Message from the future.

The 'blog time is set for North America's West Coast, but (as is obvious from my profile) I'm a permanent resident of Japan.

So yes, it is already 2011 here.

明けましておめでとう

akemashite omedetou

Happy New Year!

Surprisingly elegant

My, my... a surprisingly elegant move by a U.S. Department of State that has spent almost the 2 years demonstrating the dictionary citation of "Ham-Handed"...

Washington has revoked the visa of the Venezuelan ambassador to the US, the US state department has said.

Oh, that's good.

Forgive me; I've left out the explanation.

The U.S.A. and Venezuela have lacked Ambassadorial-level relations since summer at the fault of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez. The U.S. Amb E&P, Patrick Duddy, got pitched in 2008 and went back in July of 2009, but now he's done. His replacement was to be Larry Palmer... but that hasn't settled at all well with Hugo. Chávez has now walked away from the invitation to Palmer and has even let a challenge to the U.S. to cut diplomatic relations.

Well, that isn't what happened.

The Embassy is open, and operating as normally as possible under the Chargé d'Affaires.

The Venezuelan representation in Washington D.C. now gets its chance to find out how well they operate under the same conditions:

Washington has revoked the visa of the Venezuelan ambassador to the US, the US state department has said.

Venezuela's Ambassador to the U.S., Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, was outside the U.S. at the time. He's not been expelled... he just can't come in.

Now, if Hugo would like to discuss matters, things are on an equal footing.

...and if he doesn't want to resolve this, then the hot potato of declaring a diplomatic breach is back in *his* hands.

Yes, it is petty gamesmanship. Much of diplomacy is just that.

But it *might* just get Ambassador-select Larry Palmer his posting.

State department spokesman Mark Toner said Caracas had only itself to blame.

"We said there would be consequences when the Venezuelan government rescinded agreement regarding our nominee, Larry Palmer. We have taken appropriate, proportional and reciprocal action," he said in an emailed statement.

Surprisingly elegant.

***

Addenda: Fausta has a thread on this and links to several other parts of the story. Also, look at this item from Daniel at Venezuela News and Views for his take on the gamesmanship going on... on both sides.

Boa vinda to readers from O Insurgente and thank you for linking here.

Mexico: Civil War in all but name.

It isn't an ideological war, at least not in the political sense.

It is more an example of Warlords carving apart a State.

Here's an overview from the BBC as a simple refresher course on how bad it is... and how hard it is for the Government of Mexico to make any rapid progress against the Cartels.

But perhaps such a broad brush image is simply overwhelming to try and take in...

Very well, let's take today's news reports just to make a couple of examples of the danger:

Here's a very local, rural case highlighting how it is nearly impossible to keep police on the job in places where the Cartels can casually overrun the region and annihilate any trace of State authority.

At the other end of the spectrum, here is a report of how trivial it is for the Cartels to operate across Mexico's borders. This is not only an example of their danger to the Mexican authorities, but it is also a signature example of the danger faced by other countries that have the misfortune to border Mexico or be along the smuggling routes that lead through Mexico.

This is going to have to be brought to an end. The ongoing effort to fund the Government of Mexico's fight (the Mérida Initiative) isn't the way, either. Its implementation schedule alone has been far too slow to offer much to Mexico other than the hope of losing less often. There are also serious institutional problems in Mexican courts and law enforcement (and parts of the military, just on a lesser scale) preventing more normal means of addressing the threat that no amount of outside financial aid will solve.

If (and this is a *big* if) Mexican pride can be set aside long enough for a regional intervention to be formulated and implemented ...a Plan with real victory over the Cartels as the objective... there is some hope of the State reasserting itself. Weapons, trainers, information, secure salaries for officers and men of State authorities, and in contested areas adjacent to other countries the means and manpower necessary to secure and hold those zones are all going to be needed. Some of those means and manpower wouldn't be Mexican, either.

If not, then matters will certainly bring things to an end all by themselves. The State will simply fail. After that, there will still be an intervention. There simply has to be one. Failed State Mexico would be too dangerous for any of its neighbors to tolerate. The only doubt would be as to whether such an intervention would lead to success where the Government had failed, or just an open sore of bloody stalemate.

So...

Mexico and its neighbors can own up to the enormity of the problem and get on with paying the costs of a real, full-scale "Plan", or

...they can pay far more in blood and treasure later.

***

Note: I'm not even going to address the 'War on Drugs' arguments as to why Americans should take some specific action (militarize the border; decriminalize the traffic; whatever). In my opinion the matter of the Cartels has long transcended any one criminal activity and is now better described as Warlords carving apart territory. This is more like the collapse of Somalia over the last 30 years, or if you prefer the historical example the disintegration of much of China by the 1920's into dozens of 'bandit kingdoms' and Warlord-holdings. Mexico isn't there yet, by far, but that's the path they are on.

Wikipedia linked for convenience only. Please consult citations there for original research.

The militants formerly known as Boko Haram

No, they aren't using a symbol instead of a name now.

Yes, they are back in their bloody and intolerant terror trade.

For those who thought the group had been wiped out last year after the leadership and hundreds of followers were killed or captured by Nigerian authorities, there might be one little detail that was overlooked... 700 detained Boko Haram followers were freed in a jail-break in September of this year. Most made it successfully on the lam and have been steadily regrouping ever since.

So they are certainly back. The open question has "Are they still capable of terror campaigns?", and that can be put to rest as well. They are capable, and rearmed in a manner more substantial than in previous times. What was a panga-and-crude-firearms group now has a plentiful supply of basic combat weapons like AK's. Weapons of source unspecified, to no surprise.

They are actually claiming responsibility for the church bombings in Jos, Nigeria and nearby areas. They've hauled out a name, Jama'atu Ahlus-Sunnah Lidda'Awatu Wal Jihad (roughly "People Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation and Jihad"), associated with them previously. Seems Boko Haram ("non-Islamic education is a sin") wasn't good enough, I guess. One thing is clear, though: Jos is well into the midlands of Nigeria. The 2009 fighting was up north, in Bauchi. If they *are* able to move and strike outside their favored territory with any real effect, then the threat is no longer regional.

There is some doubt as to whether they actually did perpetrate the attacks, but it seems more likely that the group has just expanded its arsenal of mayhem.

Nigeria needs to step up and face this as what it really is capable of becoming: an Existential Threat to the State, at least in the North and midlands.

If that means setting aside ECOWAS commitments for a time to concentrate on the problem, then Nigeria's allies need to understand this and increase their commitments to deal with all the other (drug-trafficking; military coups; factional rebellions) problems that are plaguing West Africa right now, at least enough to buy the Nigerians some time.

***

Wikipedia link (the first link in this thread) is for convenience only. Please check any cited source there for actual research.

Khodorkovsky, Ledbedev found guilty

I could have picked any of several sources on this, but here is RFE/RL's version of the report that combines accuracy and context in the most readable fashion, I think.

Most all the details are there, but one example was not as clear as it could be. Here's how they cited it:

(Khodorkovsky)'s since been accused of stealing $25 billion of oil from his own company, Yukos, and laundering the proceeds, an allegation brought months before he was eligible for parole in 2007. Many believe he and Lebedev were charged as an excuse to keep them in jail, possibly until 2017.

What isn't said is that sum of oil production *exceeds what Yukos could possibly have shipped* in the period under challenge.

So, besides the fact that one can put aside any claims that Mikhail Khodorkovsky may have gained control of Yukos in the usual (questionable) manner in the "Wild East" post-Soviet times of the oligarchs ...those weren't the charges this time... it is now clear that the charges-as-filed are simply fabricated.

This was all about Khodorkovsky and his associates opposing Vladimir Putin.

That, apparently, is good for functionally indefinite detention in the "new" Russia.

Sunday Morning Push

Hope your holidays have been good times, folks. We're up for New Year's Time here as our big winter holiday and it's looking to be a fine time indeed.

Here's your Open thread for Sunday.

Use this wisely, folks. The usual rules apply: play nice.

As always, thank you All for coming here.

Mugabe looks to pin 'treason' on the opposition. (UPDATED)

When all one has is a hammer... everything looks like an excuse to hammer one's opponents.

Zimbabwe's attorney general plans to set up a commission to investigate possible treason charges against locals over briefings with U.S. diplomats reported in confidential State Department cables released by WikiLeaks.

The move appears to be targeting Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, following state media reports that hawks in President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party wanted an official probe into Tsvangirai's briefings with the U.S. ambassador in Harare.

The very idea that opposing Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF kleptocracy is in any way 'treason' against the nation of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) is shall-we-say open to dispute... although the medieval definition of 'treason' as an indignity against the person or property of the monarch might fit. Were that to be so in this case, of course, that would simply advertise more widely what is already known; that R. Mugabe and company see the state as their personal property.

I'll say it plainly: In my opinion, conduct by any citizen of that nation that expedites the departure of the Mugabe regime is patriotism.

***
Update 28.Dec

Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has an article up now about this matter, and has kindly linked here as well.

In a side discussion with him, I realized that there was one small part of all this that readers might not be aware of:

OFAC listed J. Tomana on 21.Dec

TOMANA, Johannes, Office of Attorney General, Private Bag 7714, Causeway, Harare, Zimbabwe; DOB 9 Sep 1967; National ID No. 50-036322F 50 (Zimbabwe); Attorney General (individual) [ZIMBABWE]

Yes, that means the US DEPTTRES OFAC added Johannes Tomana to the SDN (Specially Designated Nationals) list on 21.Dec., placing him specifically under U.S. sanctions.

That predates the report of his actions in the Wikileaks matter by several days. Consider him a motivated actor.