http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\04\29\story_29-4-2011_pg3
_1
<http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C04%5C29%5Cstory_29-4-2
011_pg3_1>  

EDITORIAL: ISI in the crossfire

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has felt compelled to bat repeatedly in
defence of the ISI in recent days. On Wednesday, he had to mount his third
defence of the premier intelligence agency in the National Assembly in
response to Leader of the Opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali's continued
hammering of the issue. The redoubtable Chaudhry has kept up his tirade over
the last few days against the government for its alleged apathy on several
issues, in particular the ISI, drone attacks and the Raymond Davis affair.
Chaudhry Nisar demanded answers why the ISI chief's recent visit to
Washington was cut short to one day instead of the scheduled three, and
whether this had contributed to the recent low ebb in ISI-CIA relations and
the refusal by the CIA to halt drone attacks. The opposition leader claimed
he had substantial evidence regarding the Davis case and who had facilitated
his release. Stating that he was ready to share the evidence, he qualified
it by saying he would not share it with the government but with the house,
either in open session or in-camera. He ended by asking the government to
summon officials of the country's intelligence agencies in a session of
parliament and ask them to clear their position in the Davis issue.

The prime minister, for the third time in as many days, reiterated his by
now well known tune. He asserted that the ISI was under the control of the
government, reports to the government, does nothing without the government's
knowledge or against the national interest, and has never ventured into any
'project' without proper governmental authorisation. In other words, and in
short, the ISI was under the government's instructions. The prime minister
repeated these arguments in a public rally near Islamabad the same day. On
the Davis affair, the prime minister stated in the house the usual argument
about the case having been decided by an independent court, with no role
played by the federal or provincial government.

After this ringing endorsement, lest we are lulled into a soporific
confidence in everything being under the government's total control,
including the ISI, it may be useful to contemplate that in our history,
rightly or wrongly, the ISI has acquired an unenviable reputation for
straying beyond its mandate. Not only does this charge hinge on what critics
allege is the ISI's manipulation of national politics in the interests of
the military establishment's (permanent) agenda, the ISI has also figured
centre-stage whenever the question of Afghanistan or domestic terrorism
comes up. It may be argued that not all this notoriety is deserved, but the
fact remains that inside the country, the region, and the world at large,
the ISI has become too prominent for an intelligence agency expected to
operate 'quietly'. A parallel example may be culled from US history in the
last gasps of the twentieth century, when the infamous CIA lost its sheen
and was finally shackled by new oversight procedures to avoid illegal
activities. We in Pakistan may not be at the stage of the kind of 'glasnost
and perestroika' that struck the CIA in the post-Vietnam war period, but it
would arguably be in the best interests of all state stakeholders to put
their heads together and refigure, if not curtail, the ISI's political role
(acquired incrementally since Zulfikar Ali Bhutto set up the first political
cell in the ISI in the 1970s) and return it to its original mandate: an
internal services intelligence arm organised on highly professional lines
and freed of the burden and accompanying calumny of being accused of
interference in politics, internal and international. *

SECOND EDITORIAL: Trading off

The fact that the India-Pakistan dialogue has resurfaced on a strong footing
after the uncertainty of the recent past is a comforting development. Now
that the secretaries of commerce from both countries have met in Islamabad,
it is hoped that the only way to go for mutually beneficial economic and
trade progress is up.

These first trade talks since 2008 have the potential of introducing a new
era of liberalisation of trade between the two countries, boosting trade to
a potential $ 6.5 billion from its present level of just above $ 1.5
billion. The two sides have agreed to open up branches of private banks in
each other's countries, resurrect the goods train agreement whereby a
specific number of freight trains from and to both countries would be run,
increase business visas, open more trade routes besides the one at Wagah -
where a feeble amount of trade occurs via the age-old system of coolies -
and promote intra-Kashmir trade through the Line of Control. However, the
most promising development at this meeting was the reiteration by both
delegations that non-tariff barriers ought to be removed to make such
bilateral cooperation successful. 

Non-tariff barriers are usually non-economic political in origin, unlike
tariff barriers such as duties, etc. One major non-tariff barrier has been
the unwillingness of Pakistan to reciprocate India's Most Favoured Nation
(MFN) status, accorded to Pakistan by India since 1994. Pakistan has been
holding back for political reasons such as the Kashmir issue, amongst
others. However, the dynamics of quid pro quo seem to be at work here as
Islamabad has asked India to halt its opposition to Pakistan gaining
increased access to the EU's markets in discussions at the WTO. Apart from
enhanced trade, investment, whether as joint ventures or opening up to each
other's entrepreneurs, needs to be encouraged to mutual benefit. But for
that, trust must be strengthened between these two sometimes caustic
neighbours. 

Politics has been restricting trade for too long. No matter what the
different lobbies in Pakistan say, from holding back on Kashmir to the fear
of Indian goods swamping our markets, trade needs to be strengthened and
mutual economic opportunities explored. It is hoped these talks will lead to
all this and more. *

 
<http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C04%5C29%5Cstory_29-4-2
011_pg3_1> 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to