Govt forced to withdraw ISI decision

[HAIDER]

ISLAMABAD, July 27: There were red faces all around when the government reversed its decision to place the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) under the direct control of the interior division.

The retraction came in less 24 hours following reports of extreme tension between various sections of the government and establishment and as a result of intense back-channel efforts.

Sources told Dawn that the reversal of Saturday’s decision was the result of “immense pressure from defence circles” on the civilian set-up.

Just a day after placing the ISI under control of the interior ministry, the government issued another notification which said that the earlier notification had been ‘misunderstood’ and the ISI would “continue to function under the prime minister”.“The said notification (issued on Saturday) only re-emphasises more coordination between ministry of interior and the ISI in relation to the war on terror and internal security.” It said a detailed notification would be issued later to clarify the situation.

The original notification had placed the ISI and the Intelligence Bureau under the interior division’s control but the new one reverses the decision only about the ISI and there is no mention of the IB, creating confusion whether it would continue to work under the prime minister or under the intelligence division.

The development, according to political observers, revealed civilian set up’s lack of vision about national strategic affairs because the earlier decision appears to be a move to make the prime minister’s adviser on interior Reham Malik the ‘most powerful’ head of the interior division ever.

Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan People’s Party co-chairman, is reported to have hailed the decision and termed it a step to save the army from controversies and accusations.

Mr Zardari said: “No one will now be able to say that this agency is not under the elected government’s control. The interior ministry will now be able to respond to allegations against the ISI.”

According to sources, the decision was not taken in consultation with defence authorities, which caused “great concern among the army and other defence organs”.

They said the back-channel discussions had continued throughout Saturday night, compelling the civilian set-up to reverse the decision.

Director-General of the Inter Services Pubic Relation (ISPR) Maj-Gen Athar Abbas said the army chief and other defence authorities had not been taken into confidence on the issue.

“Although there is an ongoing debate that there should be close coordination between all intelligence agencies, placing ISI under the direct control of the interior division was never discussed.

“When we realised that the decision had been taken, we discussed the issue with the government and are thankful that there was a realisation of ground realities and our position was accepted,” the ISPR chief said.

He said the ISI was a “huge organisation” and the interior ministry could not have handled its financial, administrative and operational affairs. The ISPR spokesman cited examples of various global intelligence systems, including the agency working in the United Kingdom, and said: “In Britain, MI-5 looks after domestic intelligence gathering while MI-6 looks after external affairs. Similarly, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (Raw) is responsible for external intelligence while the Central Bureau of Intelligence (CBI) looks after domestic security matters, but in both the models, the spy agencies report to the chief executives (prime ministers).” Like the British and the Indian models, the ISI also had a mandate to provide intelligence on domestic and strategic, external and defence-oriented affairs.

Meanwhile, Gen (retd) Hamid Gul, a former chief of ISI, said the earlier decision was merely a bid to please the superpowers without realising that it would only serve the interests of the enemies. He praised the government’s move to keep the ISI under the prime minister’s control.

He said that in 1990, the first PPP government had made a similar attempt but when the then prime minister Benazir Bhutto was informed about the “ground realities” she agreed that the agency should be allowed to continue to work under its previous command.

Gen Gul, however, stressed the need for establishing a “proper secretariat … to collect information and ensure coordination among all spy agencies”. Former ISI DG Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani said the decision’s reversal showed that the authorities concerned had not been taken into confidence. He advocated greater autonomy for ISI and said it should work as a “separate and completely autonomous body, answerable only to the prime minister”.

PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar said he did not know at what level the earlier decision had been taken. “I think a miscommunication had led to the mess.”

Warning that the government’s credibility was at stake, he said it should clarify at what level the earlier decision had been taken and why it had been withdrawn.

Former information minister Senator Nisar A. Memon expressed surprise over the sudden decision and said the government should explain the rationale and circumstances that had led to such a decision.

He recalled that during the 70s, ISI was mandated only to look after the country’s external security but former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had included internal security in its mission with a focus on politicians. Later, successive governments mandated ISI with external security.

“Today, the country is apparently governed by whims of leaders who do not take even their coalition partners into confidence,” he said.

AHMED HASSAN ADDS: Secretary-General of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q Senator Mushahid Hussain blamed the PPP government of making an abortive attempt to “to convert ISI into a partisan political instrument” and termed it yet another example of “PPP’s incompetence and ill-intentioned moves”. Talking to reporters here, Mr Hussain claimed that the government’s retraction on the ISI issue clearly indicated how serious the tussle for power between the prime minister and ‘extra-parliamentary forces’ had turned.

He called it “a fundamentally flawed decision … on all counts, political, administrative and national and from the national security point of view”.

“ISI and IB are already under civilian control since they report to the prime minister, and the move was an attempt to weaken the PM by handing both the intelligence agencies over to the interior ministry, whose head enjoys a PM-level protocol.”

Meanwhile, federal Information Minister Sherry Rehman told a TV channel that ISI was already under the civilian control.

“ISI is already under civilian control. It is overseen by establishment and cabinet divisions which work under the prime minister,” she said on phone from London.Ms Rehman said it was the government’s endeavour to provide smooth working conditions to all institutions functioning within a civilian set-up and to avoid any miscommunication.
Govt forced to withdraw ISI decision -DAWN - Top Stories; July 28, 2008

 

[blain2]

This is what happens when a feudal idiot makes the wrong call without first conferring with those who matter in the Pakistani security establishment. Essentially the backtracking was a slap in the face of that Zardari idiot for pushing this thing through hastily and without due authority.

 

[Interceptor]

This is what happens when a feudal idiot makes the wrong call without first conferring with those who matter in the Pakistani security establishment. Essentially the backtracking was a slap in the face of that Zardari idiot for pushing this thing through hastily and without due authority.

Who has authority?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Weakening ISI: A PPP Gift To America
It is and it has always been Pakistan's first line of defense, and we, as Pakistani nationalists, owe a lot to it. We all now have the understanding that the People's Party at present is working pretty much on American directives. It is also a possibility that Benazir Bhutto might have been assassinated by foreign elements for 'deviating' from what she had promised to the international community. On October 26, 2007, hardly a week after her return to Pakistan, the former premier and chief of the PPP had called for a complete restructuring of the ISI.

 

[blain2]

Who has authority?

The PM...but in this case the PM was being undermined as the PM of Pakistan appoints the DG-ISI...they were trying to move that authority under the Interior Ministry..I would say Mr. Zardari was trying to be a bit too smart for his own good.

 

[muse]

The ISI demoted

Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Ahmed Quraishi

It's not democracy's fault. So something has to be wrong with Pakistani politicians. Consider the magnificent blunder of removing an army chief midair and ordering the pilot to land in India. Or – even better – picking Saturday night to neutralize one of the formidable spy agencies of the world, the ISI.

The agency has three enemies: Karzai's puppet regime, the Indians, and some elements in Washington with an acute case of 'Pakistan-phobia'. Why a newly-elected government in Islamabad would choose to identify itself with this company is a mystery, especially when the Pakistani military is completely detached from politics. There are no threats to this elected government from any quarter.

In fact, if the spooks were to conspire against this government, they'd do their best to keep it in power for as long as possible. This current administration is worse than the half dozen governments that paralyzed Pakistan for nine years and led to our first military intervention in 1958. It's worse than the 'lost decade' of 1990s. In fact, this government is a slam-dunk for the camp that wants to do away with the parliamentary system in favour of a strong elected executive.

And why not? This system is fraught with deformities. Never before was Pakistan under the influence of so many unelected officials after an election. If elections were supposed to produce a remote-controlled prime minister, what was so wrong with Mr Shaukat Aziz?

Instead of presenting the ISI's severed head on a platter to US officials, Prime Minister Gilani should have arrived in Washington armed with the secret information that has prompted the Pakistani military leadership to order a joint intelligence probe into the range of contacts that Indian diplomats and intelligence operatives in Afghanistan have developed with sectarian and other terrorists in Hangu, Swat and the tribal belt. And while at it, the prime minister could have asked President Bush to probe the fate of 'Prisoner 650' at Bagram, suspected to be a Pakistani woman allegedly raped, tortured and kept in a cage by US soldiers in a men's facility. Rights activists believe she could be Dr Afia Siddiqui who disappeared from Karachi along with her three underage kids in 2003.

The fact is that this is a government whose principals could not assume power in Islamabad without Washington's help in arranging the infamous law that wiped clean their legal histories. People think this government would be obliged to President Musharraf since he passed that law. But going by the current intrigues, this is not the case. So who is this government siding with anyway?

Last week, this government fired Munir Akram, our UN envoy. This polished diplomat from interior Sindh has been an effective diplomatic cannon for Pakistan at the world body. While no one is indispensable, Akram is shown the door just when Pakistan is supposed to counter this week India's moves to get preferential treatment from the IAEA. The Americans want Pakistan to lay off and not create problems for India on this count. Akram's removal at this time is nothing less than a back-stab.

The other relevant questions are: why is this government keeping Beijing without a Pakistani ambassador for this long? President Hu Jintao of China has already approved the name of a nominated Pakistani ambassador. Why has this government ordered the said ambassador to stay put in Islamabad? Again, who in Washington is advising this government to tilt away from our most important strategic ally? Why is it that patriotic officials influencing foreign policy are anathema to this government? Both Mr Akram and Dr Shireen Mazari were effectively defying some of our overbearing western allies, especially the Americans. Both were tersely removed from office.

None of this, however, justifies changing the government. It justifies changing the system. Or a decade from now, we'll end up with another political quirk. We had a plane hijack ten years ago and a Saturday night ISI demotion this time.

The writer works for Geo TV.
Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com

 

[cactuslily58]

Another U - turn.

Does this show that irrespective of who is in power in Islamabad, most ( read possibly all ) Pak leaders are bad drivers who start the engine and then decide where to go ?

 

[muse]

Sure, that's one way to look it.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Army and the ISI is uber alles.

Any problems?

Democracy is a farce!

 

[Goodperson]

Army and the ISI is uber alles.

Any problems?

Democracy is a farce!

PM needs Zardari badly.

 

[niaz]

Who has authority?

Unfortunately elected Prime Minister has no authority. All the authority is in
the hands of non elected leaders such as Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif.

Let us face the truth. Real boss of the Interior Ministry is Mr Rehman Malik; an unelected Security Advisor who gets the same protocol as the PM. IMO Asif Zardari wanted ISI to report to his henchman Rehman Malik instead of the Prime Minister.

 

[blain2]

Exactly! PPP old guard and Yousuf Raza Gilani should be grateful to Gen Kiyani for stomping on this attempt by that two bit fuedal Zardari to hog up all the powers under his own henchmen.

 

[blain2]

Army and the ISI is uber alles.

Any problems?

Democracy is a farce!

Its not as simple as you are making it out to be. This has nothing to do with democracy nor was it done in a democratic manner. The PM of Pakistan was essentially forced by a non-elected party leader to sign over the former's prerogative of appointing and overlooking the ISI to the latter's man in the Interior ministry.

A move of this nature should have been duly debated in the Parliament to see the pros and cons. What the Army has done has been good for the PM. Maybe its a little bit of a prodding by the Army of Mr. Gillani to grow some "nads" and assert himself better in front of the party leadership.

Any which way one looks at it, the ISI should NOT be moved under the Interior Ministry...those guys are clueless when it comes to understanding what the benefit of the ISI is...if they are worried about internal interference, then by all means they should enact a law clipping some of the internal responsibilities of the ISI.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Any which way one looks at it, the ISI should NOT be moved under the Interior Ministry...those guys are clueless when it comes to understanding what the benefit of the ISI is...if they are worried about internal interference, then by all means they should enact a law clipping some of the internal responsibilities of the ISI.

Completely agree - from what I understand the IB is responsible for domestic intelligence, so moving that organization to the Interior ministry might make sense - but I see no point in having an agency primarily responsible for foreign intelligence reporting to the interior ministry.

The move has been roundly criticized in the editorial and opinion pages of almost every major Pakistani news organization.

One interesting opinion I heard was regarding the establishment of a directorate of intelligence, that would receive relevant input from all IA's and help coordinate policies at the domestic level.

 

[Neo]

Theories abound in Islamabad over ISI fiasco​

Posted July 29th, 2008 by Sahil NagpalIslamabad PakistanIslamabad, July 29: Several reasons are being cited in Islamabad for the sudden U-turn by Pakistan government of putting back the intelligence agency ISI under the purview of the country’s prime minister. But, the ultimate conclusion is that the Pakistan government’s image has received a dent in the fiasco, which was later described as a ‘misunderstanding’ on the part of the federal government, said an editorial in the Daily Times.

According to one theory, the federal government did it on the eve of the prime minister’s visit to Washington to please the Americans who are unhappy with the ISI’s role in Afghanistan.

But, another theory making rounds is that Zardari’s obsession with the ISI’s potential for interference in the politics of the country lay behind the decision to try and tame it. There are also those who think that perhaps Interior Minister Rehman Malik wants greater responsibility for both internal and external security because the two are inextricably linked in the current environment and can’t get this without bringing the IB and ISI under his personal control.

“Whatever the facts, the government has shot itself in the foot. This is no way to go about bringing the ISI under civilian control. The whole issue of the ISI is linked to the larger issue of civil-military power relations and the nature of the national security state that we have built up over the years,” said the editorial.

It added that only a long drawn out and ‘mature transition’ to functional democracy by wise civilian leaders will resolve that issue. Until then, it would be better to refrain from such half-clever measures. (ANI)

Theories abound in Islamabad over ISI fiasco | Top News