War on terror: Military seeks formal deal on intelligence sharing with US

Published: April 24, 2011
Message conveyed to US govt in meetings between Pak-US military officials.

Message conveyed to US govt in meetings between Pak-US military officials.


In a significant development Pakistan’s military has decided to have a formal agreement between Pakistan and the United States on intelligence-sharing and cooperation in the ‘war against terrorism’, The Express Tribune has learnt.

The message has been conveyed by Pakistan’s military brass in their recent interactions with senior US military officials in Islamabad and Washington, military sources said.

Military sources told The Express Tribune that Pakistan and the United States have been sharing intelligence since 2001, but without any formal agreement.

Pakistani and US military officials have had a series of meetings this month to resolve differences that have not only undermined military-to-military ties but have also strained diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Earlier this month, ISI chief Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha met CIA head Leon Panetta in Washington, then chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen had meetings with his Pakistani counterpart General Khalid Shameem Wynne and Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in Rawalpindi, and then US Army Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey met Gen Kayani.

The pursuance of a formal agreement comes as there is now a feeling among Pakistan’s top military officials that the US has not taken them into confidence on several issues, including Raymond Davis. Raymond Davis, a CIA agent, had been sent to Pakistan on a mission to spy on the Taliban leaders and their jihadi cohorts.

Though last month a court freed Davis after the payment of ‘blood money’ to the families of the victims, the presence of armed CIA agents in Pakistan has frustrated the Pakistani military.

The Davis saga showed the US military’s ‘mistrust’ of Pakistan, which was later substantiated by Admiral Mullen’s allegations last week that some elements in the ISI had links with the Haqqani Network.

Military sources told The Express Tribune that a formal agreement was required to restore dwindling confidence between the two countries.

It has also been conveyed to the US administration that, after a formal agreement between the two countries, all CIA contractors would have to leave Pakistan.

US military officials have assured Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership that they would take up the matter with the US administration and that a formal agreement would be finalised with mutual consent.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 24th, 2011.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (24)

  • sohaib
    Apr 24, 2011 - 8:49AM

    If there are any CIA contractors after Davis affair, they should leave NOW. If they are not leaving, they should be kicked out. they are enemy combatants. Recommend

  • John
    Apr 24, 2011 - 9:11AM

    “…….after a formal agreement between the two countries, all CIA contractors would have to leave Pakistan”

    Even without the agreement that is what PAK is asking. Why would anyone sign an agreement and still leave.

    In any case CIA would share only limited intelligence with PAK as PAK would also do the same, with or without agreement with CIA.

    Does agreement come with new money to GHQ? I suspect it is.

    PAK ISI sells info to CIA, instead of Raymond Davis procuring it.

    ISI wants monopoly on information supply route to CIA.

    Would CIA fall for it, again?Recommend

  • Ashok
    Apr 24, 2011 - 9:31AM

    I only have one question for all my Pakistani friends:

    Why is Pakistan #1 in the terrorism business?

    Please, no abuse. I’m only trying to ask a simple and honest question and would like a simple and honest answer.Recommend

  • kazmi
    Apr 24, 2011 - 10:06AM

    hw come you left out US,isreal and afghanistan before Pakistan?? ashok!
    and mind you all these terriost have come from mostly afghanistan, before thiis so called war we were living peacefully!! … Recommend

  • F Robinson
    Apr 24, 2011 - 11:33AM

    Pakistan should have a clear policy on war on terror. Existing policy is unduly ambiguous.Recommend

  • Zahid Hussain Khalid
    Apr 24, 2011 - 11:50AM

    In international diplomatic and military affairs only consideration that overrides all other considerations is the national interest of the negotiating countries and comparative strength of their respective elements of national power. As such Pakistan does not appear to have an edge on United States through the eyes of any analyst who does not weigh other elements of balancing unbalanced national power equation.

    Pakistan is not weaker than United States in any of its elements of national power. As a matter of fact it outweighs United States in many except one and that is credible political and military leadership! The crisis of credibility has turned Pakistan’s advantages into disadvantages and put it on defensive. Our political leaders due to limitations of the popularly unknown terms and conditions of NRO and our military leaders due to their lack of negotiating skills are hiding behind one excuse after the other. They do not hesitate in issuing ridiculous statements just to calm down those who are familiar with the realities on ground. First General Kiyani (who is now known as Kaha Nahein) issued a stern warning to Washington for stopping drone attacks. Then the Air Force was put on high alert. What was the response to the warning and what is the outcome of HIGH ALERT?


    The following questions come to mind:

    Is military leadership accountable to any constitutionally competent authority or any of the four pillar of the states?

    Are the President, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Senate, National Assembly and Public Accounts Committee constitutionally authorized to look into the military affairs?

    Why state to state negotiations are undertaken by an intelligence agency chief and an army chief?

    If the answer is in affirmative then why army commander is considered superior than the civilian authorities he is constitutionally answerable to?


  • Ahmer Ali
    Apr 24, 2011 - 11:58AM

    @Ashok.I here ask you one question
    Why the Baal Thaakray is heading the Inteha Hindu Pasand Jamaat in India and every time Baal Thaakray threatens peace talks between Pakistan and India and why his jamaat is found involved in Samjhota Express case and why Indain government is watching all his activities as a silent spectator without doing or taking any solid steps to restrict his activities in India?Recommend

  • Someone
    Apr 24, 2011 - 12:19PM

    @Ashok….maybe you can answer my question first.
    “Why do Indians love to troll on Pakistani news websites?”Recommend

  • KM
    Apr 24, 2011 - 12:19PM

    @Ashok: Was Babri Masjib, Gujrat, Samjhota express because of Pakistan? Killing Palestenians kids with phosphorous bombs because of Pakistan? Attacking Afghanistan without any evidence, and then Iraq based on forged evidence because of Pakistan? Tamils in Sri Lanka? The Indian army is occupied Kashmir killing Kashmiris since 1948, because of Pakistan? Do not eye wash yourselves by making such statements, and then on the other hand we talk about humanity, interfaith harmony, etc etc. This is hypocrisy … The sound of Live and Let Live is great but no one around really wants to follow the mantra. We have RAW funding terrorism in Baluchistan and FATA … Why? It is because we as common citizens should know that hatred runs deep in the roots … The day we root it out from our foundations, only then we will be able to find peace in the world. How would you feel if i am nasty to your brother or sister, would you just sit back and watch me doing so? Please think with an open mind, it terrorism around the world, which is aggravating hatred amongst groups of people, who then use unpleasant ways to voice their concerns.Recommend

  • Apr 24, 2011 - 12:29PM

    India learnt terrorism from the USA when it dropped two Atom bombs on Japan in August 1945. You conveniently forget that and your GoI taught us terrorism in December 1947 by invading Kashmir. You still teach the world newer forms of terrorism by occupying Kashmir and not talking on the plebiscite resolution passed by the UN. Bi for now.Recommend

  • Apr 24, 2011 - 12:33PM

    @F Robinson:
    You should take a peek at your own country’s policy. Recommend

  • Apr 24, 2011 - 12:36PM

    Well said and this commenter invites all Muslim pro-pakistanis to join him. Salams forever.Recommend

  • Iftikhar-ur-Rehman
    Apr 24, 2011 - 1:43PM

    @F Robinson:
    So should America and NATORecommend

  • Hedgefunder
    Apr 24, 2011 - 2:10PM

    There is nothing formal of any deals done by present Pak regime, Just ask them How Much has been Offered in this round the game??? I mean in terms of $$$$$$.Recommend

  • aman
    Apr 24, 2011 - 2:22PM


    Which world you live in !!

    Pakistan rangers and tribals attacked kashmir in 1948 and india never agreed to even go to kashmir until kashmir king asked for indian help after signing treaty of accession!

    Kashmir including pakistan occupied kashmir is integral part of india!!Recommend

  • Apr 24, 2011 - 2:33PM

    11 years too late. While it was convenient to have an informal relationship to funnel money into the country and illegally extradite individuals out of the country, all was well. No one had the foresight to conclude a formal agreement. Recommend

  • Sarcastic
    Apr 24, 2011 - 4:09PM

    Kashmir had a Sikh ruler so its quite obvious why he chose to accede to India. The fact that Kashmir had a majority Muslim population was ignored by the Maharaja. Indian occupation of Kashmir is illegal in all waysRecommend

  • vasan
    Apr 24, 2011 - 4:12PM

    Is the formal agreement getting finalized because US is delaying the payments??. Will a price for each terrorist killed be agreed between US and Pak and the terms and methods of pmt too?It is all about money, honey.Recommend

  • Cautious
    Apr 24, 2011 - 5:41PM

    Pakistan is cooperating with the Taliban – why should the USA share anything with Pakistan?Recommend

  • Shock Horror
    Apr 24, 2011 - 9:20PM

    You forget that Pakistan interfered in Afghan affairs in 1980 as an “agent” of the United States under the regime of dictator Zia Ul Haq to “liberate” Afghanistan after it formed a “friendly relationship” with the Soviet Union. Pakistan created the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan was one of two countries in the world to have diplomatic relationships with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan! As US Admiral Mike Mullen said earlier this week Pakistani ISI still protects the Haqqani network, and is engaged in double speak, while begging for money from US. If US did not give money to Pakistan, its economy will be in tatters. Need I go on or do you prefer to live in cloud cuckoo land? What right does Pakistan have to interfere in the internal affairs of a neighbour? Recommend

  • Uzair Javaid
    Apr 24, 2011 - 11:10PM

    @Ashok: A plain answer to your honest question:: Pakistan’s geo-strategic location, importance in the region and influence in the region. This is what your country has been doing to gain its influence across Afghanistan, their children are being taught at indian universities on national scholarship. I ask a plain question, I’ve been to india and have seen people living and many dwelling on the sidewalks. 11consulates adjacent to Pakistan’s border. You’re trying and spending hell to show we are # 1 in the terrorism business. If I ask the real terrorists PLEASE STAND UP, I wouldn’t be amazed to know indian and american role in the rise in this businessRecommend

  • Ajay
    Apr 25, 2011 - 6:58AM

    Nope, he hadn’t signed with India until tribals from Pakistan attacked his state.Recommend

  • Wisdom Chambers
    Apr 26, 2011 - 2:31AM

    Why are we going back and forth on who signed an accession first or who attacked first, because if we go there an Indian will tell his version of the history as it he had been taught all his life and a Pakistani will tell his version. Why not just stick to the facts and they are that Kashmir is predominently Muslim, secondly it was India who went to UN security concil who voted for self determination of Kashmiris and declared Kashmir a disputed territory and it is still disputed to this day. So now why not have a plebicite in Kashmir and I mean all parts of Jammu and Kashmir including parts of Pakistani Kashmir and settle this once and for all. But i doubt Indian Government will dare to do it despite Pakistan currently going through lot of turmoilRecommend

  • Venky
    Apr 26, 2011 - 3:17AM

    DEAL ? Why they wants DEAL always? The money they get from budget or the Enterprises run by them from Cement to Cornflakes is not enough? Recommend

More in Pakistan