Yukio Hatoyama: Japan's first Russophile Prime Minister

Japan-Russian relations ought to blossom under its new Prime Minister.


The outcome of Japan's election is really big news.  "This is the end of the post-war political system in Japan" as one observer put it.  At long last, Japan's hopelessly corrupt LDP party has been swept from power and Japan has joined the ranks of the world's mature democracies.

AP explains that the "Democratic Party of Japan claimed a majority of seats, the first time in postwar history that a single opposition party has gained a majority. . . .  Yukio Hatoyama, the head of the Democrats, is a near certainty to become Japan's next prime minister and replace Aso."

The press is chattering about what the election victory will mean for Japan's relations with China.   That is, of course, a big question.

But Japan is not the only major power in East Asia which has reason to be obsessed about its relations with China.    That other country I am thinking about is Russia.   And we shall see, Hatoyama's victory ought to shed new light on this important coincidence.

No country has to be more concerned about the rise of China than Russia.  Russia has a big China problem, and it's the mother of all Russian problems.  How, faced with a declining population, can Russia hold onto the richest piece of real-estate on the planet?  How can Russians hope to retain for themselves the vast expanse of sparsely populated territory lying adjacent to the most populous nation on earth?  Of course, I'm talking about Siberia. 

Russia desperately needs a friend.  In the future, Russia will likely find an ally in Japan.  That's because  like China, Japan also seeks resources.  But unlike China, Japanese immigration does not pose any kind of a threat to Russian sovereignty.  Russians will find it inconceivable that Japanese investment in Siberia would be as politically destabilizing as Chinese investment.

Japan also needs a new friend. With American power set to decline -- even if only gradually -- the extent of America's ability to meet its future security commitments to Japan will grow increasingly uncertain.  Japan stands in need of an ally close to home. 

Who better to kick off what promises to be the start of a beautiful friendship than Yukio Hatoyama,  Japan's first Russophile prime minister?   Here are some little-known facts* about Hatoyama's credentials as a Russophile (Kommersant, h/t Sanjuro):

• Hatoyama's only son (trained as engineer like his father) works at the Moscow State University
  
• Hatoyama served as chairman of the Russia-Japan Society
• Hatoyama's grandfather personally travelled to Moscow in 1956 to restore diplomatic relations with the USSR
• Both Hatoyamas are rumored to be well-connected in Russia.

But this love affair won't happen overnight.  According to a 2006 Gallup Poll, only 9% of Japanese hold a favorable view of Russia.  From the Japanese perspective, this relationship can only grow warmer.   Which it almost certainly will under Hatoyama, as it is in the interest of both countries to resolve the longstanding territorial dispute concerning the Northern Territories/Southern Kurils. 

Obama won. Why isn't this Fox hunting season?

In a previous post I quoted Cathy, a Jotman reader in Arkansas, who wrote: "I'm rather afraid right now and wish somehow Fox News could be halted from inciting such hatred in people."  In response, reader Bosunji wrote:

While I agree that FOX News is stirring the uglier baser aspects of their constituents I must point out that popular speech doesn't need protection. Only unpopular speech needs the protection of the 1st Amendment. When someone begins to suggest that anyone or anything must be prevented from freely expressing themselves I begin to worry. [my bold]

Recall that when the First Amendment (photo right) was passed in 1791,  the right of free speech had not yet been extended to "anyone or anything."

The "anything" in question today is a corporation, Fox News, owned by News Corp.  

By the late 1800s courts had come to view corporations as "legal persons," and subsequent high court decisions over the years have come to accord corporations many of the Constitutional rights of persons -- including free speech. 

I believe that the courts made a mistake.  Public corporations such as News Corp. should never have been extended any Constitutional rights  -- such as free speech -- in the first place. 

As with every other universal right,  free speech was originally predicated on the assumption that free citizens will find it in their own self-interest to exercise this right responsibly.  In the case of a public corporation -- which has no purpose other than to maximize its shareholders' return on investment -- such an assumption does not apply.  As constituted, public corporations are simply not capable of -- and ought not be expected to bear -- the responsibilities of person-hood and citizenship. 

Therefore, it was illogical for American courts ever to have decided that the peculiar legal entity that is the modern public corporation ought to have been accorded any of our human rights.   Look at it this way:  Under the law, human individuals are routinely held fully liable for their actions.   But the owners of a public corporation have only "limited liability."   That is, if I buy News Corp. stock, I cannot lose more than than my  investment should News Corp. get fined heavily for a crime.  Suppose its crime was to have cut down all the trees in a national park for newsprint.  The courts can go after a public corporation's owners can be held liable for no more than the amount they invested in the stock, no matter how much loss to society their investment caused.   On the other hand, suppose I bought a chainsaw and cut down all the trees in a local park to sell for firewood.  If convicted, I would stand to lose more than my investment in a chainsaw.  Human individuals can be held accountable for their actions to a greater extent than the owners of a publicaly-traded corporation; meaning that people have more incentive to behave responsibly than do corporations.  

The First Amendment of the Constitution establishes the right of the people to a "free press."  When the country's news media is controlled by a handful multinational corporations it is no longer has a free press.   Accordingly, the large multinationals ought to be divested of their news media holdings. 

This ought to be Fox-hunting season.

_________
Background: In connection with this post, I recommend the book/documentary entitled The Corporation by Joel Bakan.  Incidentally, Bill Moyers, in recent HBO interview, explained that corporate funding of US political parties is considered "free speech" and protected by the Constitution.
Follow-up post: "Protecting free speech in an age of megaphones"

Clinton, Webb move to improve US-Burma relations

Reflecting on Senator Jim Webb's recent NY Times oped (which I discuss here), I have come up with a most favorable interpretation of Jim Webb's stance on Burma.  That is, that Webb has been positioned as the Adminstration's  "good cop" in negotiations between the US and that country's nasty regime.   But this  interpretation presupposes a bad cop.  Who might that be?

At the ASEAN summit Sec. of State Hilary Clinton had already staked out a somewhat stronger stance.  Clinton demanded Suu Kyi's release as a precondition for lifting some sanctions.  Truly, I thought that Clinton was not asking very much --  perhaps far too little -- especially given how many political prisoners the regime has locked away.

Given that Clinton's position on sanctions appears generous, it seems to me the Obama Administration sorely lacks someone to play "bad cop" on Burma.  And I think that's a shame. Because if the president does not anoint someone to a voice a tougher stance, laying out any number of preconditions for lifting sanctions, an opportunity to change the course of US-Burma relations could mean a wasted opportunity from the standpoint of human rights.

Green Paradox revisited

A question that came up during the panel discussion I live-blogged in Helsinki concerned something called the Green Paradox.    A firm believer in the law of unintended consequences, my ears perked up when I heard that phrase.

Essentially, the Green Pardox says that efforts to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses are likely to have the opposite effect.   Hans-Werner Sinn spelled out how the Green Paradox is likely to unfold in the FT today:   "Governments are busily promoting alternative energy, improved building insulation and more efficient cars. These programmes cost billions - and probably achieve the exact opposite of what policymakers intend: the global extraction of coal, gas and oil shoots up instead of sinking."

I urge you to read the whole article which explains the dynamic interaction whereby uncoordinated climate policies will likely cause the rate of carbon extraction to increase.  Sinn laments that  "politics so far exhibits not the slightest glimmer of thinking in this direction....  The silence of politicians on how to slow down fossil fuel extraction smacks of denial."

Essentially, Hans-Werner Sinn concludes with a message that shows he is on the same page as Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila and Professor Charles Kolstad.   Sinn writes:

To be effective, environmental policy has two options: either it uses the tax system to make it unattractive for resource owners to convert their fossil fuel wealth into financial investments, or it creates a seamless consumer cartel through the establishment of a global emissions trading system. The emissions trading system would effectively put a cap on worldwide fossil fuel consumption, thereby achieving the desired slowdown in extraction rates. Furthermore, part of the proceeds would be diverted from resource owners' pockets to the national treasuries of the countries selling emissions certificates. 

For the reasons of political expediency best explained by Ollila, the cap and trade approach is the way to go. But the cap and trade proposal making its way through the US Congress -- like a doomed earlier European initiative* -- seems to fall too far short in relation to Sinn's last (emphasized) point.  Gregory Mankiw explains in a NYT oped:  "The problem occurred as this sensible idea made the trip from the campaign trail through the legislative process. Rather than auctioning the carbon allowances, the bill that recently passed the House would give most of them away to powerful special interests."   Credits need to be auctioned-off, not handed-off to polluters.  Because this money is needed to pay for the cost of the transition.

 ______
* A article published by MIT explained this point with reference to the failed European cap and trade experiment.

When boredom is healthy

Today Krugman blogs that he cannot "muster" a "sense of shock" about the behavior of the Republicans in the health care debate, writing: "I think it is important to realize that the current behavior over health care is nothing new — in fact, it’s been this way for a very long time."

That's pretty much how I have felt all month long.  "Predictably, the opposition's tactics in the health care muddle are getting ugly..." I began a post last week entitled "Barbarians Worthy of a Yawn."   

However, under the circumstances, to express "shock" is not just  -- as Krugman suggests -- an indication that you must have been asleep for most of the past decade.   I think expressions of "shock" help to give life to an industry-contrived script.  For a journalist to express amazement at the sound and fury made by health-care opponents is to play out the very role consigned for you by a corporate PR agency.

But if you witness Americans acting out yet another corporate-financed story-line and choose to be truly and utterly bored at the spectacle? That is to begin a new script.

Edward Kennedy, global citizen

Senator Edward Kennedy, brother of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy is dead.  This was the eulogy Edward gave in 1968 at Bobby's funeral:

Arkansas resident: Fox News puts Obama's life at risk

Kathy, a reader in Arkansas, responds to a Jotman post highly critical of Fox News:

. . . . I am nervous now about people with guns . . . I am afraid for Obama. Where I live, rural Arkansas in an all-white county, I cannot say anything nice about Obama without worrying about my dogs being poisoned. I'm not being paranoid. I'm rather afraid right now and wish somehow Fox News could be halted from inciting such hatred in people. I think Obama has the potential to be one of our greatest presidents.

Back in July 2008 I expressed concerned here about the tone of McCain campaign rallies: some angry people fearful that Obama might be a Muslim.  The lies have changed with respect to the healthcare debate, but the dynamic is familiar. 

I am increasingly concerned that Obama's recent attempts to appease opponents will have both a corrupting effect on the democratic process and prove self-defeating.

For a change, it would be nice to see the president go on a Fox hunt.

A little learning is a dangerous thing

On the same day that the US Attorney General Eric Holder made it clear that the Justice Department would not be holding Bush administration officials accountable for ordering torture (only subordinates who took liberties with those orders), Obama announced his decision to nominate Ben Bernanke to a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. We are told Obama thinks that "Ben's done a great job."

I suppose the one bright side of the Bernanke re-appointment was that it meant that Obama's chief economic adviser Larry Summers (who along with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner advocated financial industry deregulation) did not get promoted into the job.

It seems Obama learned two important things from the previous president.

First, he learned that if bad things happen, you make sure the grunts take all the heat -- à la Abu Ghraib.

Second, Obama learned that should disaster befall the country -- the attacks of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina -- you heap praise on whoever was in charge at the time (i.e. George Tenet, Michael Chertoff), reappoint (i.e. Rumsfeld), or promote that person (i.e. Condi Rice).

A little learning can be a dangerous thing.
____
Photos: George Tenet receives Medal of Freedom, Private Linndie England who served at Abu Ghraib is led away in handcuffs, and a shot of Obama at the G20.

Evidence Bush War on Terror politically motivated

This is easily the biggest news revelation of the year, but cable anchors are laughing it off. US News and World Report reports on a new book by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge:

(Tom Ridge) was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

Does anyone believe this was an isolated incident? If so, I would like to offer that person a good deal on some rare Thai gems.

To me, this revelation is tantamount to proof that Bush cynics were right. And it shows that we were right to be disgusted by an establishment American news media that consistently failed to question key assumptions behind the Global War on Terror.

In a true democracy, this kind of revelation by a high level cabinet minister would be political dynamite. But in "let bygones be bygones" Obamerica, it's anyone's guess what the fallout will be.

Who still trusts Obama?

The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform ... This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.

- President Obama, Aug. 17

The NY Times reported yesterday that Obama may drop his (ever tepid) request for a "public option" in the US health care reform initiative. My immediate reaction to the article was to mouth the name of a slender rodent. I have long anticipated that Obama might well try to weasel-out of backing the public option, but I did not expect him to pull up his tail and retreat quite this fast.

Paul Krugman says the emphasis Democrats put on preserving the "public option" in the health care debate speaks far more to progressives' lack of trust in Obama than to the merits of the public option. Krugman notes that the case of Switzerland proves it is possible to have universal coverage in a country in which people are covered by private insurance. But because American lobby groups end up making a mockery of Congressional attempts to regulate industry -- a particular worry under President Obama -- liberals have demanded that Obama deliver a public option. Krugman blogs:

If progressives had real trust in Obama’s commitment to doing the right thing, the administration would have broad leeway to do deals. But the president doesn’t command that kind of trust.

Partly it’s a matter of style — as many people have noted, he has been weirdly reluctant to make the moral case for universal care, weirdly unable to show passion on the issue, weirdly diffident even about the blatant lies from the right. Partly it’s a spillover from his other policies: by appointing an economic team that’s Rubin redux, by taking such a kindly attitude to the banks, he has squandered a lot of progressive enthusiasm . . . .

So progressives have their backs up over one provision in health care reform that’s easy to monitor. The public option has become not so much a symbol as a signal, a test of whether Obama is really the progressive activists thought they were backing.

And the bizarre thing is that the administration doesn’t seem to get that.

As I have blogged, one big problem with the approach Obama has taken is that many supporters of health care reform cannot be bothered to get behind a president who is not straight with them about his true priorities. Why bother, when you have good reason to suspect you are being led by a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The right's long-time objection to Obama is gradually coming to be shared by the left. That is, people on both ends of the political spectrum in the US are coming to the conclusion that Obama cannot be trusted. The way things are going, any candidate who can channel the "trust" theme -- whether Republican, Independent, or Democrat -- ought to be able to defeat Obama in 2012.

What Viktor Bout means to Russia

Last week a Thai court acquitted Victor Bout on charges of arms trafficking to terrorists, ruling against his extradition to the United States. The case is presently under appeal.

Because the case of the so-called "merchant of death" has the potential to adversely impact US-Russian relations, Jotman posed six questions to Sanjuro, hoping to get a better idea of what Viktor Bout means to the Russian people and their leaders.

Russian JOTMAN.COM contributor Sanjuro is a keen observer of the murky world of Russian politics -- particularly how developments in Moscow impact the farthest reaches of the Russian empire. Sanjuro has been following the detention and trial of Viktor Bout since his arrest in Bangkok in March 2008. In October 2008 Sanjuro translated a rare interview with Viktor Bout into English.

1. Do you believe Bout is well connected with the Russian power-brokers and high society?

He is probably not well connected. Viktor Bout was rumoured to be from the GRU community (army intelligence), that was a rival to KGB (secret police). GRU people were briefly in favor in the late Soviet period and in the Yeltsin's times, but were mostly sidelined after Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB, came to power. One of the evidences of that came when the GRU could not help its former Chechen veterans of the GRU unit "Vostok" (see the sad story of The Brothers Yamadayev) persecuted and killed allegedly under orders from Ramzan Kadyrov the Chechen Supremo Warlord. Under the new proposed intelligence reform GRU is expected to be signficantly downsized and will basically be stripped off of some its functions like Spec Ops.

If Bout was indeed from the GRU community, then his patrons and supporters have likely been sidelined and demoted in the Russian power struggle. It is more likely that he left the community in the 1990s, after acquiring some of the aircraft assets and since then was operating on his own. Theoretically, he could be in a "sleeper" mode, but I feel that most bright people left that system when the underlying ideology fell, and they all left to seek other fortunes.

2. How likely is it that Viktor Bout is a Russian agent? Just how expendable is he? I assume he doesn't matter to Moscow as an asset, but that he matters a lot more to Moscow as a symbol. Do you agree?

I don't think he mattered a whole lot to Moscow as an agent or a symbol. His importance as an agent or symbol was probably blown out of proportion by the media, just because the story would sound sensational ("From the depth of the Soviet Intelligence! The Merchant! Of Death! - now a major Hollywood movie").

3. How angry do think Moscow was at his capture? From other things you have written, it would seem the Russian people don't care much about what happens outside their region, but is that true in this case? Does Russian public opinion matter in relation to Bout? Is he a folk-hero in Russia?

Bout was literally unknown in Russia until his capture and still largely remains unknown to the most of the common Russians. A mafiozo called Vyacheslav Ivankov (aka Yaponchik - "Litte Japanese"), captured in the US and extradited to Russia, was much more famous, although he too didn't seem to be of great significance to Kremlin. Some cases that I recall when Kremlin did in fact produce significant efforts to bail out Russians arrested overseas were the cases of Evgeny Adamov, a former minister of nuclear power, and Pavel Borodin, a former butler of the the Kremlin household - both charged with embezzlement of significant funds. Both have returned to Russia: Adamov is keeping low profile, Borodin has a successful career as bureaucrat.

4. Supposing Bout went on trial in the US, how damaging would this be to Russia's relations with the US? (I suspect the trial could be a big media event, like Noriega. I can't help but think the whole idea of such a trial could be very humiliating to Russia). What do you think the repercussions would be to the relationship -- if any?

The trial would be a big media event in Russia, only if the Kremlin technologists allowed that happen, as they fully control TV. Printed media is out of reach of most people, Russian online sources cover only an insignificant group of people. So if the Kremlin decided this was the time to whip up some anti-Americanism, they would certainly be able to do that. if the decided to keep it quiet, it would go quiet.

Hence, Bout is in fact important, but only as

• A tool of manipulating domestic opinion;
• A bargaining chip in dealing with the West. (it's something that is not very important to you, but if your opponent believes it is important to you, why not use that in your negotiation?)

5. I suspect most Americans and Thais don't think about Bout's nationality. In other words, they don't think the trial has much to do with Russia. They think it is about stopping a bad arms dealer. But do Russians think the same way? Do they think the trial is about an "arms dealer" or do they think it is about Russia?

Most Russians would believe that the case is politically motivated, simply because in Russia almost any high-profile case seems to be politically motivated. Just by extension... If there's no politics involved, one can always buy themselves out of jail. If the guy apparently had resources to bail himself out and could not - then obviously it is political.

6. How biased would you say the Russian media has been in reporting on this case? Do they give both sides, or mainly portray Bout as a victim?

I have only seen moderately liberal coverage on this -- in the Gazeta.ru and the Kommersant. Both have been rather balanced and neutral, by Russian standards.

Webb Diplomacy for Burma

New York Times:

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia held a rare meeting on Saturday in Myanmar with the leader of the ruling junta, Senior Gen. Than Shwe, and emerged with a promise to free a detained American, officials said, at a time when the United States has said it is reassessing its hard line toward Myanmar’s repressive military government.

The junta also allowed Sen. Webb to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi during his visit to Burma. Back in July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attending a meeting of ASEAN nations in Phuket, suggested that sanctions on Burma could actually be lifted if the country was to free Suu Kyi, but that her continued detention should lead to that country's expulsion from ASEAN.

Incidentally, when I brought up Clinton's remark during a conversation with someone at the State Department, the official affirmed that the Obama administration was reconsidering America's overall approach to Burma. I thought this development interesting. It had not occurred to me that Obama's avowed shift in approach to foreign relations would extend beyond US dealings with notorious adversaries such as Iran and North Korea to include dialogue with Myanmar.

It will be interesting to watch if this new channel between Senator Webb and Naypyidaw bears fruit. Let's hope so. Because Jim Webb is unusually well-acquainted with the region, he is perhaps the ideal figure to initiate new diplomacy.

Police protect zombies from crowd

More photos here.

The real reason Thailand will not extradite Victor Bout to the US

Jotman readers J-P and RM, noting my apparent indifference to the outcome of the trial of the notorious arms dealer Victor Bout in Thailand, have commented on the need for Victor Bout to be brought to justice, expressing dismay at the outcome of the trial (described in the previous post).

The statement that "Bout should face justice" is something that I completely agree with in principle.

Saddam Hussein was another person many of us thought should face justice.

Behind both cases a deeper question loomed: Whose justice? Are we talking about American justice or international justice? The basic question is the same, whether it is Saddam Hussein or Victor Bout we are talking about.

And the matter before the Thai court, of course, was whether or not to extradite Bout to the US -- where he would face American justice.

Should Bout have been extradited to the US, this might have seriously set back US-Russian relations at a time when Obama seems to want to set the relationship on a new course. At the very least, it would have put the new US administration in an awkward position. Therefore, whatever the US government might have being saying out loud (the tough talk), I wouldn't be surprised if, privately, the Obama Administration had not given the nod to the Thais that they need not extradite Bout.

Let's look at it another way: if, as Obama claims, the US government has too many important things on its plate to bother investigating Bush Administration war crimes, then surely the last thing the White House needs is a high-profile trial of a semi-retired Russian merchant: a trial sure to create diplomatic trouble with Moscow, complicating Obama's "fresh start" foreign policy agenda.

Recall that by 2008, the Bush Administration seemed hell-bent on roughing up Russia's feathers: NATO expansion, military advisers in Georgia, independence for Kosovo, missile defense for Eastern Europe, etc. The DEA's capture (the Russians claim "entrapment") of Victor Bout in Bangkok can viewed as part and parcel of a high-handed approach to dealing with Russia. By contrast, the Obama Administration has shown clear signs of wanting to turn over a new leaf. We saw that in early July with the Obama-Medvedev nuclear agreement.

So international justice for Bout, yes. I'm all for that. In fact, according to Oxfam, the UN is negotiating an "Arms Trade Treaty" that would "help regulate arms dealers and make it harder for them to break embargoes." Hopefully in the future, the likes of Victor Bout could be brought before an international court. I agree with the UK-based NGO that the urgent need for a treaty regulating the arms trade should be the enduring lesson of this week's acquittal of Victor Bout in Bangkok.

As they say "justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." As the case before the Thai court concerned whether Bout should receive American justice, the question too few Americans asked back in 2003 needed to be asked again: justice toward what ends?

If the cost was going to be a setback in Russian-US relations, then I would say "getting Bout" was not worth it. Moreover, I think Obama's new approach deserves a fair go and warrants a clean slate.

Thailand: Victor Bout acquitted of arms trafficing

The internationally-renowned arms dealer Viktor Bout has just been acquitted in the Thai court. The Russian state broadcaster ITAR-TASS reports:

Russian Foreign Ministry learned with much satisfaction the reports on Thai Criminal Court’s decision to free the Russian citizen Viktor Bout, who was suspected of planning a sale of weaponry to the Revolutionary Armed Force in Colombia (FARC), the ministry’ s deputy official spokesman, Igor Lyakin-Frolov said Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, the Thai Criminal Court issued a non-guilty verdict to Viktor Bout, thus denying a request from the U.S. to extradite him.

The court ruled the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) was a political organization and not a terrorist one, as the U.S. had claimed.

JOTMAN.COM Russian contributor Sanjuro, who translated a rare interview with Victor Bout from his prison cell in Thailand, summarizes an article from the Russian media pertaining to Bout's release:

A more detailed article in the Kommersant said that Thai court considered the case "politically motivated", and that the prosecution failed to provide trustworthy evidence of Bout's dealings, and of the fact that FARC, indeed, is a terrorist organization. It also briefly quoted an unnamed Russian diplomat in Thailand saying that Thailand simply didn't want to taint relationship with Russia, as in case with Iran (there was a similar case with an Iranian military officer caught in Thailand). The reason was described as Russia and Iran are seen by Thailand as "unpredictable" and hence it is better to please them, while the US has been a reliable partner and shall not be too angry with Bout's acquittal, especially as Obama administration has no vested interest in it.

But according to an article on the acquittal by Douglas Farah in Foreign Policy, "His extradition has become a top priority for an Obama administration seeking to prevent him from being released and further fanning conflicts around the world, particularly in his old stomping grounds of Afghanistan."

It should be noted that the Americans were only too happy to work with Bout when he served their purposes: in the first years of the Iraq war Bout flew "hundreds of missions for the U.S. military and civilian contractors, raking in millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars." Back then, it seems that Bout was too useful to the United States to get arrested.

While the Bush Administration was spending hundreds of thousands of US taxpayer dollars to hunt down Victor Bout, it was funneling hundreds of millions to military contractor Blackwater USA and its CEO Erik Prince. According to Wikipedia:

On August 3, 2009, two anonymous former Blackwater employees swore under oath that Prince may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. In addition, they said that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

If such allegations are found to be true, perhaps it would be unfair to Victor Bout to compare him to Erik Prince. An amoral arms merchant is not quite in the same league as a hate-inspired holy warrior.

American citizens might have been far better served had their government focused on keeping its own house in order rather than chasing one semi-retired Russian arms dealer halfway around the world.

Barbarians worthy of a yawn

Predictably, the opposition's tactics in the health care muddle are getting ugly.

Insurance company lobby groups tell elderly people that Obama's health care reform bill is a plot to institute mandatory euthanasia. Are Americans dumb enough to believe that the Democrats are dumb enough to propose such legislation? It would seem so. Many of the same people fear a government take-over of Medicare (the US government-run health insurance program for Americans aged 65 and over).

Concerning the manipulated protests, there is growing outrage at this spectacle on liberal blogs and on the fringes of corporate media.

I have tried to follow this debate closely, but not once have I heard the president name a specific set of changes that he considered absolutely essential; so far, Obama has spoken in platitudes about the need to enact cost-saving reform. All Americans have heard from the White House is vagueness; plus some tired anecdotes.

If the insurance lobby is filling a vacuum with lies of its own making, that vacuum exists because Obama has not been clear about the specifics of the health care bill he would sign. Americans do not tend to trust Congress, but until quite recently Obama was the one politician whom two-thirds of the country looked up to for leadership. But instead of leading, Obama outsourced health reform to Congress. That need not necessarily have made for trouble, but what Obama needed to do was speak out on behalf of several concrete benchmarks. Criteria. Americans looked for Obama to put forth a "seven point plan" or even a "fourteen point plan."

Then Obama could have spoken to Americans with clarity, passion, and conviction about his health care dream. Only then would the dream have seemed real to people -- something they could get excited about.

Although barbarians seem poised to sack the city, ardent supporters of health care reform do not appear determined to fight back just as hard. The explanation for this should come as no mystery. Where a people are not convinced of their lord's resolve to endure a siege, they will merely await their prince to work a prince's peace.*

___
* That is, we suspect the fix is in, that the notion of a health care "debate" is merely a way to prepare the public for otherwise outrageous concessions -- all made in the name of "compromise." We saw this happen with the stimulus package, carbon-trading. . . .

Wal-Mart preys on Girl Scouts

Goldberg:

Walmart has copied two of the group's signature cookies, Thin Mints and Tagalongs, and will soon sell them nationally at lower prices -- sure to cut into the do-gooders' profits, which are generated solely from cookie sales.

That's one creepy company. I sincerely hope people stop shopping there.

But supposing Americans decided not to patronize Wall Mart any longer, would the US government not invent an excuse to bail them out? After all, the company is so big that it accounts for 1% of China's GDP.

Today, the world's largest companies get subsidized by taxpayers* and protected by governments. Their corporate-socialist executives feed off society. That they would steal Girl Scouts' cookies should come as no surprise. It's the system in a nutshell, and the least of its abuses.
____
* "(E)ach 200-employee Wal-Mart store" is estimated to cost "taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children." This analysis did not take into account the environmental cost of the cheap products, and may not have looked at the depressing effect Wal-Mart and other large discounters have had on employment opportunities and wages throughout the retail and manufacturing sectors of the US economy.

Timeline of the Blue Diamond Affair

Latest update 10.01.2010 - Corrections (based on several errors I discovered in Bangkok Post stories).  Includes new research by Jotman concerning the Iranians.

The first victim of the crime is, today, the king of Saudi Arabia. Others were not so lucky. By one estimate, at least 17 people have died as a result of the theft of the blue diamond, leading superstitious Thais to believe the diamond is cursed.  

That's not all. Because of the "Blue Diamond Affair" Thais were prohibited from visiting Saudi Arabia for a generation and the number of Thai workers in Saudi Arabia declined from nearly a quarter million to only 10,000, costing the Thai economy an estimated $500-700 million US $6 billion (200 billion Thai baht) over 20 years in lost remittances from Thai workers.   Thai-Saudi relations have yet to recover.  

The New York Times once called it "the biggest scandal in the history of the Thai national police."

Today came the latest installment in this twenty-year saga. Before we get to that -- and in order to illustrate why the latest news out of Bangkok makes no sense -- I drew up this timeline.

Jotman's Blue Diamond Affair Timeline

1989 (Jan 1) - Bangkok Post (here) incorrectly provides this date for murder of Maliki. Moreover, the article incorrectly identifies Maliki as a Saudi "businessman."

1989 (Jan. 4) - Saleh Abdullah al-Maliki, the third secretary at the Saudi embassy in Bangkok, was shot to death by an unknown gunman while walking to his residence on a Bangkok street.  According to the NY Times, "Two factions, the Soldiers of Justice and the Holy War Organization in Hejaz [al-Hijaz Islamic Jihad], have claimed responsibility for the murder of Salah Abdullah al-Maliki."  [FDI lists this event as a possible Iranian hit squad murder]

1989 (Feb 1) -  Bangkok Post (here) provides this date for some of the murders. This appears to be incorrect.

1989 (Jun 20-Aug 8) - Kriangkrai Techamong, a Thai worker steals 200 lbs of jewels from Riyadh palace of Saudi Crown Prince Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz al Saud, the son of King Fahd. Among the stolen gems was a rare blue diamond. The theft amounted to US$20 million.

---- - Kriangkrai packed loot in boxes and sent it to relatives in Thailand by DHL parcel post.

----- - Kriangkrai returns to Thailand and stashes loot at his home in Lampang (in the north of Thailand). Kriangkrai buried some of his loot on the farm and started selling items individually for $30 apiece.

---- - owner of a large Thai jewelery business, Santi Sithanakan, thought to have purchased most of the gems from Kriangkrai.

----- - Al-Besri and the three others- two diplomats (Albahli & Alsaif) and a private citizen (al-Ruwaili) - are assigned by Saudi Arabia to look into the highly publicised Saudi diamond scandal. 

1990 (Jan 10) - Kriangkrai arrested in Mae Sot.  An investigation led by Police Lieutenant-General Chalor Kerdthes led both to the arrest of Kriangkrai and the recovery of many of the jewels.

1990 (Feb 1) - Saudi diplomat Adbullah A al-Besri, the consul, is killed in Bangkok. Ten minutes later, two more Saudi diplomats -- Fahad AZ Albahli, an attaché, and Ahmed A Alsaif, a telex operator -- are also assassinated in Bangkok.  According to an Iranian dissidents group FDI, "The three Saudis are suspected intelligence agents."  [FDI lists this event as a possible Iranian hit squad murder]

1990 (Feb 12) - Last sighting of Saudi businessman Mohammed al-Ruwaili, who is thought to have known who had stolen the jewelry.  Mr. al-Ruwaili is seen in a car with Saudi consul Abdullah al-Besri (Note: either this date or this claim about al-Ruwaili "last" being seen in a car with al-Besri must be incorrect.) Clock begins ticking on 20-year "statute of limitations on investigations" into his murder.

1990 (Feb 14) - Saudi businessman, Mohammed al- Ruwaili, disappears.   

1990 (March) - police handed over the jewels to Saudi Arabia in a public ceremony.

1990 - Saudis discover 80% of the returned jewels are fake. The Thai police are the prime suspects.

1990 - Saudis downgrade diplomatic relations with Thailand. They dispatch "a tough-talking, gun-toting" charge d'affairs, Mohammed Said Khoja, to Thailand to retrieve the family jewels. Khoja believes that the man responsible for the imitations is jeweler Santi. 'He is the one who changed the genuine stones for the fakes,' he says. 'He is the key.' Concerning the killings, "Khoja will not go into details, but says all four were in some way involved with the attempt to regain the jewels, and claims that they were killed because they had important information. A Thai policeman was also killed. The police denied that the murder was linked with the jewels but they promised to step up their investigations."

------ - "Saudis became convinced that the Thai police were involved in a huge cover-up, that the jewels had been distributed among some influential people at the top of Thai society."

----- - "At a gala dinner in Bangkok soon after the incident, wives of the Thai generals and leading politicians fiercely competed in showing off their jewelry. The Thai newspapers' photographers caught pictures showing diamond necklaces belonging to the Saudi royal family. The pictures were shown to Saudi officials who also confirmed its similarity. The Thai ladies, however, denied their authenticity." (Another?) sighting of the jewels is alleged to have occured at a Red Cross event (date unspecified).

1991 (Jun) - "after unrelenting pressure from Riyadh, the Thai police reopened the case, miraculously discovered some of the jewels - albeit a fraction of the total hoard - and charged four civilians with receiving stolen property. Jewels worth pounds 75,000 were returned."

----- - To protest inaction on the case, Saudi Arabia cuts off work permits to more than 250,000 Thai guest workers.

1994 (Aug) - Santi Sithanakan is kidnapped and tortured by police on orders of Chalor.

1994 (Aug) - Two weeks later, wife and 14-year-old son of Santi Sithanakan, now the government's principal witness found dead, bloodied and beaten, in their Mercedes outside Bangkok. Thai police forensic officers put the death down to a road accident, but they had clearly been murdered. "The forensic commander thinks we're stupid," Saudi diplomat Khoja tells reporters.

----- - The witness, Bangkok jeweler Santi Sithanakan, goes into hiding. He is believed to have tried to pay a randsom for his family, but obviously something went wrong.

---- (Sep) - two police generals (of the 18 police officers implicated in the gems case) are dismissed.

1994 - The thief, Kriangkrai Techamong, is free. "He was released after serving two years and seven months for handling stolen goods after receiving two royal pardons."

1995 - 13 year-long trial of Chalor Kerdthes begins. Initially he is convicted of ordering the murder of the wife and son of the gem dealer in Aug 1994. He is sentenced to death (but the sentence is not carried out). It is revealed that four men admitted committing the murders on police orders. They had demanded a ransom of $2.5 million from the jeweler.

2001 - Police Lieutenant-General Chalor Kerdthes, still in jail, has formed a rock group and produced his own version of Jailhouse Rock. He claims to be innocent.

2002 - "Police Lieutenant-General Chalor Kerdthes, 64, the man charged with investigating the theft by the migrant worker and with returning the jewels to their owner, Prince Faisal bin Abdul Raish, was jailed for seven years, the newspaper reported. Major Thanee Sridokaub, 45, received the same sentence. Both were found guilty of kidnapping a Thai jeweler who was handling the stolen gems.Chalor faces further charges of collaborating in the murder of the jeweler's wife and 14-year-old son after a ransom demand of $2.5 million was not met, the newspaper reported. Instead of attempting to solve the case, Thai police saw riches in it for themselves, the criminal court in Bangkok had been told."

2004 - The Department of Special Investigations (DSI) which is under the Justice Ministry, takes over investigation into the Saudi murders from the Thai police.DIS

2006 (Jun) - Chalor Kerdthes sentenced to 20 years for stealing the recovered jewellery. Six other officers found guilty.

2007 (Sep) - new DSI team of investigators launched. It is under Army Colonel Piyawat Gingkaet. No former police have been appointed to the team.

2008 (Mar) - Foreign minister Noppadon declares Thailand's intention to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, which will be possible once the Blue Diamond case is wrapped up.

---- (Mar) - "Two Muslim experts" who have a good relationship with Saudi Arabia appointed to serve as advisors to DSI investigators in charge of the cases.

---- (Apr) - Thai Justice minister Sompong Amornwiwat visits Chalor Kerdthes in jail. It was suspected that he could implicate some former police chiefs.

---- (May) - Kriangkrai -- the thief -- is now living in a small wooden house. It's not entirely clear where he got the money to buy a new tractor.

---- (fall?) - SDI Director Thawee reports that 90 percent of the investigation has been completed.

2009 (Jan) - Thai charge d'affaires to Saudi Arabia speaks of "renewed effort" by Abhisit government to "normalize diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia by resolving the Blue Diamond theft case, the murder of three Saudi diplomats in 1989 and the case of the disappearance of a Saudi businessman in 1990."

---- (Aug) - SDI decides there is enough evidence to charge Abu Ali who is suspected of shooting Abdullah AAl-Besri, the first of three Saudi diplomats shot to death on Feb 1, 1990.  

2010 (Jan 10) - Office of the Attorney General (OAG) indictes Somkid Boonthanom, chief Police Region 5, plus 4 active and former police officers in connection with the disappearance of Mohammad al-Ruwaili, presumed dead since 1990.
2010 (Feb 12) - The statute of limitations expires on investigations into the killings.

2012 (Mar 29) - Scheduled first hearing in the trial of Somkid and 4 other officers charged on Jan 10, 2009.

Concerning the most recent report, if you thought the Saudi diplomats had been killed to prevent them from pursuing the investigation, you would be mistaken, according to the DSI investigators-- more on that here.

In another post, I look at factors influencing the future of Thailand's relations with Saudi Arabia.
_________
Sources: Wikipedia, NY Times, TVNZ, 2Thailand, Economist, Thailand q and a, Bangkok Post, Diamond Timelines, The Nation, Zawya, Independent, JCK Online, Teak Door, Seattle Times, Death Penalty News, Gulf Times, Digital Journal, MCOT.net, APMRN