Self Censorship is Not Preventative Action: Mexican Journalists Respond (Part 2 of 2)

"Narco-traffickers, the professional killers, executors (or sicarios) and their bosses like to be considered heroes, like those they see in their favorite action movie... They want their messages across the news to say one thing: they are the most powerful, the strongest and merciless."

In the second part of our series on "narco-censorship" in Mexico, we feature a response by Leonarda Reyes, founder and director of the Center for Journalism and Public Ethics. Leonarda explains that narco blogging is not new and that these platforms face the same independence issues as the mainstream media. In her country, where journalists can still remember official censorship policies, Leonarda admits that "self-censorship seems just as natural and a safe play."

Self Censorship and Drug Violence
By Leonarda Reyes

If you read the international news on a regular basis you must have come across the headlines about beheadings, shootings and massacres involving the drug cartels in Mexico. If you follow Mexican news from afar, it seems that the country is on fire; dangerous at every corner.
Some of the latest news includes a public protest by journalists and buzz about a blog where drug killers (or sicarios) upload videos of their shootings and boast about their activities every day. The protest of journalists, a march on main streets of Mexico City and other cities in the country in early August 2010, was the second of its kind.

News about reporters who have been killed or disappeared is not new. In fact, the violence against journalists started to escalate in 2004. What is new and triggered the latest journalist protest is that recently four journalists were abducted from mainstream media organizations, namely Televisa -the biggest media conglomerate in the Spanish-speaking world- and Milenio Multimedia group. The journalists were kidnapped just minutes after covering a protest by inmates in a prison in the central state of Durango in early July.

To free the journalists, the criminals did not demand money, but to air and publish their messages which accused some officials of corruption. The media organizations refused to comply with the criminals request and the federal police rescued two of the victims, while the other two were released by the kidnappers.

“The narco demands headlines”, was the headline of El País newspaper in Spain. That was exactly what the drug cartels wanted and have wanted for at least for the past ten years. When and why did the drug cartels begin to consider the news and media attention important for their operations? Being a long time observer and reporter of the narco traffic in Mexico, I have some ideas.

Media intimidation in Tamaulipas

It all started in the late nineties, when elite soldiers were recruited by the Gulf cartel for the first time. Some of the soldiers recruited had had elite training by their American counterparts on irregular war and psychological operations. The elite soldier-criminals started using their training for the sake of the cartel and soon in Mexico we started seeing well planned sophisticated activities such as rescue operations to free drug lords in prison. On the news front, the Gulf cartel started controlling the content of news shows and newsprint as they did not want their domain “heated.” Too much attention from the president and the federal police would increase police activity and interfere with their businesses.

It is no wonder why Tamaulipas, the home of the Gulf cartel located in the northern east border of the country, was where the media was silenced first. The news media there are fully controlled by the drug lords who decide what and when to publish and air stories. The arrangement took some time to develop and several journalists were killed to make clear who was ruling the state. Just last week, a car bomb exploded outside Televisa’s Tamaulipas’ office to show who is boss.

Nowadays in Tamaulipas there are no killings or abductions of journalists. There is also no news made public about the violence happening if not approved first by the cartel. For instance, just a couple of days ago, on August 24, seventy two bodies were found of illegal central American citizens, who obviously were in their way to the United States and fell victims of the organized crime. True to form, the news about the 72 bodies did not appear on the Tamaulipas media, but was published widely in the national news and other regional outlets. This reinforces the idea that cartels care about local news, not national news.

Citizens in Tamaulipas are now using the social networks and cellular phones to get information about shootings and about traffic blocks. Road blocks are a new tactic of the cartels, adopted to avoid being chased by the military or the federal police. But no media or social network could completely fulfill citizens’ need for information

Narco-traffickers, the professional killers, executors or sicarios and their bosses like to be considered heroes, like those they see in their favorite action movie. They love corridos (songs composed about their lives and accomplishments) and they like boasting about their success. In contrast, they hate when news against them is published, let alone stories that make fun of them or betray them. They want their messages across on the news to say one thing: they are the most powerful, the strongest and merciless.

Journalists need greater preventative protection than self-censorship

When we founded the Center for Journalism and Public Ethics (CEPET) in 2003, we had the aim to train investigative journalists. With the killings of journalists starting in early 2004, the organization’s mission was diverted. Instead, we ended up just issuing alerts on attacks against journalists and the media.

Reporters, even experienced ones, have failed to understand that continuing to practice journalism exactly the way they were before has become extremely dangerous. Reporters seem naïve or to lack malice when the cartels come to town. Yet, just covering the crime beat is not safe anymore.

There are now seven cartels –they split and rearrange often- and in early 2000, the groups started an expansion strategy that started the bloodiest drug war seen in Mexico.

As for the drug cartels, they have their own interpretation about the news: news in their favor keeps that newspaper and channel in their good graces. News agencies become enemies if news against the cartels is aired or published. In this regard, the drug cartels have gotten it all wrong, they don’t know or respect journalistic principles. The cartels also get it wrong when they go after a reporter that appears on the TV screen or the one who signed the piece on the newsprint. Reporters in the newsrooms in Mexico have very little power-- it is the editors and the owners of the news organizations who in fact choose what news to publish. But as we say in Mexico, “the thread breaks at the thinnest point.” Only when the cartels see a pattern do the attack the most visible targets: newsrooms and buildings of the news organizations.

The media owners, on the other hand, don´t seem to have taken any responsibility or undertaken any preventive action. There have been no preventive policies on what to publish and how to do this. The owners only get the heat when their reporters or newsrooms are attacked. Media owners have not assumed responsibility for a strategy to protect journalists and sadly, some of the media organizations ignore the news about attacks until their agency is attacked.

News organizations also have failed to understand the drug lords’ interpretation of the news. An editor from a prominent newspaper in Ciudad Juárez mentioned to us –the envoy from Reporters without Borders and myself, as director of CEPET- that the newspaper had gotten phone calls from a cartel they could not even identify. The voice and the message was meant to cheer them up: “good, that´s good what you published today, keep it up.” Such a call comes as a shock: if this particular cartel thinks you support it then the opponent cartel is surely thinking you are the enemy. A bomb or a hand grenade might be on its way. Luckily (if it´s any luck!) the groups are very busy attacking each other.

The choice to censor the news

The cartels tip the newsrooms off about mantas, big signs posting threats, or about a body dumped. The particular media organizations gets the scoop but also the danger that comes with it. To avoid the danger, some news organizations have adopted self censorship and by trial and error, they've found out what not to publish. For instance, a newspaper in Ciudad Juárez only publishes official information with a source. Another newspaper avoids to publish names and identify what cartel did what or avoid to blame an attack to any cartel. In extreme cases, like in Tamaulipas, it is better not to publish anything regarding drug violence.

The decision to self-censor is a hard one for news organizations who have seen how the ratings go up and many more copies are sold when the drug massacres are the most prominent news. But to continue publishing such news means to endanger the lives of the reporters, the cameramen and the whole business.

Very few owners of small media organizations have been attacked or kidnapped. Some of the most prominent have abandoned the country and run the news business from across the northern border. As for the reporters and cameramen, being the visible face of the news, they are the weakest and most vulnerable link.

That is how self-censorship works for local news. The so-called national newspapers, who don´t get any massive distribution in the countryside, and the national TV shows are safe because the news seems far away to the drug lords. It is the local correspondent for Televisa or Milenio, or any other who becomes accountable to the cartel. The local news and local edition staff are the targets. In Mexico City, the drug violence has not being seen at the heightened state of more remote locations.

Journalists have organized protests in the past condemning the cartels attacks and demanding effective investigation of the killings and disappearances of journalists. From past experience I think street protests are good to release pressure, but do not accomplish much. In October 2004, a national protest was carried out by CEPET in ten states and sixteen cities across the country. Some follow up was arranged with the authorities but no real changes or preventive measures happened. At the time, a letter was delivered to governors, to local and federal legislators and to the Presidency. Some of these leaders pledged to investigate the cases, but that was it. The second national journalist protest in early August of this year, did not plan for follow up or request demands.

In a country with a long history of official censorship during the era of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, who ruled the country for seventy years, self-censorship seems just as natural and a safe play.

Narcoblogs: both intentional and unintentional

Blogs also help the narco killers to boast about their activities on blogs. The use of blogs by the narco are not new: the criminals are generally young people who are at least Internet literate.

The first blog known to be used as means to communicate among themselves was escolar.net. Based in Spain, authored by journalist Ignacio Escolar, it was never meant to be a blog for narcos but it attracted the criminals attention after the piece “Zetas, the elite soldiers from the Golf Cartel” was published and under it many comments were written-- close to two thousand in one year between 2005 and 2006.

Threats, insults and information about attacks were exchanged, and even sicarios looking for jobs offered their services in posts. Then, in September 2006, a state chief police was killed. His murder was predicted on Escolar's blog, making the author decide to close the comments feature. Today, the website and the narco messages are still open for reading.

Youtube is a frequent platform for the cartels to air executions, training and operations, exchange insults and to show off. The collection of videos about executions is enormous and clicks reach the millions.

The new blogdelnarco.com has attracted attention recently and amazed many visitors by its content which, in fact, started with photos, videos and text already published in other blogs and news websites, and for which the author did not give credit to the original sources. What is new is the live chat feature and the fact that criminals have started sending their own videos and photos –very explicit ones- and boasting about their shootings, killings and successful operations. The site also has set up a Twitter feed with messages mostly about shootings.

Despite its high activity and traffic, it would be misleading to say that blogdelnarco fills a viod of information about the drug violence. Just by Googling Mexico narco traffic news, thousands of pieces appear online. What weblogs like blogdelnarco.com are providing is a platform for criminals to share information among themselves.

President Felipe Calderon and his government have been saying that the drug cartels are being defeated by the military and the police forces. Some progress is evident, like the arrest of prominent drug lords. However, with news about shootings, killings, beheadings and massacres, as well as traffic blocks, on many front pages and TV shows –except locally in some cases- the public does not feel confident in the President’s assertion. Criticism against the federal government for its drug fight operations is on news and shows everyday. At least we cannot claim government censorship.

-- Leonarda Reyes
-- Image: Nathan Gibbs (cc by/nc/sa)

Read more...

Mexican Journalists Respond to “Narco-Censorship” and Citizen Journalism (Part 1 of 2)

Is citizen journalism a clever response to Mexican drug violence? Looking past the hype, our Mexican field staff isn't convinced. "There is still a very desperate need for really trustworthy alternative [information] sources," says one.

Earlier this month, the Associated Press published a piece profiling Blog Del Narco, a news blog integrating crowd-sourcing principles to chronicle drug-related news in Mexico. According to the AP, this blog is one of a kind. Always on the look-out for “grassroots” citizen journalism projects, US media scooped up the story and slung it around the internet in no time. The article was reprinted on popular news sites and versions appeared on reputable commentary blogs like Foreign Policy.

In the background of Blog Del Narco’s story is the struggle of Mexican media to maintain their duty to inform citizens of drug-related violence while also balancing the increase of targeted threats and manipulation from the cartels. To get a better sense of the prevalence and nature of the Mexican media environment, we reached out to Global Integrity’s network of experts, contacting two past contributors to the Global Integrity Report: Mexico.

This post, the first in a two-part series, will feature John Ackerman’s comments. John is a Professor at the Institute of Legal Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and a frequent contributor to Mexican and international media outlets. As a second part to this mini-series, we will publish a response piece by Leonarda Reyes later this week. Leonarda is a longtime journalist and founder and director of the Center for Journalism and Public Ethics in Mexico.

First, some background...

Blog Del Narco is one student’s response to the increasing severity of what the L.A. Times and others have labeled “narco-censorship”—the intense pressure that drug gangs use to control the reporting on their activities. The strength of this censorship comes from a real fear of violence: more than 30 journalists have been killed since President Calderon took office. Earlier this month, four journalists were held captive by a drug cartel until the journalists’ media stations agreed to air the gang’s footage. As Leonarda will discuss in more detail tomorrow, the cartels are interested in using media outlets, especially local and regional ones, as their public relations mouthpieces. Depending on the situation, journalists are either pushed to ignore incidents, and thus diffuse attention from killings, tortures and movements; or they are encouraged to publicize gruesome images and descriptions to spread hype and fear in citizens and exalt the cartel’s indifference to public law and order. Thus, in the cartel-dominated pockets of Mexico, the media has become unreliable as a source of independent and informative news.

Blog Del Narco is managed and written by an anonymous individual who reports not only on the violent crimes, but also on the extravagant lifestyles of drug lords. Readers are invited to comment and in some cases, gang members themselves have responded to posts. The comment moderation appears to be controlled enough to avoid its manipulation into a self-promotion platform for gangs.

Interview: John Ackerman

To get a better sense of the prevalence and impact of “narco-censorship” on Mexican journalists, I reached out to political commentator and Global Integrity contributor, John Ackerman. John provided me his observations via email on the reporting and publishing environment in Mexico today.

Norah Mallaney: Have you noticed a change in reporting style in the papers you read (or contribute to) on a regular basis? Does the availability of reports on narco violence in local papers differ from region to region?

John Ackerman: Over the last six months, the principal national newspapers have definitely toned down the images presented and moved coverage back in the paper, especially since an important meeting took place on this with U.S. and Mexican government officials a few months ago. This seems to be in response to the government’s request to reduce yellow journalism and "promoting" the narcos.

Norah: There has been much attention paid to Blog Del Narco recently. From what I understand, one reason the blog is unique is because of its open-platform style, which allows for drug-traffickers themselves to post content. Are there other blogs that have adopted this style? Are there other unique models online narco-reporters have developed?

John: Not that I know of, nor am I familiar with the Blog del Narco. I just visited it right now to check it out, but I must say that it doesn´t seem to be a particularly trustworthy or innovative source of information. I wouldn´t overplay its importance. There is still a very desperate need for really trustworthy alternative sources.

One strategy is that Proceso magazine sometimes publishes its stories on the narco anonymously.

Norah: Have citizen journalists played a strong role in reporting incidents ignored by online or print reporters?

John: Not really, as far as I can tell.

Norah: As a journalist, have you felt an increase in pressure to either cover or not cover stories?

John: No. I have not received any direct or indirect pressure, although I only write commentary/opinion not news stories.

Norah: What is the role of the Mexican media today in the face of the very real threat of violence? In this situation, does censorship as a necessary survival tactic override the potential disservice to citizens?

John: Both the U.S. and Mexican government have failed to see the press as their ally in the battle against organized crime. This to me is the biggest problem. Both governments need to aggressively defend, protect and even fund independent press outlets as part of the fight against the cartels, instead of seeing journalists as a nuisance.

A recent report by article 19, which I detail in my latest Huffington Post article, shows that the vast majority of aggressions against the press come from the government, not from the narcos.

Read more...

You can follow John’s thoughts on his blog.

Later this week, we will be posting journalist Leonarda Reyes’s discussion of the need for media outlets to collaborate on preventative solutions to mediate the situation—something greater than the band-aid of local chatter and citizen journalism can provide.

-- Norah Mallaney
-- image: (cc)by Sagolla

Read more...

Nigeria's Dirty Stocks

Last week two senior ranking officials employed by Nigeria’s stock exchange were deposed by acting president Goodluck Jonathan as he moved to reform the nation’s messy financial sector. The exchange’s president, Mr Dangote, who is also one of Nigeria’s eminent oligarchs, was temporarily relieved of his duties by the Securities and Exchange Commission after a scandal surrounding his company’s finances.

Celebrated as Africa’s second largest stock exchange, the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) is perhaps the only frontier market stock exchange where returns have rivaled those from more developed emerging markets such as India and Brazil. Poor regulation, however, has long placed the exchange in disrepute. Foreign investors looking to tap into Nigeria’s economy are likely to circumvent the NSE after being warned off by the recurring stories of market manipulation, mismanagement and corruption. Nigeria’s lack of streamlined financial oversight has not helped either.

Transactions on the exchange are regulated by The Nigerian Stock Exchange, a self-regulatory organization (SRO) like the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). Just like government entities, companies listed on the stock exchange and their executives can come under the scrutiny of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the relatively effective national anti-corruption agency which had become quite aggressive under the then-leadership of Nuhu Ribadu, who was eventually sacked by the government after pursuing too many politically sensitive cases.

Unfortunately in Nigeria, there are a host of other financial oversight agencies that do not hold such high reputations. In fact, the Global Integrity Report: 2008 notes a deplorable score for Nigeria’s oversight of state owned enterprises. Nigeria’s score on those indicators ranks below those of other, competing frontier markets such as Ghana, Qatar and Romania. The supervision performed by the Ministry of Finance and Bureau of Public Enterprises, both major shareholders in Nigerian state-owned companies, has mostly been episodic. In practice, both government agencies rarely initiate investigations independently or impose penalties. Furthermore, citizens are barred from accessing financial records of state-owned companies; those records are erratically updated and not always audited according to international accounting standards.

The Nigerian exchange recently announced that accounting firm KPMG will audit the stock exchange and has moved to appoint a former regional chief executive of Deloitte to raise investor confidence. The hope seems to be that including developed market finance and accounting outfits in the investment and regulation process will increase the credibility of the exchange. Time will tell.

-- Shahryar Malik

Read more...

The Doomed Track For Reform

Ghana, a prominent model for development for the African continent and the site of President Barack Obama’s speech on governance promotion in Africa, has been eclipsed by a surprising contender. Contrary to popular expectation, Uganda scores consistently higher than Ghana overall on the Global Integrity Report. What gives? As highlighted in the Global Integrity Report: 2009 Key Findings, countries’ overall scores must not be interpreted at face value—for many aid dependant countries have forged a knack for demonstrating solid anti-corruption infrastructure, without the ability to actually support these structures in practice. Using recent data from Global Integrity, research associate Shahryar investigates this trend further.

In 2007, Global Integrity introduced the ‘implementation gap’ metric to capture the gap between a country’s anti-corruption laws "on the books" and the actual enforcement of those same laws. Not surprisingly, Uganda, has the dubious distinction of boasting the largest implementation gap of all countries covered in the Global Integrity Report. A key finding from 2009 helps explain that aid dependent countries like Uganda are often times adept at engineering laws and institutions to meet foreign donor requirements despite their failure to deliver for ordinary citizens.

Uganda has fine tuned its anti-corruption framework to look flawless in the eyes of any legal observer. Since the early nineties, key safeguard institutions such as the Inspectorate of Government have been created. Similarly, the Directorate of Public Prosecution has been given autonomy, and government accountability and transparency laws have been strengthened and expanded. Despite these legal reforms, the Uganda scorecards reveal serious issues when it comes to enforcement. In 2009, Uganda received a perfect score for anti-corruption law, however deplorable scores for law enforcement and the effectiveness of the anti-corruption agency. The scores for Ghana on the other hand were not as polarized: Ghana, though also host to a flawless anti-corruption legal framework, has much stronger law enforcement. Furthermore, although mandated by law, appointments to the law enforcement agency in Uganda are often not made on a strictly professional criteria, the government has been repeatedly criticized for factoring tribalism and nepotism while appointing lower level police officers. The recruitment of 350 cadet assistant superintendents of police (CASP) three years ago raised a lot of controversy; according to media reports 130 of the 350 recruited officers, allegedly came from the same region of western Uganda.

The breakdown of Uganda’s scorecard reveals a telling narrative. Uganda’s anti-corruption laws elicit the highest scores possible. Because the Integrity Indicators reflect a balance of de jure and de facto indicators, the precision of Uganda’s legal framework pulls up the county’s overall performance on the scorecards. In fact, out of all the countries evaluated by Global Integrity, Uganda has the best anti-corruption legal framework. Recent government administrations may be responsible for perceptively tweaking the law to portray an impeccable legal framework, however unreasonable or irrelevant it may be for Uganda. The token reforming zeal in Uganda is impractical at best.

The Gap in Africa

Implementation seems to be a problem for many countries in Africa, even for less directly aid-dependent nations, such as Rwanda. Closely trailing Uganda’s strategically engineered anti-corruption laws, Rwanda follows suit with a sizable implementation gap of twenty points on the 2009 Global Integrity Report. Despite minor hiccups, Rwanda’s legal framework appears to be in tact. However the Rwanda Reporter’s Notebook cautions that in practice, the legal framework and penalties in place serve as a poor deterrent to corruption. During a press conference taking place in August 2009 President Kagame was forced to admonish the national police and judiciary officials to ‘shift their efforts from “blaming and finger pointing” toward cleaning their tarnished image’ but little has changed in Rwanda. Corrupt practitioners feel secure about their ability to haggle their way through police officials and court rooms. Rwanda’s progress over the recent decade has been celebrated as a model for improving governance in Africa, however the anti-corruption framework, in many ways, is still lacking teeth.

Alongside Global Integrity’s objective indicators, corruption perceptions are also useful for exploring the gap between law and implementation. Transparency International tailors their assessment of governance and corruption trends to a perceptions based index. In 2007, TI observed aid dependent Malawi drop 28 places from 90 in 2004 to 118. Uganda, Rwanda and Malawi may have become masters at crafting and fine-tuning anti-corruption laws to impress the international donor community, however strong perceptions of rampant corruption corroborate a narrative of deplorable implementation of such laws in these countries. Correspondingly, Global Integrity’s reports for 2009 validate Transparency International’s findings and observe strong laws but poor practical implementation in all three countries.

Aid donors such as USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) prioritize governance indicators in their aid awarding process and have picked up on this trend of weak implementation. As a result, USAID has shifted attention toward the actual implementation of governance reforms as opposed to mere consideration of the laws on paper. Carlos Santiso at SAIS Johns Hopkins denounces aid conditionality pertaining to governance reform, arguing instead that the World Bank should focus on an output oriented approach. Academics have long supported the opinion that moving laws around on paper sounds marginally related, but producing results on the ground is an entirely different ballgame. Now policy makers are joining the bandwagon prioritizing implementation.

Leaders in aid dependent countries need to launch a program of real reform that will yield tangible benefits for locals and not just one geared toward racking up a high score before foreign aid donors. Uganda’s government risks plundering the fate of future generations of Ugandan youth if they consistently fail to follow through on reform packages. Moreover, donors are beginning to see right through the scheme aimed at accumulating token reforms and may soon start to question the credibility of aid recipients that choose to embark on meaningless reform to fast track aid. Output-based measurement tools are key, but prioritization of reforms up front can save governments the headache of quickly passing too many laws, without the ability to support their roll-out.

-- Shahryar Malik
-- Image: Mukono Uganda (cc) by neiljs

Read more...

The Blackberry Controversy: Crackdown or Double Standards?

The recent crackdown on Blackberry’s instant messaging feature in the UAE does not come as a surprise to many. Amid growing tension, Research in Motion, the Canadian company that produces the Blackberry devices, rejected the government’s long-standing plea to decode the popular encrypted message service for authorities, and many features of Blackberries are now no longer useable in the UAE. Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan have all voiced similar concerns over wanting to be able to monitor Blackberry’s encrypted text messaging for ostensibly national security reasons. Western critics have been hammering these countries for infringing on citizens’ rights, but is a double-standard being unfairly applied?

The Emirati government claims that encrypted messages pose a tangible threat to national security in a country to which visas are easily accessible and foreign visitors abound. The authorities may be correct in their assertion that Dubai’s influx of blue collar immigrant workers from countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh makes for a delicate mix; however organized violence remains low when compared to the region. Whilst plausible that the government’s oppressive tactics have helped prevent the mobilization of major terrorist cell networks on the ground, Dubai has been a focal point of attention for terrorist financing. For instance, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, A.Q Khan, liaised through a Dubai-based company to supply nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Our Reporter’s Notebook 2009: UAE also highlights the country’s challenges with money laundering.

Skeptics argue that Blackberry Messaging is only one among the many ways to encrypt messages. In fact, terrorist networks and their financiers who are tech savvy enough to conceal their banking activities from authorities would perhaps, and without much difficulty, be able to revert to other means of stealthy communication in the absence of encrypted Blackberry messages.

Those same skeptics argue that the UAE’s decision to move against RIM has as much to do with quelling political dissidence as it does with safeguarding national security. While there is no organized political opposition in the UAE, and the various ruling families are generally popular and well-regarded within their own emirate, the government absolutely will not tolerate any political mobilization of the immigrant community. It’s possible the UAE government is moving against Blackberry Massaging in an effort to restrict immigrant workers from expressing their opinions.

But just how “bad” are the new restrictions in the UAE relative to government “oversight” of telecommunications in countries like the United States? A quick review of the laws in the US reveals that the county’s legal framework governing commercial encryption are not very dissimilar to those currently being advocated by the UAE. The story goes that since the time of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. has favored the adoption of a ”balanced” encryption policy. In practice this has meant that all commercially available encryption products are required to have some technical means by which the US government could gain plaintext access, pursuant to court order. While this policy has been hotly contested in U.S. courts, perhaps UAE Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba is correct in arguing that, “the UAE is asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance -- and with the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight -- that BlackBerry grants the U.S. and other governments and nothing more.” And let’s not forget that until the media broke the story in 2005, U.S. telecommunications providers had been granting the National Security Agency virtually unfettered access to their networks to eavesdrop on nearly every email, phone, and text message that passed through them.

So what’s your opinion? Share your comments below on whether the UAE government has gone too far or if a double-standard is being applied.

-- Shahryar Malik

Read more...

Don't Forget, We're Hiring

This Friday August 6th is the last day to apply for our open project manager position. Please see our previous announcement for all of the details, including how to apply online.

-- Global Integrity

Read more...

Beating the Labeling Problem, Redux. What Do You Think?

For those of you familiar with our Users’ Guide to Measuring Corruption, you may recall our reference to the “labeling problem” in the context of a broader discussion of the difficulties in creating data to measure issues such as corruption and governance given the lack of precision around what concepts are actually being measured (p. 13). To navigate the maze of corruption and governance indicators currently on offer, we argue that an important first step is to dig underneath vague conceptual labels – e.g., “control of corruption” or “rule of law” – to understand what questions are actually being asked. The implication for producers of indicators like Global Integrity is clear: unpack and specify the concepts being measured and avoid big, fuzzy labels.

Well, we’ve decided it was time to walk the talk. In preparation for the upcoming Global Integrity Report: 2010, our staff has been in the midst of revisiting the labels attached to the major categories and sub-categories that organize our national scorecards. Remember that discussion in the Users’ Guide about the imprecision of the “rule of law,” for instance? In a recent staff meeting, we arrived at some consensus that the more descriptive heading Judicial Independence, Fairness, and Citizen Access to Justice might better capture the questions we are in fact posing than using the overly broad "Rule of Law" label. We’ve also attempted to clarify previously confusing labels such as “Government Accountability” and “Anti-Corruption Commission.” Our new labels may be clunky, but it’s probably worth sacrificing elegance for precision in this instance.

We’ve taken a first crack at revising our own labels. We’d now like to open up the process and invite public feedback on all category and sub-category headings, including our proposed revised labels. This is not, we like to think, a token gesture at transparency and public “participation.” We genuinely want to hear from you about what you think we could do better. All suggestions will be considered. For easy reference, we’ve included the national scorecard categories and sub-categories below with our proposed revised labels in italics adjacent to the existing headings. You can register your suggestions in Comments to this post (note: all comments will be public). To review the actual indicators contained in each sub-category (which should conceptually fit into our new labels, hopefully!), please visit our Downloads page to access the most recent Excel version of the national-level indicators. Thanks in advance!

An important final note: none of these potential labeling changes involve changes to the actual indicators we field and score, including the way in which we cluster indicators into categories. You will still be able to track change over time at the disaggregated (category and sub-category) level for a country (fear not, intrepid econometricians!). What we’re attempting here is not a methodological change per se, but rather an important improvement in better communicating the concepts we’ve actually been attempting to measure all along.

Global Integrity’s national-level assessment categories and sub-categories (with potential revisions):

I. Civil Society, Public Information and Media
[new label: Non-Governmental Organizations, Public Information and Media]

1. Civil Society Organizations [new label: Anti-Corruption Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)]
2.Media [new label: Media’s Ability to Report on Corruption]
3.Public Access to Information [new label: Public Requests for Government Information]

II. Elections

1. Voting & Citizen Participation [new label: Voting & Party Formation]
2. Election Integrity
3. Political Financing [new label: Political Financing Transparency]

III. Government Accountability
[new label: Government Conflicts of Interest Safeguards & Checks and Balances]

1. Executive Accountability [new label: Conflicts of Interest Safeguards & Checks and Balances: Executive Branch]
2. Legislative Accountability [new label: Conflicts of Interest Safeguards & Checks and Balances: Legislative Branch]
3. Judicial Accountability [new label: Conflicts of Interest Safeguards & Checks and Balances: Judicial Branch]
4. Budget Processes [new label: Budget Process Oversight & Transparency]

IV. Administrative and Civil Service
[new label: Public Administration and Professionalism]

1. Civil Service Regulations [new label: Civil Service: Conflicts of Interest Safeguards and Political Independence]
2. Whistle-blowing Measures [new label: Whistle-blowing Protections]
3. Procurement [new label: Government Procurement: Transparency, Fairness, and Conflicts of Interest Safeguards]
4. Privatization

V. Oversight and Regulation
[new label: Government Oversight and Controls]

1. National Ombudsman
2. Supreme Audit Institution
3. Taxes and Customs [new label: Taxes and Customs: Fairness and Capacity]
4. State-Owned Enterprises [new label: Oversight of State-Owned Enterprises]
5. Business Licensing and Regulation

VI. Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law
[new label: Anti-Corruption Legal Framework, Judicial Impartiality, and Law Enforcement Professionalism]

1. Anti-Corruption Law
2. Anti-Corruption Agency [new label: Anti-Corruption Agency or Equivalent Mechanisms]
3. Rule of Law [new label: Judicial Independence, Fairness, and Citizen Access to Justice]
4. Law Enforcement [new label: Law Enforcement: Conflicts of Interest Safeguards and Professionalism]


- Raymond June & Global Integrity

Read more...

Will Fiji's June Media Decree Catch Up with its Reputation?

Early this year, I spoke with journalist Shailendra Singh, on the effects that the 2006 coup d’etat in Fiji had on media freedoms there. In our online exchange, Singh highlighted the perseverance of his colleagues-- many Fijian journalists publish anonymously through online outlets and regional blogs to escape the overt government pressure on publishing. Fiji has a legacy of strong, critical journalism and Singh’s well-chosen words suggested that his sector would reemerge to embody its former identity. However, a law passed last month may serve as an ominous sign that Singh and his colleagues will have to wait longer than anticipated.

In June, new media regulations were enacted in Fiji amidst an outcry from regional and international media freedom watchdog groups. Pacific Beat, Radio Australia’s Pacific region program, reports that along with creating a new Media Regulation Authority to oversee the sector, the new decree also grants this group with the power to demand that journalists reveal their sources for reports pertaining to corruption or abuse of power. Another major change introduced is the restriction on ownership of media outlets, which must now be 90% owned by permanent residents and citizens of Fiji. Following this, the Fiji Times, one of the nation’s oldest and, before 2007, arguably its most critical newspaper, will be closed. The paper is under the complete ownership of Richard Murdoch’s company, News Limited. The fate of another local newspaper, Fiji Daily,is also is question.

Despite the bad news for foreign investors, the decree may bring a bit of relief to reporters inside Fiji. According to Pacific Beat, the new regulations do free some personal burdens on individual journalists. For example, the fines for slander have been cut in half— $50,0000 Fijian dollars rather than $100,000 – and maximum jail time has been decreased from 5 years to 2 years.

Amnesty International has spoken out against the changes as they still allow for government to imprison critical journalists, and Russell Hunter, former managing editor at the Fiji Times, labels any positive reforms as “cosmetic.” Pacific blogs had been a buzz in the weeks surrounding the signing of the decree, fearful that the law further consolidates government power over the media while also limiting the role of international actors.

But one journalism professor thinks the international community has too quickly jumped to assumptions. Professor Croz Walsh critiqued the analysis presented by The International Federation of Journalists. The IFJ denounced the decree as a “coercive and ultimately destructive law.” Walsh agrees that the decree has the potential to be misused, but he cautions international observers, stating: “there are concerns about how the Decree will be used (and I shall write about these as time goes on) but it is not the draconian document its critics would have their readers believe.”

While trying to avoid Prof. Walsh’s label as “another well intended but uninformed and unbalanced denunciation from offshore expert,” the powers extended to Fiji’s Media Regulation Authority are a cause for concern. Any law that allows for journalists to be forced to reveal confidential sources threatens the independence of reporting. But, yes, whether or not this government media council uses this right has yet to be proven. In the month since the decree was enacted, we at Global Integrity have not noticed any drastic shifts in reporting in Fiji. However, we invite the opinions from journalists inside Fiji or from outside media experts.


-- Norah Mallaney

Read more...

Progressive Taxes Turned Regressive: Depraved Tax Collection in Pakistan

Often overlooked, Pakistan’s income tax collection could play a pivotal role in shaping the country’s economic and political development by empowering the central government and reducing its need for foreign aid.

A rare New York Times article on Pakistan-- focusing on something other than the United States’ fight with the Taliban and Al Qaeda-- turned towards perhaps a more relevant structural weakness that has continued to destabilize Pakistan over the decades – the country’s tax system. The Times called attention to a deep flaw in the nation’s tax regime, where inadequate tax collection has perpetuated a bizarre economy where the wealth of the elite piles mile high while the poor are hit hard by regressive sales taxes. The tax debate in Pakistan differs from the dialogue in the United States in that it does not concern fiscal stimulus versus austerity measures, but more fundamentally whether tax collection itself comes even close to something that looks like fair practice.

The nation’s reputation for tax evasion is widely known to work to the benefit of government officials and other elites. The Global Integrity Report: 2008 shows Pakistan’s performance on indicators related to tax collection to be outpaced by neighboring India. In fact, Pakistan’s scores on tax collection rival that of Sierra Leone. In comparing the Pakistan scorecard from 2006 to that of 2008, there has been little improvement as far as taxes and customs are concerned in Pakistan. In short, things are not well in Pakistan’s tax system.

The Global Integrity indicators scan for and reward the uniform enforcement and abiding of tax laws across different income groups. In Pakistan, whilst the tax collection agency receives regular funding from the government, tax officers are selected through competitive examinations conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission and the officers receive formal training for revenue collection, corruption is rampant within the agency. Workers often rely on illegal bribes for income. Pakistan’s scorecard for taxes and customs is pulled down further because, even though the Federal Bureau of Revenue oversees implementation of tax laws, tax officials are allegedly notorious for using their discretion when it comes to the application of the law. The Global Integrity indicators corroborate the analysis in the Times by noting that the poor, who are defenseless against tax collectors, are straddled with the lion’s share of the taxes. Poor implementation is at the heart of the country’s tax and customs problems.

Despite Pakistan’s repeated pleas for financial aid from the United States and the broader international community, the country has failed to look inward and reform what could be a credible base for tax collection. The Times piece highlights Cambridge Economist Akbar Zaidi's argument that the country’s dependency on foreign aid has often times stunted internal reforms.(Global Integrity has found a related trend in our data, where highly aid-dependent countries such as Uganda and Bosnia and Herzegovina consistently struggle to fully implement their anti-corruption laws.) Disappointingly little progress was made to reform tax collection during President Musharraf’s regime, a time when the politicians and landlords who are regarded to benefit from the status quo, had been ousted from power.

Competing practices such as Zakat (or alms) may be hindering government tax collection. For instance the Tax Ordinance of Pakistan issued in 2001 allows for deductible allowances by the amount of Zakat that individuals pay. Zakat payments have served to shield the wealthy from the tax burden and have encouraged them to exploit what has become a grey zone area in order to evade taxes. However, Global Integrity’s scorecard suggests that Pakistan’s tax collection habits may be fairer practices than in other Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Egypt-- although Indonesia has made rapid progress in the two years.

It is becoming clearer that any piece meal reform of Pakistan’s tax collection agency will have to push against the strong momentum that has been locked into the status quo. Any serious attempt will demand a complete restructuring of government agencies and their incentives for tax collection. Embarking on tax collection reform would be a significant step toward restoring the government’s credibility at home and overseas.

-- Shahryar Malik
-- image: Pakistan- Karachi- 07- Empress Market (cc by/sa/nc) by greg_flikr

Read more...

Slovakia: Post-Communist Trompe L’Oeil?

Last month’s parliamentary elections in Slovakia signaled the country’s ongoing normalization and integration into the European fold since its formal accession into the EU more than six years ago. This last election was not marred by intimidation and irregularities that so often have accompanied countries transitioning into democracy. Indeed like many new member states from the former Eastern bloc, Slovakia has fairly strong anti-corruption safeguards and accountability mechanisms on the books as the first-ever Global Integrity Report: Slovakia reveals. And yet…

Beneath the sterling legal framework lies a much murkier picture, where implementation and enforcement fall far short. Of particular note is extremely weak enforcement of conflicts of interest regulations for national-level judges, including the continuing politicization of their nomination and confirmation. Furthermore, legal and practical measures protecting whistleblowers in the public and private sectors remain for all intents and purposes non-existent, while the political financing system remains opaque due in part to the lack of an independent monitoring agency.

Slovakia has made strides in shoring up its public integrity system. However, there is still much work to be done to close the implementation gap. Rather than prescribe a one-size-fits-all reform template, we view the public release of our first-ever Slovakia assessment as an invitation to different local/national as well as international stakeholders to reflect on how best to find local, targeted, and realistic solutions. Let the conversation begin.

-- Raymond June and Global Integrity

Read more...