The current talks between the CIA and ISI have come in the wake of a period of non-communication between the two agencies. PHOTO: FILE
The ISI and CIA are talking in Washington. These talks, by all signs and tokens, are not so much talks for reconciliation, as for laying down a new regime of relations between the two. Since both spearhead the policies of their governments in the neighbourhood of Pakistan, the Pasha-Panetta talks will shape the Pak-US relations in the days to come. The commentators are talking in terms of a break in the relationship by referring to Pakistan’s desire for a reformulation mainly centred on Pakistan’s decision to curtail American interests in Pakistan, especially in the activity of the CIA.
The Pakistani public is on board. The media, after the Raymond Davis episode, has shaped the Pakistani opinion, which in turn has compelled the PPP government to align itself more closely with the GHQ, with President Zardari telling a British newspaper in an interview that the US-led war in Afghanistan is “seriously undermining efforts to restore Pakistan’s democratic institutions and economic prosperity”. That widens the scope of the ‘objections’ Pakistan has expressed to American policy in the region. It means that Washington’s ‘Afghan policy’ is not in sync with Pakistan’s own national objectives.
A lot of harsh things regarding American policy have been said in public in Pakistan, trumping the official line in their intensity. One argument which has always been seen as ‘official thinking’ is that the Americans are not in the region to confront al Qaeda and ensure peace in Afghanistan, but to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear capability by somehow disabling its nuclear arsenal. If this were true, then from the Pakistani point of view, the Americans should not be in Pakistan at all but the two should be arrayed against each other as enemies. If you listen to the TV anchors in Pakistan, many of them see America as an enemy of Pakistan and portray the so-called ‘bad’ Taliban killing innocent Pakistanis through suicide-bombers as being on the payroll of the CIA.
On the American side, think-tanks and politicians are increasingly pointing to the ‘dubious intent’ of the rulers in Pakistan. A recent report by the US Congress said that Pakistan had no effective policy against terrorism and did not seem to care much about the growth of the power of al Qaeda and its ancillaries often called ‘jihadi organisations’. Needless to say there is a marginal opinion too in Pakistan which marvels at the real intent of the state of Pakistan as it fights a fluctuating battle against terrorists in the Tribal Areas that seems to be going nowhere. There is also a gap between these marginal observers and the official opinion about the drones operated by the CIA.
If one were to take the pulse in Pakistan, anti-Americanism is at its most intense among the public. But there is also the consensual lament about the radicalisation and extremism of Pakistani society. No matter how hard one tries, one cannot link this extremism and intolerance to the Americans — although some religious parties do. There is also no coherent opinion about the Taliban and al Qaeda comparable to the clarity expressed in hatred of America. The state is seen by all as too weak to stand up to the terrorists and criminals preying on the common man and crippling Pakistan’s economy through ‘protection money’ and disruption of business.
Pakistan’s economy is in dire straits and the only country willing to assist Pakistan substantially is the US. From the above facts, it seems Pakistan wants to force a change in America’s policy towards Pakistan. The current talks between the CIA and ISI have come in the wake of a period of non-communication between the two agencies. Pakistan’s Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has ‘the nation behind him’, but he must know precisely whether the US ‘needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US’.
We all know that terrorism is coming out of North Waziristan. General Kayani will have to do something about it if he wants the drone attacks stopped. And he will have to take another look at the ‘jihadi’ organisations who owe allegiance to al Qaeda and not to Pakistan and with whom it is unclear whether the Deep State has fully severed its ties.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2011.
More in Editorial
Spirited away
I agree with most of what you say except what you propose the reset in US-Pakistan relations ought to be:
1. The understanding and agreement that Musharraf had with the US at the start of the conflict has substaintially changed to the detriment of Pakistan. Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan was to remain exclusive, has been consitentently undermined by the US and NATO by bringing India into it.
2. India is favored with all forms of strategic benefits; US declared it and forced others to accept it as a Nuclear Weapons State within the Nuclear Suppliers Group. This provides India with latest nuclear technology and financing to build Nuclear reactors alongwith plutonium fastbreeder reactors;
3. By being NSG member US and EU supports India for a permanent seat in the UN in spite of the fact that it has pending disputes with Pakistan and China in its proximity.
4. There was no question of Drones being launched into Pakistan killing civilians at a massive scale. Yes, over 1000 deaths by drones is massive in any scale of horrors. We have not been able to control US aggression against Pakistan that was not part of the UN mandate in Afghanistan;
5. Since 2001 massive CIA intervention in Pakistan’s body-politic; first with Musharraf (US personnell and materials came into Pakistan without visas and customs controls) and his brand of Islamic parties rule in NWFP and Baluchistan. Then by PPP injection back into Pakistan in the form of NRO whose corrupting influence has weakened all state organs including Judiciary. Can’t you see from Wikileaks and non-implementation of SC Judgements how corrosive NRO influence has been. Without it we would not have had Zardari reduce us to this level. Where and how did Raymond Davis and his types come to be in Pakistan??;
6. US Aid to Pakistan has not benefited a single Pakistani. It has paid for US forces logistics for fighting a war we did not want. In fact $68 billion in economic loss has been Pakistan’s benefit. The US never quantifies this and a whole generation loss that we and our youth have suffered in opportunities.
A lot more has happened but let this suffice for the moment. No nation has paid as great a price as Pakistan has since 1979 when the Soviets walked into Afghanistan. India cooperated with the Soviets to its benefit. Our foreign policy is in tatters when there are people within Pakistan trying to destroy it. Recommend
The US wants to destabilize Pakistan to take its nukes. How long have we been hearing this narrative for? 2, 3,4,5 years? In all that time, I am sure those responsible for securing these nukes have made stringent efforts to spread them across the country so that they cant be extracted by a bunch of US Special Forces. This notion that they are piled up somewhere and can be taken away is a joke. That it is still used repeatedly to question US motives is appalling given that it is perhaps the weakest possible argument that can be used to question US intentions. Again! It doesnt take a genius to realize that an economy such as Pakistan, dependent on foreign inflows needs an alternative to US largess. Thats not coming from anywhere else, and given that people in Pakistan dont want to pay their way the status-quo will continue. While all this rhetorical hype continues, people will continue to die on a daily basis. Whether the CIA is backing the Taliban or not is irrelevant when it comes to the states responsibility to protect Pakistani citizens. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Taliban are all non-state actors who are a threat to the country. Deal with them as the petty criminals that they are. Recommend
It’s comical how arm-chair editorialists claim to know about the ‘deep state’. Seems like a conspiracy theory from the leftists when they can’t intellectually explain the radicalization of the region, which is only a reactionary movement given the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (seen as another muslim country where the infidels are killing muslims). Get rid of the catalyst, then there is no mullah who can fool a person into blowing himself up.Recommend
In a scenario presented in this editorial there are two major tasks that need to be emphasized, discussed and debated:
1: Crisis of Governance
2: Alignment of US-Pakistan foreign policy perspectives
CRISIS OF GOVERNANCE:
It is generally perceived that the results of the elections are engineered to bring that combination of political parties in power at the center and in the provinces that are hand picked by U. S. Department of State through ARMY / ISI. The other perception is that ONLY UNITED STATES / ITS ALLIES CAN take Pakistan out of economic mess. When the governments fail to deliver, the people start blaming USA and ARMY / ISI for crisis of governance and economic mess.
ALIGNMENT OF US-PAKISTAN FOREIGN POLICY PERSPECTIVES
That is something that has been totally ignored by those who provide the strategic input both to government of Pakistan and United States. United States has a regional / global geo-economic / military agenda in and around Pakistan. Whereas Pakistan is concerned only with its national security, economic stability and peaceful co-existance with its neighbors.
When we compare the strategic priorities of the two countries they do not apparently have any possibility of consensus because of repeatedly alleged US tilt in favor of elements that are actively involved in the activities to destabilize Pakistan through certain groups in Afghanistan and activities of “unidentified mysterious Jihadi Groups” within not only Pakistan but INDIA TOO. On top of that more than dozen countries are actively involved in war in and around Afghanistan and Iran. Naturally, there interest also needs to be taken into consideration.
BOTTOM LINE:
I do not think that any discussion in Islamabad or in Washington at the level of Army and or ISI Chief can be of any considerable significance when the issues under discussion demand a more broader dialogue. Recommend
A) Who is most benefitted by ending the conflict-US or PAK?
B) Can PAK end the conflict on her own ?
C) If not US, whom does PAK want in ending the conflict ?
The PAK institutions should answer these questions for the people of Pakistan.**
Do PAK people know the answers? Recommend
A top Pakistani military commander acknowledged few weeks ago that the U.S drone strikes against militant hideouts have been most effective weapon in the anti-militancy fight. Why on Earth the CIA will be against Pakistan they are simply trying to get the terrorists. US and Pakistan should cooperate on war on terror and find the most effective solution.Recommend
Spy Vs Spy
**U.S. officials said that aside from pledging to give Pakistan greater visibility into the decisions behind drone strikes, there are no new restrictions on the CIA’s ability to fire.
“Panetta has an obligation to protect the American people, and he isn’t going to call an end to any operations that support that objective,” said a U.S. official briefed on the meeting between the two spy chiefs**_ Washington Post Recommend
It is said that Animosity with America is bad and Friendship worst’
I find it so true as being a common citizen with roots in the majority (ordinary citizen) – more than 80% of the population.Recommend
terrorism is coming from n.waristan-ed,sometimes back it was the export of south waziristan,sometimes back afghanistan,sometimes back iraq,before that Sir Mandela was himself a terrorisr in S.Africa,china subdued its citizens till 1972,USSR was hostile to earth,,,,,,where is all this leading to,after north waziristan where shall it lead to??anyone?Recommend
Qui bono? inquiries are no substitute for proper police investigations and criminal prosecutions.Recommend