Share this story!            

Editorial: The CIA-ISI connection

A report in The Los Angeles Times says the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan since 9/11, accounting for as much as one-third of the latter’s annual budget. In addition, the ISI collected tens of millions of dollars through a classified CIA programme that pays for the capture or killing of wanted militants. This stream of payments is a clandestine counterpart to the rewards publicly offered by the US State Department.

These payments have triggered an intense debate within the US government because of long-standing suspicions that the ISI continues to help the Taliban who undermine US efforts in Afghanistan and provide sanctuary to al Qaeda in Pakistan. It seems the White House National Security Council goes through this debate every year. Despite deep misgivings about the ISI, the funding continues because the ISI’s assistance is considered crucial. The ISI informant networks in Pakistan’s tribal belt remain a primary source of intelligence. As a US intelligence official put it colourfully to the Times, “there was no other game in town”.

The covert payments programme was initially approved by former US President George Bush and continues under President Barack Obama. The CIA payments are a hidden stream in the much broader financial flow of some $ 15 billion over the last eight years in military and civilian aid to Pakistan. While controversy dogs the broader financial assistance because of concerns in the US Congress and Administration about where the money may have been spent, concerns that are reflected in the wording of the Kerry-Lugar bill for example, the covert CIA money has been more tightly monitored. While these covert payments have been used by the ISI for a variety of purposes, including the construction of the new ISI headquarters in Islamabad, US officials seem relaxed about where the money has gone.

Despite being plagued by distrust (arguably on both sides), the covert funds have fuelled an espionage alliance that has to its credit damage inflicted on al Qaeda. CIA officials contrast the returns from their relatively small payments when compared with the enormous overt military and civilian aid to Pakistan as “a bargain”. Some 600-700 militants, mostly belonging to al Qaeda, were killed or captured and handed over to the US. Some, if not all those handed over ended up in the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison. While the CIA considers the cost-benefit of the covert funding programme positive in big savings for the American taxpayer, we are by now familiar with at least the payments-for-captured-militants deal, courtesy ex-President Pervez Musharraf’s book, In the Line of Fire. Knowledgeable US intelligence officials concede that Pakistan had made “decisive contributions to counter-terrorism” and made enormous sacrifices reflected in the fact that Pakistanis are dying almost every day in this life-and-death struggle for the soul of Pakistan. The mutual suspicions and distrust notwithstanding, the American intelligence community recognizes that although Pakistani and American interests do not always coincide, “things would be one hell of a lot worse if the government there (Pakistan) was hostile to us.” Perhaps the even more controversial assertion in the paper’s report says the CIA depends on Pakistan’s cooperation to carry out drone attacks that have killed dozens of suspected extremists in the border areas, but also caused collateral civilian casualties that have become an extremely emotive issue in Pakistan.

The report seems to have enough truth in it to make the entire edifice of the story credible. The ISI is routinely blamed for supporting the Taliban, even after 9/11, but things appear somewhat different now. The security agencies are under attack by the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, a comparatively recently emerged group that takes its inspiration from the Afghan Taliban. However, while the latter have of late begun to distance themselves from the indiscriminate suicide and other bombings that are targeting ordinary citizens and the security agencies all over Pakistan, the ISI too has not escaped unscathed. The new conjuncture therefore suggests that at least as far as the Pakistani militants are concerned, the ISI is in the forefront of the struggle against terrorism. Whether, for strategic reasons stretching back to the abandonment of Afghanistan in 1989 by the US and the West, the ISI nevertheless continues to support the Afghan Taliban remains a moot point. *

Second Editorial: Gilgit-Baltistan: next phase

The Election Commission (EC) has announced the official results in 19 constituencies for the legislative assembly of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB). Reflecting closely the unofficial results, the EC awarded 12 seats to the People’s Party while the remaining seats were shared by the other parties. The results for four seats are still awaited. The disturbing aspect of the tail-end of electioneering for the first-ever legislative assembly in the recently designated autonomous region is the squabble between political parties over charges of rigging, pre-poll as well as on the polling day. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani was quick to refute the charges of unfair electoral practices a day after the election. The second tier party leadership too has echoed the same views. However, the EC has already ordered re-polling in some parts of Diamer District. The PML-Q and MQM have protested against what they termed as “unfair manipulation of the electoral process by the ruling party to get their candidates elected”. However, the PML-Q leadership struck a positive note by announcing that “the result will be accepted for the sake of ensuring the continuity of the democratic process in the country.” This caveat was somewhat at odds with democratic norms. Citing “strategic national interests”, Chaudhry Shujaat demanded a consensus government in the region. The term “consensus” seems to be the newfound panacea for all political forces with poor showing at the ballot box or those elements who wish to paralyse the incumbent government of a highly polarised society. PML-Q has so far won one seat in the GB election. The demand for a “consensus government” when the PPP appears to have won a comfortable simple majority is tantamount to placing “consensus” over and above the electorate’s mandate.

Sadly, the appearance of democratic tolerance displayed by the top political leadership was less evident at the grassroots level where skirmishes broke out among the activists of various political parties and supporters of candidates. In two separate incidents of violence, PPP activists clashed with the supporters of the PML-N and MQM. Several people were injured and when the police appeared unable to pacify the situation, the local administration imposed Section 144 in Skardu. On a pleasantly surprising note, the local religious leaders of various sects were seen helping the administration towards the restoration of normalcy in the area.

Disagreements regarding the fairness or validity of the electoral process or the results thereof are normal, especially in South Asia. However, our constitutional scheme has laid out a clear procedure and a proper platform to seek redress in such a contingency, namely the EC. It is advisable for the aggrieved political parties to approach the EC with any evidence of electoral malpractices. To demand directly from the government that re-polling be held in certain constituencies where alleged discrepancies have occurred appears more like an exercise in political point scoring than observance of genuine democratic procedures. In this context, the statement of the regional PPP chief seems more in conformity with the ground realities. He has hinted at the possibility of forming a coalition government with the parties that are already part of the government at the centre. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!