08 Oct 2007: ISS Today: Mossad and ZANU (PF) - The Strangest of Bedfellows

8 October 2007: Mossad and ZANU (PF) - The Strangest of Bedfellows

 

According to a report by Itali Dzamara published in The Zimbabwean on 27 September 2007, Israeli intelligence operatives have been hired by the ZANU (PF) government to implement systems that will enable the regime to snoop on the phone and Internet communications of key opposition figures, civil society leaders and journalists. The Zimbabwean reports that, according to highly placed government sources, a list of names has been given to Mossad for monitoring. These include people who control key positions in airports, government offices and the finance and banking sectors. It is reported that Mossad agents have brought with them spying equipment for which the Zimbabwean regime is paying huge sums of foreign currency. Last year, the Zimbabwean regime also imported expensive technological equipment from China with which to intercept electronic communications.

 

There are several issues here that demand close consideration. Firstly there is undoubtedly an ethical issue here. The Zimbabwean Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) is infamous for its use of torture and unfair detention. What good will therefore come of empowering, equipping and training them to be able to further infringe upon people’s rights and freedoms (or rather the tattered remnant of freedoms available in Zimbabwe)? The primary purpose of surveillance is to make the unseen seen. In a state where being seen as an opponent of the security state can get you beaten or tortured by such methods as having your fingernails pulled, tongue cut out, ears cut off, feet beaten with metal pipes, drowned, shot or buried alive, should anybody really be helping with such surveillance? The CIO is known for its capacity to oppress dissent. Mossad is recognised for their efficiency and effectiveness in counter-intelligence operations. This partnership cannot, to anyone with the slightest concern for human rights, be considered a good thing.

 

This also points to a broader area of concern, the fact that all too often international intelligence agencies cooperate with one another in accordance with their own unaccountable set of rules. For example, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has found a new African best friend in the head of Khartoum’s national security agency, Saleh Gosh, someone who is notorious for human rights abuses and who has been accused of war crimes. Among the ‘successes’ attributed to Gosh and Khartoum’s intelligence bodies by Steve Paterno in an articlepublished in the Sudan Tribune on 18 September 2007 are:

• the provision of security to Osama Bin Laden during his stay in Sudan prior to 9/11
• capturing, detaining and handing over suspected terrorist operatives to the West and Arab states
• disrupting ‘terrorist’ activities in Sudan and Somalia
• filling Khartoum’s missions abroad with operatives who work to promote Khartoum’s image while at the same time ‘dealing’ with its enemies

 

According to Paterno the CIA is currently building its biggest operations centre in Sudan, in the process making available to Khartoum increased technological intelligence capabilities such as an unmanned aerial vehicle with aerial surveillance capabilities. This is important for South Sudan, as increased infiltration of the South Sudanese authority is already being reported. Paterno reports that, according to a Southern Sudan minister the minutes of Southern Sudan council of ministers meetings reach Khartoum before they even leave the meeting hall. Given the pressing need to make unity attractive in Sudan in the lead up to the referendum on unity or succession, activities of this kind by Khartoum’s intelligence apparatus do little to build trust between the long-time enemies.

 

Another key issue of concern in the ZANU-Mossad marriage of convenience is that building such a large security apparatus diminishes the potential for improving the freedoms of the Zimbabwean people when Mugabe eventually goes. The level of infiltration and control by the intelligence and security apparatus into cities, towns, villages and the daily lives of people means that it will be an immense challenge to transform the state security apparatus should regime change occur. Consider, for example, the legal framework governing the conduct of intrusive methods of investigation and the interception of electronic communication, which will be inherited by the post-Mugabe government. Under the Interception of Communications Bill, the authorization of the interception of communications is an executive function and does not fall under any form of judicial control or review. That this will cause difficulties in the future is illustrated by the South African experience. Post-apartheid South Africa has experienced considerable difficulties in transforming an oppressive domestic intelligence capacity and still continues to struggle with the issue of intelligence involvement in domestic political activities more than ten years into the democratic regime.

 

According to The Mossad Charter available on the Mossad website, the organisation is committed to ‘uphold the values of justice, integrity, morality, humility, personal responsibility, reliability, discipline and discretion’. Furthermore, Mossad’s leadership ‘is dedicated to leading and motivating, accepting full command responsibility … and serving as a role model and an inspiration’. Any hope for the freedom of the opposition in Zimbabwe relies in part on Mossad’s ability to remain committed to their professed values. More broadly, the hope of many in the world rests on the ability of powerful international intelligence actors to be bound by values and ethics that supercede power interests and political and economic gain. Throughout the world the post 9/11 environment has bought with it a proliferation of surveillance, vast new databases of individuals’ travel and electronic communication related information, and the general erosion of civil liberties and freedoms of communication, association and political opposition. Indications to date are not encouraging and illustrate the ease with which human rights can be bought and sold for other power interests.

 

Lauren Hutton, Researcher: Defence Sector Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)