State of emergency in Ecuador

Turmoil in the South American country continues, as the President, police and army all wrestle for c

The relative calm of Rafael Correa's three-year presidency was shattered yesterday when protests by police officers paralysed the country and took a nasty turn when the president was injured and taken to hospital.

In response to austerity measures implemented by President Correa on Wednesday evening, hundreds of police officers lined the streets of Quito and other major Ecuadorean cities on Thursday morning and blocked airports and roads across the country. The new measures include a law passed by Congress which will reportedly affect the granting of medals, bonuses and promotions as part of a vain attempt by the government to cut expenditure. Around 300 members of the armed forces, who are also affected by the law, joined the protest and stormed Quito's main airport, preventing flights from entering or leaving the airport for up to nine hours.

Things turned from bad to worse when Correa visited a military barracks. As he stood addressing the armed forces around him, the President shouted "If you want to kill the president, here he is. Kill him, if you want to. Kill him if you are brave enough." Moments later he got what he was asking for when he was physically attacked by protestors and sprayed with tear gas. After being taken to hospital, the President was reportedly trapped inside for several hours while a gun battle waged between protestors led to several people being killed and dozens injured.

He was smuggled back to the safety of Carondelet palace by members of the army. Having previously declared a state of emergency, since his rescue, Correa has described the protest as an attempt to overthrow him.

Certainly Ecuador is no stranger to political coups: three of its presidents have been ousted over the last 13 years. Correa was in fact the first president to win two terms when he was re-elected for his second term last year. However, his popularity has declined dramatically over the last year following certain controversial decisions. His decision that the country would default on $3.2 billion of "illegitimate" international debt made its sovereign debt one of the riskiest in the continent and provoked widespread fiscal problems. In February 2009, his decision to expel two US diplomats was rejected by Washington. In July this year he implemented a new oil law which enables the government to nationalise oil fields if a private operator fails to comply with local laws. Given that oil is one of the country's main selling points, many fear that such a move may deter foreign investors.

Although Correa faces little challenge from the opposition, he has earned a surprising contender to his presidency in the form of his brother Fabricio and the tensions between the brothers have done much to discredit Rafael's presidency in recent months. In 2009 the pair was embroiled in a corruption scandal when Ecuadorean newspaper Diario Expreso revealed that Fabricio's engineering business had experienced suspiciously unprecedented growth since his brother took office.

Since one of Rafael's main goals throughout his presidency has been to fight corruption, these allegations, although unfounded in the end, were enough to taint Rafael's political career irrecoverably. In a vain attempt to reduce the impact of the scandal on his reputation, Rafael subsequently signed a decree preventing public entities from entering into advertising contracts with media outlets.

Although the brothers initially supported one another throughout the allegations, relations quickly soured and Fabricio has since expressed his wish to stand for the 2013 elections. In contrast to the relatively peaceful Miliband struggle for Labour leadership across the Atlantic, this brotherly contest looks set to be less than amicable.

This, combined with the fact that Rafael has received much criticism for his handling of events over the past few days, puts the future of his presidency in doubt. Many people, including leading Ecuadorean journalist Rubén Darío Buitrón, refute Rafael's claims that he has been the victim of a military coup and warn that he may use the situation to galvanise support. It is difficult to say how this week's events can be resolved, but it is certain that worse is yet to come.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496