Category: Editorial

THE DARKENING situation in the Middle East has produced a silver lining. With Syria’s civil war intensifying and Iran showing no sign of slowing its nuclear program, Israel and Turkey have patched a nearly three-year-old rift. In a March 22 phone call stage-managed by President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for the deaths of nine Turks in a 2010 Israeli raid on a ferry attempting to breach the sea blockade of the Gaza Strip. That should open the way for Israel and Turkey to begin sharing intelligence and strategies for managing the common threat they face from Syria — and to increase the pressure on Tehran.

Rapprochement between Turkey and Israel, two regional powers with stable democratic governments, has a compelling logic at a time when the Middle East is gripped by war and sectarian rivalry and Egypt and Iraq are consumed with internal turmoil. But the incipient makeup will require careful nurturing. Mr. Erdogan, who only a few weeks ago equated Zionism with “crimes against humanity,” has been undiplomatically crowing about Mr. Netanyahu’s apology; more troubling, he has insisted that the deal requires Israel to lift its sea blockade of Gaza, even though the statements issued by the two governments do not say that. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whose behind-the-scenes cajoling helped to produce the breakthrough, will need to keep working to ensure that the accord does not crumble.

Both governments, however, have powerful incentives to cooperate. As Mr. Netanyahu explained on his Facebook page, his decision to deliver an apology he had long refused was driven by the growing threat that Syria’s chemical weapons and other advanced arms may fall into the hands of the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon or an al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria. The two governments can now pool intelligence — and they will need to communicate in the event that one or the other is compelled to take action to prevent the transfer of dangerous weapons. Israel can also take satisfaction over the alarm the accord prompted in Iran, which will worry that one constraint on Israeli military action against its nuclear facilities has been eased.

Mr. Erdogan, for his part, aspires to return to the role of regional statesman that he occupied before the Arab revolutions, when he sought to broker deals among Israel, Syria and the Palestinian Hamas movement. “We are at the beginning of a process of elevating Turkey to a position so that it will again have a say, initiative and power,” he boasted, while promising to visit Gaza next month.

That may be too much to expect: Mr. Netanyahu’s government is as unlikely to open negotiations with Hamas as it is to fully lift its Gaza blockade. Israel, for its part, has little hope that the strategic military cooperation it nurtured with Turkey before Mr. Erdogan came to power will be revived. Even modestly better relations with Turkey and Israel are nevertheless vital to U.S. interests in the Middle East — and to containing its growing disorder.

– Washington Post

 This is good for anti-terrorism efforts

The sentencing of Nigerian militant Henry Okah to 24 years in jail for terrorism-related activities by a South African court is heartwarming. It is also interesting, against the background that President Goodluck Jonathan had originally exonerated his (Okah’s) Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) from involvement in twin car bombings at Eagle Square, Abuja, during the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Nigeria’s independence on October 1, 2010. Justice Neels Claaseen, who delivered the sentence in the South Guateng High Court in Johannesburg, said there was “overwhelming evidence” linking Okah with MEND which claimed responsibility for the bombings.

While reacting to the Abuja bomb attacks, in which 12 people were killed and 36 others injured, Jonathan had said: “Let me also use this opportunity to reassure Nigerians that what happened yesterday (October 1) had nothing, I have to repeat, had nothing to do with the Niger Delta. People just used the name of MEND to camouflage criminality and terrorism.” He also said, while the incident was still under investigation, “What happened yesterday was a terrorist act and MEND was just used as a straw; MEND is not a terrorist group.”

However, it became clear that Jonathan’s conclusions were based on ethnic sentiment, and perhaps political calculations, when he argued that “It is erroneous to think that my people who have been agitating for good living will deliberately blow up the opportunity they have now.” He was referring to the fact that his ascendancy to the presidency was the first time an individual from the country’s oil-rich Niger Delta would be occupying that seat.

Interestingly, the incident took an unexpected twist with the arrest of Okah in South Africa. According to Okah in an interview, “On Saturday morning, just a day after the attack, a very close associate of President Jonathan called me and explained to me that there had been a bombing in Nigeria and that President Jonathan wanted me to reach out to the group, MEND, and get them to retract the earlier statement they had issued claiming the attacks.”

He said further, “They wanted to blame the attacks on northerners who are trying to fight against him (Jonathan) to come back as president and if this was done, I was not going to have any problems with the South African government. I declined to do this and a few hours later, I was arrested. It was based on their belief that I was going to do that, that Jonathan issued a statement saying that MEND did not carry out the attack.”

Indeed, these conflicting statements by Jonathan and Okah are thought-provoking, and there are observations, not entirely unfounded, that Okah’s trial and conviction were “politically motivated.” However, it is strange that, given the seriousness of the charges against him, Okah declined to testify in his own defence, but claimed that he was innocent and his trial unfair. He alleged that the Nigerian government blocked about 20 witnesses from travelling to South Africa to give evidence in his favour.

Okah’s conviction for 13-count charges was also related to another two car explosions in Warri, Delta State, in March 2010, for which MEND also claimed responsibility, and alleged “threat to the Nigerian government.” Not surprisingly, the development has generated intense interest across the country, particularly Justice Claaseen’s reasoning that the bombings “were targeted at embarrassing President Goodluck Jonathan,” which sounds like a political statement. Furthermore, although South African law allows trial of alleged terrorists arrested or resident in the country, no matter where their acts were committed, it is amazing and unjustifiable that Okah was also sentenced for threatening South Africa, based on warnings from MEND. The group had, on account of Okah’s trial, threatened to attack MTN Group Ltd and SacOil Holding Ltd, which are of South African origin and doing business in Nigeria.

While Okah has a right of appeal, which he is likely to exercise, the entire episode seems puzzling in certain aspects. However, the gray areas do not detract from the desirability of counter-terrorism efforts and the need to make the world a safer place.

•Dickson’s proposed ‘dem say, dem say’ law is anathema to democracy and free speech

SOME HOW, the anti-rumour law being proposed by Governor Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State, is eerily reminiscent of the infamous Decree 4 of 1984. Among that decree’s notorious provisions was that truth was no defence for whoever was charged under it. That law, like this proposed Bayelsa one, was a press gag law, tailored to root out from the media, any non-official news, even if the scoop – as it is called in basic journalism – is accurate and more credible than the doctored ‘government news’.

Now if Decree 4 was outrageous under a military regime with its glorified impunity and outlawry, Governor Dickson’s pet anti-’dem say, dem say journalism’ proposed law must not even be contemplated in a democracy, for it so rudely assaults its key tenets: free speech and free press. That the proposed law was announced with all the conviction at the governor’s disposal only underscores the paradox of running a democracy without democrats!

But let us get something clear. Our stand in this editorial does not in any way support sloppy, lazy or vengeful journalism which dreams up vengeful rumours and recklessly proceeds to canonise such malice in print, thus subjecting the victim to untold mental and psychological torture. Any journalist guilty of that is a clear and present danger to the democratic order and should face the music after lawful trial.

But not even the existence of such journalists justifies an omnibus law which, ab initio, ripples through and through with bad faith.

To start with, from the constitutional point of view, it is doubtful if the proposed law can stand the muster. It only takes someone to test the validity of the proposed law in court, juxtaposed against the constitutional provision of free speech; and the whole experiment could come crushing down. Besides, if our laws have enough provisions to punish libel and allied offences, why does the Dickson government need an omnibus law to punish “rumours”?

In any case, how does the Bayelsa government prove something is a ‘rumour’ in print?

That it is not true? But what if it is, does it still remain a rumour? Can the law convict for ‘true rumour’ (in the terminology of a vengeful government) which nevertheless is legitimate news scoops and speculations, as was the case with The Guardian duo of Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor, jailed under Decree 4?

Or is a news rumour just because it did not emanate from government’s official channels? If that were to be so, what would happen to the usual robust Nigerian press, under a so-called democracy?

Truth be told: the Bayelsa gambit is nothing but trivialisation of governance and a proposed mockery of the law-making process. It ought to be decried by every right-thinking person that wishes Nigerian democracy well. It should be stopped forthwith.

In any case, rumours flare when the government wilfully represses information or tries to cover up its seedy news. Instead of embarking on an omnibus and dangerous law therefore, the Bayelsa State government should level with the people on its activities.

It is a legitimate and patriotic duty of the media to uncover shenanigans in government. Not even the threat of a newfangled gag law can stop that – or else our democracy is doomed.

Bayelsa State , under Seriake Dickson, is lugging a measure of notoriety when triviality in governance is the issue. The Dickson government, un-blushed, announced with pomp the appointment of a sitting First Lady as permanent secretary, even if that appointment is as absurd as they come. Now, it is on a quixotic mission to punish ‘rumours’ in print, whatever that means. Governor Dickson should get real and quit chasing shadows. There are more pressing issues for a serious and focused government than chasing rumour mongers.

BETWEEN 2008 and 2010, Google collected bits of personal data — e-mails, Web sites visited and other sensitive material — from unsecured WiFi networks around the world. All its employees needed to gather it were commercially available antennae and some open-source software.

The company says that it didn’t mean to collect people’s sensitive information. It was assembling imagery and location data for its innovative Street View feature, which allows users to stand, virtually, on practically any street corner after just a few mouse clicks. It relied on unencrypted WiFi signals to help match images with locations. But, in the process, its roaming information-gatherers dug into unsecured data streams, gathering far more than they needed for Street View.

This month, Google settled with attorneys general from 38 states and the District, who were jointly investigating the company. It committed to paying $7 million, destroying as soon as possible the personal information it took and implementing a 10-year privacy program. More important than these results, though, is the lingering fact that Google — apparently without meaning to — easily accessed all sorts of information that WiFi users were broadcasting. Technology creates new possibilities — and new vulnerabilities. Americans need to appreciate both.

Law enforcement can do only so much to keep up, even if the law were heavily weighted toward privacy protection. It’s relatively easy to investigate a big company that has a lot of cars rolling around collecting data. It’s much harder for the authorities to stop a lone antenna-bearing snooper in a van outside your house. The best defense is locking your home WiFi network.

There is already plenty of hand-wringing about what people put on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Teens share party photos they might find embarrassing — even professionally damaging — years later, if they forget to take them down. College students comment on the severity of their hangovers. Members of Congress accidentally press the wrong button on Twitter, and inappropriate images of themselves zoom around the Internet — in their case, indelibly. But it’s not some mysterious phenomenon when material posted in a public forum becomes subject to public scrutiny. There is only so much privacy any reasonable person — or unreasoning teen — can expect there.

Critics are preemptively raising similar concerns about Google Glass, a somewhat conspicuous new eyepiece that allows users to take photos, record sounds and take video, perhaps without raising quite the attention that a cellphone camera would. The worry could well be overblown, for now. When the same gadget is small enough to fit onto a contact lens, Americans will have to get used to more of what they do in public being on the (electronic) record.

Google’s data-gathering provides a slightly different lesson: The most heralded challenges to personal privacy are not the only ones Americans should care about. The advance of technology also results in tools that threaten privacy in less obvious ways, to which most Americans might not pay nearly as much — or any — attention.

– Washington Post