As if all the problems were interrelated...

So many of the issues in the world are run together in the media that it almost begs doubt any time more than one of the terrible things happening out there keys into another of the troubles... but sometimes they do. This one shouldn't be a surprise, actually:

Ugandan rebels desperate for supplies attacked a camp for Darfuri displaced persons in south Sudan, killing five people, the region's army said on Saturday.

The reason why it shouldn't be a surprise is that during the years when the Lord's Resistance Army (L.R.A.) was spreading its war into South Sudan, the explanation as to why a "Ugandan rebel force" would be fighting Sudanese was that the North Sudan (Khartoum; the al-Bashir regime) was the primary supply path and patron of the L.R.A. in a ploy to prevent the South from having a secure rear-area.

After this year's less-than-successful campaign by several nations to corner and kill the L.R.A., the rebels have become a dispersed force with some of them in the dense Ituri Forest region of the D. R. Congo and others scattering into the Central African Republic's outlying territory along the Sudanese border.

It may well be that those latter forces are now in motion northward, intent on regaining a line of support (if not supply) in North Sudan-controlled Darfur.

...and that would bring Uganda's nightmare to the doorsteps of the already hard-pressed people of Darfur.

***

Mean-spirted Aside: One has to wonder if this will get al-Bashir another "gold star" from American Special Envoy J. Scott Gration and his negotiators.

The 'Root (26)

It is one of the things that has defined the last year for this author: coming to terms with the fact that there have been more years since some of the events that shaped (my) life and world view than (I) lived before they happened. Even ones I could only watch from afar.

Oct. 23rd, 1983

Beirut, Lebanon.

Remember.

***

A previous post on this item here at CompHyp.

"Negotiations with Russia will not be easy..."

Given the apparent tendency of the Hatoyama naikaku (spec. Cabinet; in usage, Administration) to think that everything ever done by previous administrations is fair game for a re-think... cf. U.S. Base negotiations and the Privatization of Japan Post, just to pick two obvious examples...

...it was a joy to hear Maehara Seiji (S. Maehara), who holds both the Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism portfolio and the State Ministry for Okinawa, the Northern Territories and Disaster Management, use the opportunity of a visit to the closest point of approach to the islands to say the truth:

"Historically, the Northern Territories are an integral part of Japan. It is literally an illegal occupation (by Russia) and Japan should keep saying so."

(Note on the linked article: The Islands of the Northern Territories were occupied over the course of August 18th and September 3rd of 1945... after the announcement of surrender. The article leaves that in doubt.)

S. Maehara also spoke about the coming round of negotiations with Russia on the sidelines of the November (see Edit, below) East Asia Meetings as "...will not be easy but we will do our best".

Hm. That sounds all too much like the Italy G8 summit sideline, which resulted in nothing. Why is there a vague sense of worry coming into play about now?

Ah.

That would be because the guy back in '56 who negotiated the Joint Declaration was also named Hatoyama. Signed the letter under situational duress (over a thousand Japanese "internees" were still in Soviet hands in 1956), but that didn't seem to overmuch influence his role. That Declaration only covered restoring diplomatic activities, although it famously includes a promise by the Soviets to hand over two of the four Northern Territories "after the conclusion of a Peace Treaty".

How swell of them.

They want the Hatoyama of today to be as compliant as the Hatoyama of yesterday, and have said so:

Russia has already begun its approach to Hatoyama and his government, as evidenced by the prompt call on the prime minister by Ambassador Bely. Following their meeting, Andrei Nesterenko, spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, told reporters that Moscow hopes that Hatoyama "will make the right decision like his grandfather."

Did I mention that Hatoyama Kiichirou (K. Hatoyama), the son of Hatoyama Yukio (Y. Hatoyama; the current P.M.), is living in Moscow *now* as a student at University of Moscow?

It is either friendship or one heck of a potential duress item, and either would suit the goals of the Putin-Medvedev administration come negotiations time.

That vague sense of worry just got a whole lot less vague.

S. Maehara is probably going to have to go up against two Prime Ministers to win through on this.

...not easy, indeed.

***

*Edit: the East Asia meetings began late this week. Oddly, media reports here on Y. Hatoyama's meeting schedule do not mention any scheduled time with Russian representatives. There may be something in November that was conflated with the East Asia meetings in the previous reports.

Obliged...

...elsewhere for another day or so.

In the meantime, here's an open thread for any comments / topic suggetions since y'all didn't get one on Sunday this week.

Be well and safe, All.

Things should be happening again here not later than Wednesday.

The New York Times wrongs Reich

One of the pleasant parts of doing this weblog is the associations one makes, and the associations that then follow. Ambassador Otto J. Reich would be one of those associations-of-the-second-degree.

Now Amb. Reich is a proper gentleman, and that means well able to take care of himself in a dispute, but when he lets on to colleagues that he has been wronged then it is time for us to stand up for him. Now is just such a time.

The New York Times published an article on October 8th of this year that misrepresents an interview with O. Reich, to which he rightfully takes strong exception...

But five days after he wrote a Letter to the Editor, it seems clear that the NYT has no intention of actually answering his letter nor printing it. Fine. That is their choice. This is mine.

Here is the Letter to the Editor:

To The Editor,
The New York Times
Dear Sir:

The October 8 article by Ginger Thompson “Leader Ousted, Honduras Hires U.S. Lobbyists” is erroneous, misleading, and thoroughly misrepresents the lengthy interview I gave her. Through innuendo, it implies that I am one of the aforementioned “lobbyists” hired by the Government of Honduras, and that I am behind the Congressional “hold” on two Obama Administration officials. Those allegations are false, as I repeatedly told her.

Though she says that I claim to not have lobbied, Thompson cleverly implies otherwise by associating my name with some who have lobbied. In fact, my name is the first that appears to document the article’s hypothesis. Ms. Thompson is so determined to “prove” that I communicated my views to the US Congress, apparently in what she thinks is some nefarious manner, that she misreports. For example, she states “For his part, Mr. Reich sent his thoughts to members of Congress by e-mail” and cites the following: “We should rejoice that one of the self-proclaimed “21st-century socialist” allies of Chávez has been legally deposed by his own countrymen.”

This quote is an excerpt from an article I published in National Review Online on September 28, with Thompson’s selection in italics, as follows: “The U.S. had nothing to do with Zelaya’s removal, and it should do nothing to force his return. Rather, we should rejoice that one of the self-proclaimed “21st-century socialist” allies of Chávez has been legally deposed by his own countrymen.” I did not send this “thought” to any member of Congress, as she states; instead it was published and freely available online.

Thompson further states that “… Reich said he had used his connections to push the agenda of the de facto government, led by Roberto Micheletti.” I said no such thing! I did say I believe the Obama Administration policy is wrong and I explained my opinion. I have not supported the “Micheletti agenda;” I have only criticized my own government’s misguided policies.

All my testimony, op-eds, articles and media interviews are my own doing. No one directs me, no one pays me (in fact, these efforts cost me money, as they take considerable time from my consulting practice) and no one else reviews my statements before they are published. I told Thompson that I do this because I see it as the duty of a citizen in a free society to dissent from his government’s policies when his conscience so dictates.

Finally, I told Thompson repeatedly that I oppose Congressional “holds" on nominees since as a several-times Presidential appointee I have been the subject of three such delays - one by Chris Dodd and two by Jesse Helms. None of this was mentioned by her. Indeed, there is another false implication that I am behind the holds of State Department nominees Arturo Valenzuela and Tom Shannon. Fortunately, both of the nominees are personal friends are *and know these allegations are false.

All the above is on the record and I urge you to print it in the interest of journalistic objectivity.

Sincerely,

Otto J. Reich

reproduced here by the expressed permission of Otto Reich Associates LLC, 16.Oct 2009. Editorial correction made at the * mark for clarity.

MDC Boycotts "Unity" Government.

This is good news in two parts for the future of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), but it is going to be tough in the short run.

First came word that Roy Bennett has been allowed bail again... which at least keeps him out of Mugabe's ZANU-PF -run jails...

and then came word of the boycott:

Zimbabwe's opposition MDC said it would boycott the country's power-sharing government until sticking points have been resolved and a political deal is reached, sparking the biggest crisis since the administration was formed nine months ago.

Prime Minister (in name) and Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai used some choice words in his announcement about the treatment that the "Unity" government has gotten from the Mugabe regime, too.

This also puts the pressure on South Africa's President J. Zuma and the SADC regional bloc to put some effective pressure on Robert Mugabe... which would be a first... because things like *this* are already being said:

Tsvangirai said if the new constitutional crisis escalated further, it would only be resolved by holding fresh elections under supervision of the United Nations and SADC.

Actually, that would be a very fine outcome in the long run.

The rub is that in the short run, there are too many ZANU-PF thugs hauling in too much money and power for them to go quietly into the night. Indeed, the chance that a new government with a new constitution behind it would take the entirely reasonable opportunity to run the thieves down and settle scores is real enough that the Kleptocrats won't go down without a fight.

Best be planning for that fight now. The day will come.

Gee... Maybe it *was* politicized...

From the "Gee... Maybe it *was* politicized..." Department comes this moment of clarity on the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran:

U.S. spy agencies are considering whether to rewrite a controversial 2007 intelligence report that asserted Tehran halted its efforts to build nuclear weapons in 2003, current and former U.S. intelligence officials say.

The intelligence agencies' rethink comes as pressure is mounting on Capitol Hill, and among U.S. allies, for the Obama administration to redo the 2007 assessment, after a string of recent revelations about Tehran's nuclear program.

When data arrives that disproves a hypothesis in the competition matrix, that item is struck from the array. Basic Analysis 101.

The sad part is that from Day 1 the flaws in (at least the presentation of) the NIE on Iran were so glaring that it probably should never have survived pre-release. But there were people, and goals, aligned against continuing to allow the Bush 43 administration freedom of action against Iran at the time, and those actors won the day.

Knowing what I know about some of the people who were in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence office at that time, I was surprised they let that NIE out back then. Given that Thomas Fingar is now a professor at Stanford and Adm. J. M. "Mike" McConnell is a Senior Vice President at Booz Allen Hamilton, they are both out where some questions can be asked... and they should be... about whether they would be willing to "take a mulligan" on the previous assessment.