distinctly curtailed for China's citizens.</p><p>For over two decades, Liu Xiaobo has been a strong spokesman for the application of fundamental human rights also in China. He took part in the Tiananmen protests in 1989; he was a leading author behind Charter 08, the manifesto of such rights in China which was published on the 60th anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 10th of December 2008. The following year, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison and two years' deprivation of political rights for "inciting subversion of state power". Liu has consistently maintained that the sentence violates both China's own constitution and fundamental human rights.</p><p>The campaign to establish universal human rights also in China is being waged by many Chinese, both in China itself and abroad. Through the severe punishment meted out to him, Liu has become the foremost symbol of this wide-ranging struggle for human rights in China.</p>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-58278938197032755382010-06-04T12:05:00.000-07:002010-06-04T12:06:30.000-07:002010's June 4 statement by CSN's J.P.K.It is the 21st anniversary of a crime against humanity -- the Tiananmen Square massacre.<br /><br />I believe that Tiananmen is the issue which separates the humans from the neo-humans; and unfortunately, the neo-humans held the upper hand for the past 21 years.<br /><br />China's pro-democracy movement is a bright light for humanity; it represents hope for a better future, and light at the end of a tunnel.<br /><br />In China, the tunnel has been the tenure in power of the Chinese Communist Party -- a time of brutal totalitarianism, assaulting the Chinese people with calamity, devastation, arbitrary campaigns of capricious fiat, mass murder, displacement through land seizures, and environmental destruction. In the Chinese Communist Party, justice is nowhere and corruption is everywhere. As a nation, China will need to heal from wounds which are still being inflicted upon it today.<br /><br />Those wounds do not represent humanity. Those wounds represent the very most inhuman cruelty, and the perversion of humanity; of government; and of law and justice.<br /><br />True justice will lead to the prosecution of those responsible for these hideous atrocities, including the Tiananmen Square massacre of 21 years ago.<br /><br />These 21 years have become a very dark chapter in the history of the free world. There is a cancer in the free world, and it is called neo-politics. 21 years ago, presidential leadership gave way to neo-presidential neo-leadership; and American journalism gave way to neo-American neo-journalism.<br /><br />This may confuse onlookers. A good old, red blooded American could ask, "Where did all of this 'Neo' stuff come from? What's up with that?" Well, there is a way to make sense of it, once you know the reality in this matter: "Neo" is a word modifier. In contemporary politics, it means "bought off" or "sold out." America is suffering from neo-government, which connotes government of, by, and for the private sector, which is really not public spirited.<br /><br />There used to be a public sector in this country, but it has atrophied into a fading memory. As a result, the United States has been provisioning Communist China to its own detriment. Indeed, this is detrimental to the entire free world. The U.S. has become its own worst enemy, and the free world has been led towards compromise--rather than expansion--of liberties. For 21 years, we have suffered the policies of neo-American neo-Presidents.<br /><br />I like the idea of expanding liberties. I would like a new one: Freedom from cruel and unusual journalism. I would like journalists to be public-spirited honest reporters, intending to expand or illuminate the public discourse, rather than to manipulate and steer it. I would like them to inform, rather than deceive, the public.<br /><br />They might explain that in China, President Hu Jintao is trying to preserve or save face amid the train wreck of Chinese government.<br /><br />This is the first June 4 in the third decade after Tiananmen Square. What we have in this new decade is a Chinese democracy movement that is maturing; and hence, it will be far more capable of influencing events and effecting change in China.<br /><br />Many people expect that China will be the rising power of the new century; but the Chinese democracy movement will be the rising power of the new decade, now at hand.<br /><br />Justice cannot be denied forever. Nor can the train wreck of Chinese government. It is already the time now that China's people must pick up the pieces and create China anew.<br /><br />In this new decade, your nation has massive challenges, as does mine. I have suggested that the Tiananmen issue separates the humans from the neo-humans. We need human politics, not CCP politics, nor Western neo-politics. We need human journalism, not CCP journalism, nor Western neo-journalism.<br /><br />The neo-humans belong outside of government, or at least neutralized by a discredited ideology within a government that enables competition among ideologies. In the pro-Chinese democracy movement, our cause is just; our numbers are growing; and our technology is improving. We assert that China must have peace, prosperity, and justice, under a system of freedom, democracy, and full respect for human rights and the rule of law. China needs those improvements as mentioned by Liu Xiaobo in Charter 08.<br /><br />For that matter, we need Liu Xiaobo! So long as the Communist Party remains in place in mainland China, we continue to demand the immediate release and freedom of Liu Xiaobo; and of Wang Bingzhang; and of Zhou Yongjun; and of Gao Zhisheng. All other prisoners of conscience must likewise be freed, and we demand the support of Charter 08, and the end of persecution and retribution for the signatories of Charter 08.<br /><br />This movement – for Chinese freedom and justice – should be the highest priority of the United States in its relations with China. It would already be Priority #1, but for the fact that neo-humans run the U.S. State Department. They are champions of bought off, sold out, private sector priorities. Shame on them, but hooray for you, here at New York City’s June 4 memorial of 2010! Thank you for taking in my speech, and God bless China!John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-83090677361421516102010-06-03T04:10:00.001-07:002010-06-03T04:10:28.590-07:00June 4 Event In TorontoToronto events for the 21st Anniversary of the June 4th Tiananmen Massacre will be held on Friday June 4th 2010<br /><br />Friday June 4th 2010<br /><br />The March<br /><br />Gather in front of the Chinese Consulate, 240 ST.GEORGE STREET, TORONTO , ON , N5R 2N5<br /><br />then march to the June 4th Memorial site @ U of T.<br /><br />Time: 6:30 pm<br /><br />Candlelight vigil<br /><br />Venue: June 4th memorial site, Hart House Circle, University of Toronto.<br /><br />Time: 7:30pmJohn Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-29082826754985862692010-06-02T22:07:00.000-07:002010-06-02T22:10:39.394-07:00Berlin Lit. Festival to honor Liao Yiwu on June 4Via email, the China Support Network has received this information from Germany:<br /><br />Appeal for a worldwide reading on June 4th 2010 for Liao Yiwu, and in<br />commemoration of the Tiananmen Square massacre<br />The international literature festival Berlin (ilb) calls for cultural<br />institutions, schools, radio stations and interested people to participate<br />in a worldwide reading of prose and poems by the Chinese author Liao Yiwu on<br />June 4th 2010. This day is the anniversary of the Tinananmen massacre in<br />Beijing in 1989, during which, according to the Red Cross, roughly 2,600<br />people died. The event itself, from which a democratic movement arose, is<br />not covered in the official Chinese media, and censorship was further<br />increased on the 20th anniversary of the massacre, extending deep into the<br />Web 2.0 internet platforms. The enforced silence in China - which also<br />covers the period of the Cultural Revolution – and the extremely high number<br />of executions in the country, as well as the treatment of Tibet, must be<br />even more clearly communicated by the civic institutions in democratic<br />societies.<br /><br />For this reason, the following works by Liao Yiwu will be read on June 4th:<br />»My Teacher, my Enemy«; »The Public Toilet Manager«; »The Peasant Emperor«;<br />»Nineteen Days«; »Memories of My Flute Teacher« and, by Wen Huang (the<br />author's American translator), »Liao Yiwu – Lunatic Outcast«.<br /><br />Liao Yiwu is one of the authors whose works are not published in China<br />despite their international success, as the powers-that-be claim that they<br />promote »the dissemination of counter-revolutionary propaganda with foreign<br />help«. Even his name may not be mentioned. From 1990 to 1994 he was<br />imprisoned for his literary and socio-political activities, and was only<br />released early from jail due to international pressure. His interviews with<br />underdogs (»Interviews with People from the Bottom Rung of Society«) and his<br />poetry (including »Massacre« and the anthology »The Fall of the Holy<br />Temple«) have been published abroad in recent years by renowned publishing<br />houses and journals like Lettre International (German edition) and the New<br />York journal The Paris Review.<br /><br />Despite owning a travel permit, Liao Yiwu was not allowed by the Chinese<br />authorities to attend either the 2009 Frankfurt Book Fair or the<br />lit.cologne. The ilb and the Harbourfront Festival in Hamburg have invited<br />him to both festivals in September 2010. We can only hope that the Chinese<br />authorities grant him the fundamental right to travel abroad, and to return<br />to China.<br /><br />The goal of the worldwide reading is to share Liao Yiwu's works with a<br />broader readership, to commemorate the massacre of Tiananmen Square, and to<br />urgently admonish China's human rights record.<br /><br />On the occasion of the third anniversary of the beginning of the war in<br />Iraq, the international literature festival Berlin and the<br />Peter-Weiss-Stiftung für Kultur und Politik for the first time called for a<br />worldwide reading on March 20th 2006 – this initial »Anniversary of the<br />Political Lie«, with a reading of Eliot Weinberger's »What I Heard About<br />Iraq«, was followed by other worldwide readings after the murder of Anna<br />Politkovskaya, during the run-up to the Olympic Games in China, against the<br />leadership of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, in memory of Mahmoud Darwish, and<br />in support of the democratic opposition in Iran. As many as 100<br />institutions, including radio and television stations, either participated<br />in or reported on the worldwide readings across all continents.<br /><br />The texts intended to be read on this worldwide reading are available in<br />English and German. Institutions and persons who would like to participate<br />in the reading on June 4th are asked to inform us of their wish to be<br />involved. The email address is: worldwidereading@literaturfestival.comJohn Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-31203320586617743682010-06-02T16:42:00.000-07:002010-06-02T16:48:06.249-07:00Hooray for Associated Newspapers!UK newspaper, the Daily Mail, deserves praise and encouragement from the China Support Network.<br /><br />On June 2, 2010, their reporting referred to "the June 4 demonstrations, in which 3,000 protesters were killed."<div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"><br />This is worthy reporting, unlike that which has been seen for almost 21 years in the United States' mainstream media. U.S. outlets such as the Associated Press and TV networks have, for two decades, genuflected to Beijing's Propaganda Minister, every time they report "hundreds" killed in mainland China's bloody Tiananmen Square crackdown, which ended the June 4 demonstrations of 1989.<br /><br />Kudos to a newspaper that isn't afraid of the propaganda ministry! :)<br /></div>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-18245117619266744872010-06-02T16:37:00.000-07:002010-06-02T16:40:41.403-07:00U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi StatementSpeaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has issued the following public statement for the occasion of this week's 21st anniversary of mainland China's bloody Tiananmen Square massacre:<br /><br /><p>"Twenty one years ago this week, thousands of Chinese students, workers, and citizens assembled in Tiananmen Square to bravely speak out. They called for the elimination of corruption. They called for an acceleration of democratic reform, freedom of speech and assembly. They called for a dialogue with <span class="xn-location">China</span>'s leaders on how to make progress.</p> <p>"We remember with sadness and outrage how <span class="xn-location">China</span>'s military was unleashed on its own people. One of the most enduring images of the 20th Century will forever be seared into our conscience – the picture of the lone man standing in the street, bringing the line of tanks to a grinding halt. Today, the spirit of Tiananmen lives on in the hearts and minds of those continuing the struggle both in <span class="xn-location">China</span> and abroad. These heroes have the courage to speak out for freedom. </p> <p>"Liu Xiaobo is one of those individuals. In the 1990s, Liu has spent five years in prison and in re-education-through-labor camps for supporting the Tiananmen students and questioning the one-party system. In 2008, Liu was arrested again for being one of the organizers of Charter 08, an online public petition for democracy and the rule of law that has over 8,000 signatures of Chinese citizens. In 2009, Liu was sentenced 11 years imprisonment for 'inciting subversion of state power.' The harshness of his sentence is further proof of the power of his message among Chinese citizens. </p> <p>"While the Chinese government prohibits its people from publicly discussing the events of <span class="xn-chron">June 4th</span>, the people of <span class="xn-location">Hong Kong</span> exercise their civil liberties on each anniversary by holding a candlelight vigil in memory of the victims. This year for the first time, police arrested activists and confiscated the Goddess of Democracy replica statue that is the symbol of the Tiananmen movement. This crackdown on freedom of expression will only succeed in shining a spotlight on the courage of <span class="xn-location">Hong Kong</span>'s democratic movement. <span class="xn-location">The United States</span> must stand solidly with the people of <span class="xn-location">Hong Kong</span> in their desire for democracy and freedom of speech and assembly. </p> <p>"The spirit of Tiananmen continues to inspire and endure. Today we say to the people of <span class="xn-location">China</span> and freedom-loving people everywhere: 'Your cause is our cause. We will never forget.'"</p>John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-60050159526122631852010-02-22T20:14:00.000-08:002010-02-22T20:17:48.399-08:00CCP Shenanigans On CNN PollOn Thursday (2/18/2009) CNN reported the results of a poll they conducted with Opinion Research Corp. It ran between Feb. 12 and 15 (basically Valentine's Day weekend) and contacted 1,023 Americans by telephone.<br /><br />They then reported, "Nearly three-quarters of all Americans think Tibet should be an independent country, according to a new national poll."<br /><br />Hooray. Yes indeed, "Free Tibet" has become a favored cause, slogan, and bumper sticker in America.<br /><br />On Monday night, CNN's Larry King interviewed the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and previously the head of state of the Tibetan theocracy (before invasion from China, which occupied Tibet increasingly from 1950-1959).<br /><br />The Dalai Lama himself was quick to correct Larry King, saying that he does not seek independence. Instead, he seeks the Middle Way which would give Tibet genuine autonomy within China. (China would be externally federal but internally confederate, keeping the tasks of defense and foreign relations.)<br /><br />Nuances aside, CNN placed a box poll on the Larry King web page. It's question: Should Tibet be independent? Because of only two choices, Yes and No, the question was coarse-grained, with no room allowed for nuanced replies.<br /><br />Then the trouble began.<br /><br />I visited that poll on Sunday night, Feb. 21. At that time, I seem to remember that results were something like 83 - 85% yes.<br /><br />These box polls on the web are not scientific -- they reflect opinions of visitors to that particular web site and the subset of those who choose to reply. So, there is a sampling error built into any web poll. Respondents will have the demographics of that site's web surfers, not the public at large.<br /><br />More trouble becomes possible if the web site does not require a log in, and allows people to vote more than once. Then, any anonymous prankster can move the results one way or the other, simply by flooding the poll with bogus votes.<br /><br />So, the Free Tibet community was able to tweet and urge supporters to go there and vote for Tibetan independence. AND, the Chinese Communist Party was able to tweet and urge nationalist Chinese to go there and vote against Tibetan independence.<br /><br />On Monday, in advance of the Dalai Lama / Larry King show, came this tweet (from a leader of Students for a Free Tibet):<br /><br />Please vote on CNN's Larry King show page: Should Tibet be independent? 53% say yes. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/">http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/</a><br /><br />Try to remember, I saw it when it was 83% yes. (And remember, the more scientific poll of CNN/Opinion Research said 75% yes.) This new tweet reflects 53% yes -- a wide swing over night.<br /><br />On Facebook came the replies to that tweet:<br /><br />(...) is the Chinese Gov't hacking - again? Google, CNN...<br /><br />(...) so weird. this morning it was about 80% yes.<br /><br />(...) It was 83% yes when I voted yesterday, but now it's 44% - you'd think someone was trying to rig the vote, hmmm...<br /><br />(...) its 44% yes and 56% no now...never knew that CNN is this popular in china. FREE TIBET!<br /><br />(...) Ha Ha Ha China got a long hand in CNN too.<br /><br />(...) Wow this suck, all yesterday and this morning at 88% yes, Well not surprised who did this. You can vote as many times as you want, vote a lot!<br /><br />(...) Within 24 hrs, there were only 800 votes with 88% Yes and 12% No. Now its more than 4000. I am seeing 2000 votes in two hours!! Regular chinese citizens are sleeping now, the votes we are seeing is the propaganda work by chinese govt.<br /><br />--All of the above was before Larry King Live put the Dalai Lama on the air. I became worried that King might "report the results" of this poll, with its faulty results.<br /><br />I saw the broadcast, and thankfully the poll did not get mentioned.<br /><br />After the broadcast, right now I'm looking at the poll. From 33,476 votes, the poll is REVERSED completely from when I first saw it. It says Yes - 15%, No - 85%. There are 28,600 "No" votes -- and I believe, most of those are over votes from the Communist Party.<br /><br />As we will remember, when there was a more scientific poll, with controlled sampling and demographics, CNN/Opinion Research found Americans to be 75% Yes on Tibetan independence.<br /><br />So, the Larry King poll reflects nothing scientific, and even in its own results box, the web page says: This is not a scientific poll.John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-46980752450092722602010-02-05T12:59:00.001-08:002010-02-05T13:00:54.160-08:00Word gets aroundFew people could look at the current state of US-China relations and not see America getting tough. In the past month, Google took a stand against Internet censorship, the U.S. increased arms sales to Taiwan, and President Obama forged ahead with plans to meet with the Dalai Lama--all of which drew angry reactions from Beijing.<br /><br />--Jake Simpson, in an article posted to TheAtlanticWire, Feb. 3, 2010John Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11914344.post-66223534659028743202010-01-25T01:59:00.001-08:002010-01-25T02:00:07.042-08:00Melamine tainted food products resurface in ChinaDuring the Beijing Olympics of 2008, China was covering up the “baby-milk” scandal which surfaced right after the Olympics.<br /><br />That was 2008. Now, in 2010, the problem is back. The following tweet caught my eye:<br /><br />“Three Chinese companies have been found selling food products laced with melamine, the chemical blamed for the deaths of six babies in a huge dairy scandal in 2008, state media said Monday.”<br /><br />And, upon research, there is indeed such an article now on the AFP (Agence-France Presse) newswire, excerpted here:<br /><br />In the latest reported case, authorities in the southwestern province of Guizhou found that the products, said to include “popsicles,” contained levels of the industrial chemical above allowable limits, the China Daily said.<br /><br />One official quoted in the newspaper said the products may have contained tainted milk that was recalled after the scandal but had found its way back on to the market.<br /><br />The paper said the food companies involved had blamed the problem on milk powder bought from suppliers.<br /><br />In the 2008 scandal, melamine was found to have been added to milk in China to give the appearance of a higher protein content.<br /><br />It found its way into a range of products including baby formula, leading to the death of six infants and making almost 300,000 ill, according to official figures.<br /><br />The scandal triggered an uproar in China and abroad, and many products containing Chinese dairy were taken off shelves around the world.<br /><br />A total of 21 people have been reportedly convicted. Two have been executed and others were given jail sentences ranging from two years to life. Another three executives face possible trial in February….<br /><br />The products were made in March and April last year 2009, months after the government declared the melamine scare over.<br /><br />The three firms were Zibo Lusaier Dairy Company in eastern China’s Shandong province, Tieling Wuzhou Food Company in northeastern Liaoning province, and the Laoting Kaida Refrigeration Plant in northern Hebei province, it said.<br /><br />=== /excerpt ===T<br />he full article can be read at: http://tinyurl.com/y8btqrrJohn Kusumihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13932967259225447957noreply@blogger.com0