Join on WhatsApp
Join on Telegram
Rabat – As details surrounding the Pegasus Project accusations continue to emerge, the case becomes an important question of ethics. Some of the claims made by the consortium of NGOs and media outlets have already been disproven, while other accusations continue to swirl in Western media without publicly available evidence to prove or disprove them conclusively.
Forbidden Stories, Amnesty International and their media partners have made a flurry of accusations based on their undisclosed list of 50,000 phone numbers. The accusations have been levied exclusively at 11 developing nations, including countries such as Morocco and the UAE, while 29 other alleged NSO clients have remained unnamed.
On Thursday, July 22, Amnesty International stated it “categorically stands by the findings of the Pegasus Project, and that the data is irrefutably linked to potential targets of NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware.” Yet besides the consortium publishing the claims, their evidence remains unverified.
One number on the list has already been shown not to have traces of the spyware, and one of the nations accused of using the spyware has been retracted as “an error.”
As a result, multiple lawsuits have been filed as accused countries attempt to prove their innocence, and purported targets of the Pegasus spyware aim to prove the reverse.
If the claims made by the consortium are indeed true, this would have far-reaching consequences for certain elements within the Moroccan government. Intelligence services do not commonly report their methods and specific targets to other governmental departments, and if true, many intelligence operatives could be guilty of violating Morocco’s constitution.
If instead evidence is revealed that proves the accusations to be false, the consortium making the claims will be guilty of slandering a country’s reputation without merit. Any conclusive evidence is likely to come out in French courts, and only time will tell how this affair will be resolved.
Opposing perspectives
For many in Europe the consortium’s accusations are self-evident. Morocco ranks 136th on Reporters Without Borders’ international press freedom ranking, has imprisoned two journalists on a variety of criminal charges in recent weeks, and does not ascribe fully to the Western model of liberal democracy. These factors make the country a prime suspect, so to speak. But does it make it guilty of the variety of speculative claims made by the Pegasus Project consortium?
From the Moroccan side, both the government and many citizens see the Pegasus project as another instance of patronizing and self-righteous groups of Western organizations making claims tailored to harm the reputation of Morocco. Centuries of hostility and colonial oppression between Europe and the Maghreb mean there is little trust in information published by organizations located in the capitals of former colonial empires.
The Carl Sagan quote “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” comes to mind for many who question the claims put forth by Forbidden Stories and its media partners. For those who already see Morocco as an authoritarian country, the claims seem not to be “extraordinary,” and as such don’t need such a degree of evidence.
But the question remains: was Morocco unethical in its use of spyware, or are its accusers being unethical in making claims without providing conclusive public evidence?
Legitimate vs illegitimate spying
Espionage is an important part of a state’s security, defense and diplomacy, as it has been an integral part of national sovereignty for as long as states have existed and competed (or collaborated) with one another.
It was roughly 2,500 years ago that Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote about the importance of espionage as a means of statecraft. In the centuries and millennia to follow, dozens of other notable writers would expand further on its use and application.
The global existence of continuous and widespread espionage on rival countries, friends, and citizens has become painfully obvious over the past decades as leaks by Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning have shown that no nation is innocent of this practice.
The Pegasus Project has attempted to make this distinction by focusing primarily on the targeting of journalists and activists, but it has been the names of prominent public figures that have made most headlines. The consortium has accused Morocco alone of spying on French President Emmannuel Macron and – more incredibly – even on its own monarch.
Remarkably, the project also specified 6,000 names that were allegedly targeted in Algeria. If these claims are true, it remains questionable why Moroccan efforts to do intelligence gathering of its most obvious rival would qualify as an “abuse” of its alleged spyware capabilities.
It is undoubtedly important to investigate any potential misuse of intelligence gathering, especially as the sector by definition works in the shadows with little oversight. The opaque nature of the intelligence field however also makes it easy to speculate over potential misuse without ever getting the full picture into the light.
To accuse or not to accuse
If the accusations are true, many in Morocco’s intelligence community will be guilty of significant breaches of the country’s constitution. If untrue, Morocco’s reputation will still be tarnished as even a public apology by the consortium would not repair the massive reputational damage the country has suffered in the past week alone.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) faced a similar situation this week when it accused Algeria of using the Pegasus software. After Algeria filed a complaint, RSF later retracted by adding to their article what reads more like a non-apology. “Initially, we included Algeria in the list of NSO client countries,” said RSF. “This error, which we regret, has been corrected.” How many more of these retractions will come, remains to be seen.
The fact remains that when journalists or activists reveal abuse of espionage by Western countries, they become the target of arrest and persecution. This was the case with Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, all of whom have seen their lives destroyed as part of their revelations.
Accusing less-powerful developing nations however, carries fewer potential consequences for those making the revelations, with an embarrassing retraction as the only possible punishment.
As such, it remains to be seen how diligent these organizations have been before publishing the report which sparked various speculative theories in particular within the French media. Some of these theories have already been disproven, while others will continue to be questioned until conclusive evidence is provided.
Base of evidence
Morocco lives in a dangerous neighborhood, with a hostile rival to the east, Spain as a former colonial power bent on keeping the country at bay to the north, and an unstable Sahel in the south, making espionage an important part of security and diplomacy. Morocco’s approach to security matters has made it a popular partner to Europe and the US, yet its methods are now being brought into question.
One interesting fact is that Amnesty International has tested only 67 devices on its list of 50,000 names, which the NSO Group denies is even related to their spyware. With a sample size of 0.1% of the listed devices tested, what could have possibly given the consortium the confidence to publish its findings despite not knowing whether its sample applies to the remaining 99.9%?
Claims that the Pegasus software was found on Macron’s phone have already been disproven, according to Spanish outlet OKDiario. This brings to the fore the question of whether the remaining 49,932 listed iPhones that have not been tested for traces of the spyware might also be wrongfully included in the accusations.
Furthermore, large international leaks like the Panama Papers, the Pentagon Papers, and Wikileaks all provided such irrefutable evidence that the accused parties were forced to admit fault and face the consequences. In the Pegasus affair, however, the main target of the investigation, Israeli software firm NSO-Group, denies the list is even related to them.
Far from bringing NSO Group to its knees with a mountain of evidence, this leak prompted NSO Group to state that “any claim that a name in the list is necessarily related to a Pegasus target or Pegasus potential target is erroneous and false.”
Claims questioned
While much remains unclear about the veracity of the consortium’s claims, some of its most remarkable accusations have already come under scrutiny.
Former French domestic intelligence chief Bernard Squarcini described the accusations as “too easy.” He stated that Morocco is a key security partner of France and others and as such would not be a suspect of espionage within France.
French Senator Christian Cambon went even further. Cambon, who is the head of the French senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defense and Armed Forces Committee, alleged the consortium’s claims are aimed at “destabilizing” Morocco.
“When we make accusations, we must assume the evidence… until proven otherwise, these are only stories that regularly linger,” Cambon told the French press. The current absence of publicly discernable proof meant “these accusations are fabrications,” Cambon argued.
The Spanish revelation that President Macron’s phone was not infected with the Pegasus spyware raises further questions, as the consortium has been adamant that the most important thing the list proves, is that the numbers listed are all victims of Pegasus attacks.
Cases like RSF’s retraction of similar spyware allegations levied against Algeria show the organizations involved are not above that very human feature of making mistakes.
Positive conclusion?
Organizations like Amnesty International and Forbidden Stories repeatedly state they release these reports in order to make the world a better place and impact meaningful and positive change. But the current public accusatory campaign – while keeping alleged evidence out of sight – appears to be undermining this professed, noble goal.
If the consortium wants to create a reckoning that changes Moroccan intelligence practices and stops alleged misuse of its intelligence apparatus, all it has to do is properly prove its case.
Moroccan officials have already indicated that the practices described by the consortium would be major violations of the Moroccan constitution.
By simply providing evidence for its case, the consortium could prove that elements within the Moroccan government did indeed misuse spyware. This would provide evidence of a violation of Morocco’s constitutional ban on accessing another person’s “content of personal communications, publishing them, or using them against anyone, except by a judicial order.”
If the consortium proves to Morocco’s government that its findings are correct, it has a clear and constitutional complaint against the alleged perpetrators and could demand reforms. By only making accusations within the international press, the perception continues to linger that this is a concerted effort to harm Morocco’s reputation instead of trying to realize positive change.
In order to relieve the suspicion raised by the accused nations such as Morocco and the UAE and European commentators like Squarcini and Cambon, the consortium simply has to present the evidence that made it feel confident enough to make these accusations.
Until they publicly present their case, questions will continue to linger over both the veracity of the claims and the motivations of the parties making them.
