Category: Editorial

THE DEBATE over Syria has obscured another critical decision about Middle East policy that President Obama and Congress must soon make: whether to sustain aid to the military-backed government that has been consolidating power in Egypt. An administration policy review was nearing completion when the chemical weapons attack near Damascus was detected; as we understand it, the options include a substantial cut in the $1.3 billion in annual U.S. aid provided to the Egyptian armed forces. The White House tells us that Mr. Obama “has not made a decision to suspend or terminate our assistance to Egypt beyond what the administration has already announced”: delays in the delivery of F-16 fighters and other weapons and the cancellation of a planned exercise.

It’s understandable if the president’s hand has been stayed by the new crisis; nonetheless, it is important that Mr. Obama act soon. While Washington has been fixed on Syria, the Egyptian regime of Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi has moved steadily toward constructing an autocracy that would reverse Egypt’s 2011 revolution and its subsequent move toward democracy.

In the past week alone, the Sissi regime has stepped up its arrests and prosecution of leading figures of the Muslim Brotherhood, including Mohamed Morsi, the democratically elected president ousted in a July 3 coup. Dozens have already been tried and sentenced in military courts under a state-of-emergency law that was the underpinning of the former autocracy of Hosni Mubarak. Mr. Morsi himself has been charged with murder. Meanwhile, authorities are taking steps toward formally banning the Muslim Brotherhood, excluding parties with a religious identity from the political system and returning to the Mubarak-era system for electing parliamentary representatives, which was weighted against opposition parties. All that would make the elections the regime is promising next year a sham.

In some respects, Egypt already is less free than it was during the last years of Mubarak. Authorities have shut down three satellite television networks considered sympathetic to the Islamists, as well as the Egyptian affiliate of al-Jazeera. A once-diverse press has swung into line behind the government, parroting its far-fetched claims about opponents ranging from the Brotherhood to outgoing U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson. Last week the government-owned Al-Ahram newspaper accused Ms. Patterson of conspiring with a Brotherhood leader to “spread chaos” in Egypt by smuggling in militants from the neighboring Gaza Strip; Ms. Patterson rightly described the article as “absurd and dangerous.”

The Obama administration has been pressing the government to reconcile with the Islamists, release Mr. Morsi and other political prisoners and carry out a transition to a genuine democracy. That these appeals are ignored while the government indulges in grotesque anti-American propaganda reflects the generals’ conviction that the administration will ultimately tolerate a new dictatorship while maintaining U.S. aid. It follows that the only means to exert U.S. leverage is to suspend the aid programs, while linking their resumption to the restoration of democracy. Not just Syria but Egypt requires a “shot across the bow”; Mr. Obama should take it before it is too late.

–Washington Post

In a poignant irony, a master of the dramatic image has departed, leaving behind the permanence of pictures. The professional life of Peter Oyeyemi Obe, who took his exit at age 81, was indeed a sight to behold. His was no monochromatic career, for he brought to his art a richness of perspective and an enthusiastic involvement that distinguished him. His round frame and signature cap were unmistakable features as he pursued the news photos that earned him fame.

Obe was a colossus of the camera, and possessed an intriguing understanding of the potency of pictures. It is a testimony to his vision that long before the concept of “the visual age” gained popularity he seemed to have had a glimpse of the future and the approaching primacy of the story-telling photo. As a photo-journalist, he was sufficiently discerning to recognise that he was a recorder of history and its subtle nuances.

Evidence of his historical imagination can be seen at his studio in Surulere, Lagos, which has the value of a museum owing to the sheer scale of the pictorial documentation on display, telling the Nigerian story through personalities and events.  Obe was the stuff of legend, and his unparalleled collection of pictures of the Nigerian Civil War gave him an assured place in collective memory.  To better appreciate these archival photos, many of them exclusives, it would no doubt be appropriate to contemplate the photographer in the context of a full-scale war, with all the associated dangers. The passion and courage indispensable in such operational circumstances could only be the qualities of a perfect professional. It is a huge positive that Obe produced a 220-page book informed by his coverage of the conflict, entitled Civil War Pictures from Nigeria: A Decade of Crisis in Pictures.

As if to demonstrate the depth of his thinking and the fact that he had his eyes on history, he also released a 98-page book that captured the political experiment of another era, its disastrous result, and military intervention; this was entitled Nigeria: Second civil rule and the military rescue in pictures. It is hoped that Obe’s efforts in producing photo-books that focus on the country’s socio-political evolution will not only inspire  press photographers of today to build on his work, but also stimulate interest in the country’s history, particularly among the youth.

It is a measure of his resourcefulness that Obe, who belonged to a pioneering class of press photographers, employed his lens even outside the political realm, and also thrived in the areas of sports, nature, and social commentary.  His reputation for professional excellence marked not only his days as chief cameraman of the Daily Times, in the newspaper’s glorious age; this distinction also attracted foreign attention and admiration, and in his freelance practice he worked for external agencies, notably, Agence France Presse (AFP).

It is significant that one reported reaction to his passing highlighted some qualities that made a difference in his approach to photo-journalism.  According to The Nation Photo Editor, Mr. John Ebhota, “He told me to do my homework before attending assignments. One big lesson I learnt from him is to be patient. He was never in a hurry to take shots.”

There is no doubt that Obe left a legacy of professionalism, especially considering the fact that he continued to work as a photographer even outside journalism, and successfully ran his own outfit, Peter Obe Photo Agency. It is fitting that he was regarded in photography circles as an “all-rounder.” The lasting lesson of his career is that with hard work and passion, it is indeed possible to attain impressive heights, not least in the field of photography. By personal example, he showed that even in a society that idolised materialism, the contribution of cultural work cannot be discounted, and that such engagement had its own rewards.

The recent record-breaking purchase of the Welsh winger Gareth Bale by the Spanish giants Real Madrid FC for an estimated £85.3 million has once again demonstrated the way in which money has continued to pour into European soccer at a rate which defies both prevailing economic conditions and common sense.

There is no doubt that the British footballer is one of the most exciting things to happen to the modern game. Blessed with electrifying pace, superb shooting skills and wonderful positional play, Bale is truly deserving of the praises heaped upon him. He is not just a star player, but one who has consistently displayed the capacity to carry the team on his shoulders, as demonstrated severally during his last season at Tottenham Hotspur.

As good as he is, however, there are larger questions posed by the huge sum that was paid for his services, and they are likely to impinge negatively on football in particular, and sport in general. The first relates to the way in which football players are valued. What are the elements that go into the valuation of a player? Is it the number of goals scored? The nationality of the player? Media hype? A potent combination of “branding,” public hysteria and sheer desperation on the part of football administrators?

In the specific case of Bale, it appears that all of these elements have had a part to play, in addition to his undoubted talent. His nationality makes him unique; he hails from a country that is unlikely to ever appear in a World Cup final, and is therefore less susceptible to the club-versus-country rows that disfigure the careers of players from more prominent football-playing countries. He played in a league that was outstanding for the way in which star performers were lauded to the skies, especially those from the British Isles.

The adulation in which Bale was held by his fans, and the grudging admiration of supporters of rival clubs helped to raise his reputation to the skies. And Real Madrid’s well-known penchant for paying staggering sums for individual players lent an air of inevitability to the whole scenario; the Spanish team paid world-record prices for Christiano Ronaldo and Zinedine Zidane.

A situation in which the prices paid for players increase almost exponentially may imbue football with a certain dramatic quality, but it does not augur well for the game in the long run. For one thing, the money circulates within the very narrow channel of the game’s rarefied upper echelons: players, agents and top clubs. Very little of it goes to the grassroots, nor does it help to defray the already-prohibitive costs of tickets and branded merchandise. For a sport long touted as “the people’s game,” this is an ironic tragedy.

Stupendously high transfer prices also appear to have negative knock-on effects. Player salaries rise to the level where there is no logical connection between what the players are paid and what they do on the field. Indeed, the careers of some players like Paul Gascoigne, Diego Maradonna and Adriano often bore an inverse relationship to the huge amounts they were paid. As the wages of top stars rise, they lift those of their less-talented counterparts; money, rather than talent, becomes the name of the game.

This inequality draws from the very fabric of modern capitalism that has inflicted a huge gulf between a few well-heeled persons and a majority living in desperate circumstances, a phenomenon worsened in the recent crisis around the world.

Where does Nigeria find itself in all this? At first glance, it would seem that the nation stands to benefit. Even if most of its players fall outside the ranks of Bale and Ronaldo, they still attract very impressive prices and wages. However, the inflation and distortion of values creeping into the European game could have even more negative effects in Nigeria. Already, the corrupting influence of money has begun to assert itself in the fixing of matches, the exploitation of players and the debilitation contests for administrative positions.  Money is vital to the growth of football, but cannot replace it.

President Obama was right to seek Congress’ approval on taking military action. But he also must ensure that any such mission remains limited.

Last week, the Obama administration was signaling that it would take unilateral military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad for what the administration insists was the deliberate use of chemical weapons to kill hundreds of civilians. On Saturday, the president abruptly — and appropriately — changed course, saying that he would seek support in Congress for action to “hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior and degrade their capacity to carry it out.”

We agree with Obama that convincing proof of widespread use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government justifies a military response — designed not to overthrow Assad but to punish him for defying a century-old understanding about the particular abhorrence of chemical weapons. But we were critical of the president for his seeming indifference to the importance of obtaining assent from Congress for military actions that do not address an imminent threat to the United States.

Obama has now rectified that flaw in his approach. But there is a danger that in securing the needed majorities, the president might agree to more drastic action than is necessary. We found it ominous that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime proponent of U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war, said after a meeting with Obama on Monday that he was now confident the president was planning an attack “a little more robust than I thought.”

Another concern is that the draft resolution released by the administration contains broad language that could give rise to mission creep. It says: “The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary.” Congress shouldn’t dictate to the president and his commanders the precise number or timing of cruise missile strikes, but the resolution should be modified to make explicit what Obama already has promised: that the U.S. “would not put boots on the ground.” On Tuesday, Secretary of State John F. Kerry expressed an openness to such language.

Not all of the votes the administration needs belong to senators and representatives who agree with McCain; it also must obtain the support of members of both chambers from both parties who worry that a limited strike to enforce the prohibition on chemical warfare will mutate into an intervention reminiscent of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Satisfying all of the factions in Congress on this issue is a challenge comparable to the proper alignment of a Rubik’s Cube. Ideally, the result will be nothing less — but also nothing more — than what Kerry called “a limited and tailored response to ensure that a despot’s brutal and flagrant use of chemical weapons is held accountable.”

– Los Angeles Times

In a way, the camp was a city in its own right, albeit a locus of inhumanity rather than a bustling metropolis. Camp 22 was one point in North Korea’s constellation of concentration camps that run on unadulterated cruelty, a secret world where prisoners are fed poison for experimentation, women are forced to kill their own children and entire families are murdered in gas chambers.

As the world sits by, North Korea has imprisoned as many as 200,000 people in these camps. Although human rights violations remain unfortunately common in many nations, these camps form a category of their own in today’s world. North Korea’s gulag is a place where people aren’t people but rather objects for exploitation and elimination.

The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea released a report this week detailing the harrowing reality of Camp 22. Satellite imagery suggests the camp recently closed. Good news? Not exactly. According to the report, after a food shortage in 2009-10, Camp 22’s population shrunk to somewhere between 3,000 and 8,000 people from around 30,000 in previous years. Thousands of prisoners seem to have evaporated into thin air — perhaps via Camp 22’s crematoria.

Last week also saw the conclusion of public hearings for a U.N. Commission of Inquiry investigation into North Korea’s human rights abuses. The hearings featured testimony from Shin Dong-hyuk, perhaps the best-known escapee of a camp and the subject of a 2012 book by Blaine Harden, The Post’s former East Asia correspondent. Recounting his punishment for dropping a sewing machine, Mr. Shin recalled: “I thought my whole hand was going to be cut off at the wrist, so I felt thankful and grateful that only my finger was cut off.”

Although the U.N. commission has no formal prosecutorial powers, Michael Kirby, the retired Australian judge who led the inquiry, promised that the report he is overseeing will “not be just another U.N. document.”

It should not be. Other nations have tolerated these camps for far too long. South Korea rarely speaks out about human rights in the northern part of its divided country. The United States has focused (unsuccessfully) on dissuading North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile thousands languish and suffer. Many, as Mr. Shin testified, are bred in the camps like farm animals to be worked and then die with no possibility of ever entering a freer world.

Among the more chilling questions in the history of World War II is how the Allies could know about Auschwitz and other German death camps but take no definitive action, such as bombing the rail lines, to stop them. It is encouraging that the United Nations has stirred itself to pay attention to North Korea’s camps. Still, historians of the future may again wonder how the world could have known so much and done so little.

– Washington Post