Nigeria Content Online

Cote d’Ivoire is at a critical juncture in its history: faced with a complex and multi-dimensional predicament. The present crisis of leadership and succession single handedly precipitated by Mr. Laurent Gbagbo its erstwhile President unless curtailed, will inevitably lead to anarchy and chaos, or worse, a full blown civil war with the attendant impunity, violence, inconceivable humanitarian challenges and unprecedented civilian casualties.

As the impasse deepens with each passing day and the direct threat to regional peace and security becomes more imminent, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) requires unequivocal international support through an appropriate United Nations Security Council resolution to sanction the use of force. This is the only way to legitimize the use of external force to effectively contain the increasingly volatile internal situation and ensure an enduring peace in Cote d’Ivoire and the West African sub region.

It is clear that Mr. Laurent Gbagbo is determined to defy and treat the entire international community with absolute disdain. In the interest of global peace and security and in order to preserve and deepened the growing democratic culture in Africa, he cannot, he must not be allowed to prevail.

Nature of the crisis

The genesis of the crisis is perhaps traceable, first, to the conflict between advocates of Ivorian nationality by parental descent and champions of Ivorien nationality by place of birth.

The proponents of the former currently led by Mr. Laurent Gbagbo, have strongly advocated that any Ivorien citizen seeking presidential election must have full-blooded Ivorien parents. They claim that the father of Alassane Ouattara who won the 28th November, 2010 run off election is a naturalized Ivorian of Burkinabe descent.

Naturally, Mr. Ouattara asserts his ‘Ivorienesse’ in accordance with the Ivorien Constitution and the law, and indeed previously served as Prime Minister of Cote d’Ivoire. The distinction between native and non-native Ivoriens however underscores the underlying issues of unity and integration in that country that it was hoped the elections would resolve.

Disputed election results

The immediate cause of the conflict lies in a dispute over electoral results announced by the Independent Electoral Commission and purportedly overturned by the country’s Constitutional Council. The Electoral Commission declared Mr. Alassane Ouattara the winner of the November 28, 2010 run off presidential elections, the results having been duly certified by the representative of the United Nations Secretary General in Cote d’Ivoire under the terms of express agreement of all stakeholders in the process, including the contestants in the Presidential election.

The election was itself the culmination of a long drawn out process midwifed and monitored by the UN, that was expected to unify and stabilize the country after years of internal strife. Unfortunately, the constitutional Council in an evidently contrived process purported to overturn the declaration of the Commission and proclaimed Mr. Laurent Gbagbo the winner.

International recognition of Alassane Ouattara

Consequently, it is Mr. Ouattara and not Mr. Gbagbo that has been recognized by the UN, EU, AU and ECOWAS as President consistent with the duly certified results of the election, and in order not to undermine democracy as that potent and peaceful instrument of change of government and development. In a rash reaction, Mr. Gbagbo ordered the 9600 United Nations Peacekeepers and about 900 French troops stationed there, to leave Cote d’Ivoire.

The United Nations Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki Moon and French President Sarkozy properly challenged Mr. Gbagbos authority to do so in the circumstances and have therefore, not complied with the directive. The response of the United Nations and the French Government is best justified by the clear and present need to maintain peace and security in accordance with a long standing mandate in Cote d’Ivoire. The deployment of 2000 additional troops recently sanctioned by the Security Council is therefore also consistent with that mandate under these circumstances.

The threat of legitimate force

The challenge now facing the ECOWAS and indeed the entire international community is how the crisis might be resolved without allowing the situation to degenerate into anarchy, violence and war.

The ECOWAS Authority resolution to consider the use of ‘legitimate force.’ has perhaps not unexpectedly provoked some dissent. A growing number of commentators have observed that the ECOWAS has gone beyond its authority and should rather limit itself to a broad range of sanctions.

The use of ‘legitimate force’ is however not exclusively about military warfare in the conventional sense and therefore does not necessary connote an “invasion” by troops. Legitimate force can include, for example, a naval blockade to enforce sanctions which might be imposed against Mr. Gbagbo.

Mr. Gbagbo must be made to understand that there is a very real prospect of overwhelming military capability bearing down on him and his cohorts. It is only then that he will give serious consideration to the demands that he step down immediately. The deployment of armed force for this purpose can only however be ‘legitimate’ pursuant to an appropriate UNSC Resolution. That was indeed the purport of the rather misunderstood resolution of the ECOWAS Heads of State led by President Jonathan of Nigeria sanctioning the use of legitimate force as a last resort. I strongly suggest that that timely communiqué of the ECOWAS leaders prevented carnage in Cote d’Ivoire, and created the limited space that still exists for the relatively peaceful resolution of the conundrum which the legal, political and diplomatic situation in Cote d’Ivoire presents.

UN security council resolution

Emboldened by the voices of dissent, Mr. Laurent Gbagbo and his supporters evidently do not at all believe that there is a seriousness of purpose in the threat of “legitimate force”, which in part explains his intransigence.

A United Nations Security Council resolution to authorise military force as a last option, would complement ECOWAS’ own commitment to dialogue and diplomacy, and would also reinforce the need to take steps now to protect the civilian population and stem the growing number of civilian casualties and deaths.

The death of scores of civilians and the rumours of mass graves, the engagement of mercenaries and the rumoured supply of armaments, and the increasing harassment of UN peacekeepers are all pointers that this is the time to employ all the tools of preventive diplomacy which must include the mobilization of armed forces under the auspices of the UN, if necessary to contain the threat to regional peace and security.

Peace enforcement measures

The UN Secretary General has already complained about ‘egregious human rights violation’ in the Cote d’Ivoire. He has also cited Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to grant the UN access to alleged grave sites, even though the UNOCI ‘had been instructed to do everything possible to gain access to the affected areas both for purposes of prevention and to investigate and record the violations so that Mr. Gbagbo and others responsible will be held accountable.The peacekeeping mandate of the UNOCI has now however become inadequate to guarantee peace and security in the country.

It is time to look at the prospect of applying legitimate force – peace enforcement measures within the framework of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. In other words, the direct involvement of the UN Security Council in this regard has become an imperative in order for ECOWAS and the International community to be able to consolidate the peace efforts so far made, and to prevent the complete reversal of processes in which the International Community has so substantially invested.

Offer of amnesty

It is helpful that several world leaders have made amnesty offers to Mr. Laurent Gbagbo on the condition of his accepting to surrender power peacefully to the internationally recognized winner of the November 28, 2010 presidential election. Prestigious international roles that Laurent Gbagbo could play, if he accepts to leave peacefully, have also been offered to the former Ivorien leader. Apart from these considerations, his personal security, and that of his supporters is being guaranteed either within the Cote d’Ivoire or outside of the country. His financial assets are also to be protected in the event that he accepts to prevent the Cote d’Ivoire from going to another civil war.

Mr. Laurent Gbagbo has so far scoffed at these generous proposals for a dignified exit.

Threat to foreign nationals

The threat by Laurent Gbagbo’s agents that the nationals of countries seeking to “invade” the Cote d’Ivoire would be made to suffer in the Cote d’Ivoire cannot be ignored and must be taken seriously. In this regard, it must be emphatically stated in the proposed resolution of the UN Security Council that the international community will not condone the harassment of, or violence against any immigrants or other foreigners living in Cote d’Ivoire which has a considerably large immigrant population. This should by itself be a trigger for armed intervention. Mr. Gbagbo must also not attempt to endanger the lives of peace-loving Ivoriens living inside Cote d’Ivoire.

The political crisis in the Cote d’Ivoire is likely to disrupt the trend towards democracy in the sub region and create a dangerous precedent for a continent in which twenty presidential elections are to hold within the next eighteen months. Consequently, the impunity of Mr. Gbagbo must be regarded as a challenge to the entire international community. It is indeed a test for democracy in the West African sub – region in particular and the larger African continent beyond.

Beyond Chapter VII of the UN Charter

While the consent and approval of the UN Security Council will be necessary for the use of force against a sovereign state, it is equally well known that the rule of unanimity can also militate against evolving the necessary consensus of opinion.

Consequently, there is the need to build an effective international public opinion for such use of limited force, as may be contemplated in the Cote d’Ivoire. International public opinion has the potential to assist in building the necessary platform within the UN Security Council in order to transcend all parochial or other interests in Cote d’Ivoire. Already Russia, at the level of the UN Security Council, and Ghana, at the ECOWAS regional level, have shown inclinations not to support a military incursion of any kind in Cote d’Ivoire.

This is unfortunate. I do believe that peace enforcement by the UN Security Council in Cote d’Ivoire is now the required response to the impunity that we are witnessing in Cote d’Ivoire. The International Community has universally and unequivocally rejected the nominal constitutional mandate of Mr. Laurent Gbagbo. We cannot therefore leave Mr. Alassane Ouattara to enforce the legitimate and internationally recognized mandate given to him by the people of Cote d’Ivoire. That would be to sanction civil war, against the very ethos of the United Nations.

International responsibility to protect

Democracy in its different forms is fast becoming a shared value in Africa and much of the world. On one level, the ECOWAS needs international support to protect the democratic expression of the people of Cote d’Ivoire through the ballot box. On this level the United Nations’ International Responsibility to Protect may need a re-definition to accommodate situations whereby leaders use the sheer force of arms to thwart the popular will of the people. International Responsibility to Protect would then go beyond considerations of genocide and other currently recognized violations of fundamental humanitarian rights.

On a more cogent level however, the crisis in the Cote d’Ivoire goes beyond election results and the dispute between Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara on the definition of who is a citizen of the Cote d’Ivoire that is eligible for presidential election. Both leaders have a large following that operate along ethnic lines. Both leaders have the control of armed forces: Gbagbo the apparently divided national army and Ouattara the Nouvelle Forces formerly commanded by his newly appointed Prime Minister Guillume Soros. The threat to the peace and security of Cote d’Ivoire and the entire sub-region is therefore at risk on account of the impunity of one man and his cohorts.

Preventive diplomacy

Mr. Laurent Gbagbo’s preparedness to court a gradually emerging civil war is in itself alarming. It is alarming because of the foreseeable humanitarian crisis that will ensue. It is alarming because economic resources that should be deployed to development efforts will be wasted on the battle fields of a needless fraticidal war. It is also alarming for the precedent it will set amongst fledgling democracies across the African continent.

It is in view of this that the ECOWAS, in general, and the Government and people of Nigeria, call upon on all peace-loving nations of the world to underscore the need for preventive diplomacy in all its ramifications including the mobilization of force. Cote d’Ivoire needs international help. ECOWAS under the leadership of President Jonathan has taken a firm and principled stand against impunity in governance. What is needed now is unequivocal international support to be able to enforce peace in Cote d’Ivoire.

Odein Ajumogobia is Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of ECOWAS.

The leaders of the
21st-century’s two superpowers met at the White House this week, with
Chinese leader Hu Jintao standing shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S.
President Barack Obama and no longer in his shadow.

“Our cooperation as partners should be based on mutual respect,” Hu said.

Hu’s elaborately
staged four-day state visit seemed to mark the end of the Chinese
leader’s unofficial status as a (junior) partner to the American
president. In some ways Hu is the stronger of the two.

Obama is in
trouble; his country’s economy is sluggish and gripped by stubborn
unemployment. His government has accumulated record debts. His domestic
political position has been undermined by voter disenchantment and
Republican opposition.

According to this
week’s new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 56 percent of
Americans believe that the president will serve the remaining two years
of his term with less influence over the country than they expect from
the Republicans in Congress.

Hu, by contrast, is
the unchallenged leader of his country, managing the most dramatic
economic growth in world history and lending Washington billions of
dollars for its budget.

America’s own
Forbes magazine ranks Hu as the most powerful man in the world (with
Obama relegated to number two) because he “exercises near dictatorial
control over 1.3 billion people, one-fifth of world’s population.
Unlike Western counterparts, Hu can divert rivers, build cities, jail
dissidents and censor Internet without meddling from pesky
bureaucrats.” But the United States is still much freer, richer and
more influential. People around the world use its currency, fly on its
airplanes and watch its movies. Have you seen a Chinese banknote,
passenger jet or comedy recently?

Hu and Obama are
certainly partners in the world economy. But the American president
remains paramount in economics and most other respects, because of
America’s democratic ideals, diplomatic ambitions, cultural influence
and technological innovation. Obama’s challenge is to keep it that way.

Jonathan Mann presents Political Mann on CNN International each Friday at 18:30 (CAT), Saturday at 3pm and 9pm (CAT), and Sunday at 10am (CAT).

Who say Zazu nor go see road for this town, na harmattan go wire am till e dry like sugar cane wey dem suck . Na jeje I wan do this my new job wey I just get o, but oversabi people nor wan let me see road, wetin I do them I nor know. Nor be so my former oga dey do o, make I just warn anybody wey dey listen to me now o, nor be say I dey talk to person o, I just dey talk my own o. I say person wey say I nor go chop for this government, FIRE! Anybody wey wan take style style push me go where action nor dey, FIRE!

Zazu! Zazu!! Zazu!! Na wetin happen, talk to me na and stop this your fire fire business.

Oga nor mind them o, this amugbo people wan take style push me comot for here. Yesterday, as I land for our weekly Kitchen Cabinet meeting, na so one yeye houseboy wey dey call imself special adviser talk say make dem send me go dey monitor INEC registration for town. I say tufiakwa, why you go dey send me go where youth corpers learn how to use computer. I come ask am say, wetin im see for my qualification wey make am dey send me go that kain under the sun and small boy job. Na so the yeye man dey do mouth like who bite stone for im rice, say because na only me fit find way to take make sure say this voter’s registration wey dem dey do pure. And na the same yeye man wey first tell my madam say make im nor let me register say the machine fit catch fire, say me na witchy parrot. I look the man one kain, I tell am say na because rain dey fall you and me stand for the same bus stop, idiot nama! I ask am say where im dey when some people dey count goat, cow and fowl during the last census and election? Na now dey break for im agbero head.

Zazu, but why the matter dey vex you na. Na only human beings we suppose register na.

Oga human beans or human rice o, me I don go register o! I must vote come April o.

Zazu Katelmega make una nor sabotage this matter again na, haba. We must to let this process work o, because if we mess am up again we nor get mouth to blame presido, the man don try for us o. And that man right to tell you say make you help us make sure say the registration of voters pure, so that any person wey wan register goat or cow, you go Wikileak the saboteur to presido.

Oga lie lie, nor be my job be that. Why e be say for this country monkey go dey work bomboy go dey chop all the time, dem swear for us. Nor be my job to go check whether people dey register for inside hotel, bedroom, bathroom, cyber café…oga presido don already give oga Jega sansan money for that kind runs. Enough money to set up another Nigeria police force to monitor that kain thing. Haba! This man wey wan take style zone me go field work get agenda for our Kitchen Cabinet , and I don smell am from hundred miles away.

But Zazu wetin you think say be this man agenda?

Ehen, Oga na now day dey break for this matter. You know say na people nor be spirit dey collect campaign money, count am and load am for one corner? Na people dey draw up the budget to make sure say every thing sege-mege. And you also know say na Nigerians like me and you nor be Americans and Britico dey talk how much dem go distribute to take make sure say our campaign run smoothly, so that after we pass primary finish, we go pass secondary well well?

Yes Zazu, I know and wetin be the point for this matter now?

Dasrite! Relax oga, I go yarn you proper, nor worry if your credit finish I go package you. Now this cunny cunny man wan take style move me go where I nor fit lick finger. Im wan bring im brother come take my position for the committee wey we set up.

Wetin be your position for the committee, Zazu?

Correct! Na me be oga eye for the place, anyhow wey dem share the money for campaign na me dey record am, otherwise dem for don chop oga reach bone. Any excess wey fall for under table go meet my goatskin bag dey wait for there, because goat wey dey lion mouth nor get EXIT! Also na me dey count and load Ghana-Must-Go for campaign people boots, so every now and then when one bag take style refuse to enter boot, I go find a comfortable accommodation for such Ghana-Must-Go. Na this very important job this man want comot for my hand. The question wey I ask am be say, na INEC hire me? Wetin concern senator with inflation of garri for Wuse market? If im wan farm for land wey rain nor dey fall, make im nor drag me follow body o.

But wait Zazu, e be like say I dey miss something for this gist. Wetin una dey load put for the Ghana-Must-Go bag wey make am dey important pass credible voter registration?

Jesus Christ the laudable Lord that allowed John The Baptist to baptize him in River Jordan come save me from this Red Sea! Kai oga Lagos don slow you down finish. I nor understand your level again, you sure say na this Nigeria you dey abi na Cotonoue you dey call me from. Abeg nor give me bad luck for Goodluck season. I nor fit answer that question, I dey go fight make dem nor comot my soup for fire before e done.

Last year the Corps Marshal and Chief Executive of the Federal
Roads Safety Commission (FRSC), Osita Chidoka, made a revelation that was not
only startling but also frightening. According to him, in four months (December
2009 – March, 2010), 7,737 road accidents were recorded in the country. Out of
these, about 1,056 people died and more than 5,000 were injured. Considering
that the figures he gave covered just four months and also given the fact that
we are a country with poor record keeping habits, it is safe to say that the
actual figures might be much higher.

The World Health Organisation in its Global Status Report on
Road Safety 2009, states that over 90% of the world’s fatalities on the roads
occur in low-income and middle-income countries, (LMI) which have only 48% of
the world’s registered vehicles. The organisation predicts that road traffic
injuries will rise to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030. These
are grim predictions.

So far, the Federal Road Safety Commission has done quite well
in its area of jurisdiction but it must continue to educate road users on the
basic safety rules to ensure accident free driving this is critical to reducing
the carnage on our roads.

Few months back, when complaints about the bad state of the
roads were flowing thick and fast, the chant from government officials was that
after the rainy season work would begin on all roads that needed fixing and as
well as new ones.

The rainy season ended more than two months ago and there is no
sign of roads being repaired or new ones being built. It is important for
government to begin to work on these roads. Governments at all levels should
demonstrate their concern about the deplorable state of our roads, because they
are a contributory factor to road accidents.

The federal and state governments should unfold realistic and
achievable plans to enhance safety of road users across the country.

It has been said time without number that creative thinking,
maintenance and enforcement of the laws are what we need to solve the issue of
bad roads in the country. Most of our roads are constructed without
specifications or that these are never adhered to. A situation where overloaded
trucks weighing several tons are allowed to ply the same roads as smaller
vehicles does not make roads last. Many of these heavy duty vehicles create
terrible depression on these roads and sometimes when they break down bonfires
are made to warn oncoming vehicles in the night. This crude and makeshift
method of providing warning signs for drivers damages the road surface, thus
contributing to the dangers on our roads

Our appeal is that the government must manage our roads
according to accepted standards the world over. There is nothing to reinvent
here. The package is a total one that also includes driver education, vigilant
policing, and enforcement of driving regulations and traffic laws. The
consequences of violating road safety laws must be scrupulously applied. The
cost of carelessness about enforcing road safety rules and instituting high
standards in driving and road construction are high. People die.

It’s week two of the
voter registration exercise. After one week of hitches some facts are
gradually becoming clear. The Presidency has acknowledged that the youth
corps members being used as ad-hoc staff were ill trained for the
exercise while INEC has admitted having various logistic challenges
including the failure of one of the DDC machine vendors to deliver on
time, which has led to incomplete deployment across the country.

Above all these
hitches however, it’s heartwarming to note the enthusiasm with which
Nigerians have embraced the registration process and how they troop out,
enduring all kinds of pressures daily to participate in it. The massive
campaign at all levels has helped in no small way in getting the word
out and in making the people appreciate the need to vote in the coming
election. Many youth groups have been in the forefront of this campaign
besieging the Internet and using all youth sensitive media to reach this
largest segment of the population, who from past records have shown
apathy and disinterest.

Very heartwarming
also is the fact that the clergy are gradually stepping up to the
challenge of contributing to nation building by encouraging their
congregation to partake in this very important civic duty. For long I
have particularly been irked by the silence of the more popular
religious leaders who control congregations that run into millions while
things went awry in the polity. No gain repeating what strong influence
religion has on our people and how the religious institutions remain
very key players in the effort to rebuild Nigeria.

I have heard and
read about a couple of such efforts. A Muslim friend told how the Imam
had concluded his sermon at last Friday’s Jummat prayers with a call on
the worshipers to register to vote. Efforts such the one by the good old
priest who said Mass at my Parish church last Sunday combine to make
the call for change and progress through the ballot box not just a civic
duty but in many ways a religious one as well and that in my opinion is
how best religion should serve the interest of the people in our time.

One such message
from Pastor Paul Adefarasin of the House on the Rock caught my attention
recently. For me it was the first time I would hear the rather reserved
gentleman speak on a national issue and the message itself drove home
the need for Nigerians of all tribes and creeds to register to vote in
the coming elections.

Naturally I was
impressed this was coming from a man of God but even more I felt it was
worthy of note that he had said quite unequivocally that creed should
play no part in the people’s choice of their leaders, instead the
virtues of integrity and competence should be sought for in the
candidates. He said: “Make religion and tribe irrelevant in Nigeria’s
2011 elections. Register and vote for competence and integrity.” I take
out two important words from his full statement which I must state
contained many other nationally enriching lines; Competence and
Integrity. The absence of these qualities has been the bane of our
country. For so long we have had leaders that were either ill prepared
for the office they found themselves in or that foisted themselves on us
through the power of the gun. And when we had a chance to elect, we
fouled the system and justified it with an “it’s our turn” or “he is our
brother” bias. Competence and integrity have thus far been very
unpopular virtues amongst our leaders but as a pair of virtues they
constitute a sine qua non for progress and good governance.

If we must make
progress, then we must grow above our ethnic and religious mindsets and
install a new order. In that context, is not enough simply to have
registered. For if we all fail to sieve the candidates properly and do
as we have done in the past, we will once again end up with leaders who
do not feel responsible to us and who certainly shall not deliver the
promises their manifestos bear. As I have stated elsewhere, poverty,
disease, bad roads, power outage and all the other issues we confront
daily do not know zones and neither do they worship God in a particular
way. They confront us all squarely.

Pastor Adefarasin’s call and indeed those of all other religious
leaders who have been making similar calls is indeed a welcome
development and couldn’t have come at a better time. As we endure the
inconveniences to register, let us have this at the back of our minds:
this time competence and integrity should be the basis for our votes. We
can’t afford to do otherwise.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, roughly one in
five Americans believes that vaccines cause autism, a disturbing fact that will
probably hold true even after the publication this month, in a British medical
journal, of a report thoroughly debunking the 1998 paper that began the
vaccine-autism scare. That’s because the public’s underlying fear of vaccines
goes much deeper than a single paper.

The evidence against the original article and its author, a British
medical researcher named Andrew Wakefield, is damning. Among other things, he
is said to have received payment for his research from a lawyer involved in a
suit against a vaccine manufacturer; in response, Britain’s General Medical
Council struck him from the medical register last May.

But public fear of vaccines did not originate with Wakefield’s
paper. Vaccines have had to fight against public scepticism from the beginning.
In 1802, after Edward Jenner published his first results claiming that scratching
cowpox pus into the arms of healthy children could protect them against
smallpox, a political cartoon appeared showing newly vaccinated people with
hooves and horns.

Nevertheless, during the 19th century vaccines became central
to public-health efforts in England, Europe and the Americas Such a move didn’t
sit comfortably with many people, who saw mandatory vaccinations as an invasion
of their personal liberty. An anti-vaccine movement began to build and, though
vilified by the mainstream medical profession, soon boasted a substantial
popular base and several prominent supporters, including Frederick Douglass,
Leo Tolstoy and George Bernard Shaw, who called vaccinations “a peculiarly
filthy piece of witchcraft.” In America, popular opposition peaked during the
smallpox epidemic at the turn of the 20th century. Health officials ordered
vaccinations in public schools, in factories and on the nation’s railroads;
club-wielding New York City policemen enforced vaccinations in crowded
immigrant tenements, while Texas Rangers and the United States Cavalry provided
muscle for vaccinators along the Mexican border.

Public resistance was immediate, from riots and school strikes
to lobbying and a groundswell of litigation that eventually reached the Supreme
Court.

But the opposition reflected complex attitudes toward medicine
and the government. Many African-Americans, long neglected or mistreated by the
white medical profession, doubted the vaccinators’ motives. Christian
Scientists protested the laws as an assault on religious liberty. And workers
feared, with good reason, that vaccines would inflame their arms and cost them
several days’ wages.

Understandably, advocates for universal immunisation then and
now have tended to see only the harm done by their critics. But in retrospect,
such wariness was justified: at the time, health officials ordered vaccinations
without ensuring the vaccines were safe and effective.

Public confidence in vaccines collapsed in the fall of 1901
when newspapers linked the deaths of nine schoolchildren in Camden, New Jersey
USA, to a commercial vaccine allegedly tainted with tetanus. In St. Louis, 13
more schoolchildren died of tetanus after treatment with the diphtheria
antitoxin.

Seeking to restore confidence after the deaths in Camden and
St. Louis, Congress enacted the Biologics Control Act of 1902, establishing the
first federal regulation of the nation’s growing vaccine industry. Confronted
with numerous anti-vaccination lawsuits, state and federal courts established
new standards that balanced public health and civil liberties.

Most important, popular resistance taught government officials
that when it comes to public health, education can be more effective than brute
force. By mid-century, awareness efforts had proven critical to the polio and
smallpox vaccination efforts, both of which were huge successes.

One would think such education efforts would no longer be
necessary. Still, according to a 2010 C.D.C. report, 40 percent of American
parents with young children have delayed or refused one or more vaccines for
their child. That’s in part because vaccines have been so successful that any
risk associated with their use, however statistically small, takes on an
elevated significance.

It also doesn’t help that, thanks to the Internet, a bottomless
archive of misinformation, including Wakefield’s debunked work, is just a few
keystrokes away.

Health officials often get frustrated with public
misconceptions about vaccines but that’s no way to run a health system. Our
public health leaders would do far better to adopt the strategy used by one
forward-thinking federal health official from the early 20th century, C.P.
Wertenbaker of the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service.

© 2011 The New York Times