A series of massive intelligence failure

ISLAMABAD: The recent attack on the Karachi airport has raised serious question on the role and capabilities of intelligence agencies as the militants have ruthlessly struck at sensitive defence installations and killed some high profile people in recent years but no comprehensive national security plan has been chalked out as yet.

The last few years have seen unending violent incidents, which claimed not only thousands of civilian lives but included several attacks on some high profile individuals as well as sensitive places in the country, including the attack on the GHQ, naval bases, airbases, airports and intelligence agencies’ regional headquarters.

The attacks on high profile individuals included two unsuccessful attacks on former president Pervez Musharraf, former premier Benazir Bhutto, former Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, Lt Gen Mushtaq Baig, Major Gen (retd) Ameer Faisal Alavi, former head of the SSG, Maj Gen Sanaullah Niazi, Federal Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, Commandant Frontier Constabulary (FC) Sifwat Ghayur and many others.

The recent attack on the Karachi airport killing at least 28 people, including 10 terrorists, has once again raised question marks as who would protect and guard the strategic and sensitive installations. If we have a look at the timeline of attacks on some sensitive installations, then this presents a clear picture of our intelligence failure.

Similarly, at least 15 people, including 10 militants, were killed at the Bacha Khan International Airport on December 15, 2012 due to which the airport was shut down for 18 hours.

During the recent years, one of the major attacks by terrorists occurred on the Minhas Airbase, Kamra, on August 16, 2012. Then on May 22, 2011, the terrorists attacked the Pakistan Naval Base, Mehran, killing at least 17 people including security personnel. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan while claiming responsibility termed the attack revenge for the May 2011 US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.

On March 12, 2010, two suicide bomb attacks in Lahore Cantonment area killed at least 45 people. While breaching the security of Pakistan’s most sensitive area i.e the General Headquarters (GHQ), at least 10 terrorists dressed in army uniforms attacked the GHQ in Rawalpindi on October 10, 2009. The TTP claimed responsibility for this attack too.

Similarly, at least 10 police recruits and a civilian were killed when terrorists attacked the Manawan Police Training School in Lahore on March 30, 2009.On December 4, 2008, at least 40 people were killed when terrorists attacked the Askari Mosque in Rawalpindi Cantonment. Besides 17 children, a major general was also among those killed.

The terrorists attacked Pakistan Army’s Surgeon General Lt Gen Mushtaq Baig near the Army Headquarters in Rawalpindi on February 25, 2008.On August 21, 2008, over 70 people were killed when two suicide bombers blew themselves up at the gate of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) in Wah Cantonment.

On December 27, 2007, the two-time prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a shooting and suicide bombing in Rawalpindi’s Liaquat Bagh, killing up to 20 others and injuring many more.

Similarly, a suicide bomber struck a police checkpoint in the high security zone of Rawalpindi, less than a kilometre from President Gen Musharraf’s Camp Office, on October 30, 2007, killing seven people. The blast also destroyed the check post of Gen Tariq Majid’s residence. General Tariq was then serving as the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee.

The list of attacks is long. However, each time the terrorists while breaching layers of security succeeded to target key and sensitive installations, it raised many questions not only in the minds of the people of Pakistan but even the international community expressed its concerns over such terrorism incidents.

US military intelligence chief stepping down

WASHINGTON: The head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency and his deputy will step down later this year, officials said Wednesday, but denied reports they were being forced out.

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who had served as director of the DIA since July 2012, and deputy David Shedd, said in a joint memo to employees that "they will depart the agency and retire by early Fall 2014," according to an agency statement.

Their "retirements have been planned for some time," said Pentagon press secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby in an email.

Flynn played a key role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, serving under General Stanley McChrystal as part of US efforts to dismantle insurgent networks through raids by special operations forces.

But The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, said Flynn was being pushed out of office after disagreements with other senior figures, including Michael Vickers, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and a former CIA officer.

The DIA is undergoing dramatic changes under a plan to deploy more spies in the field, and Flynn´s efforts to speed up the transformation proved "disruptive," according to his critics, the Post reported.

US defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, rejected the report and said Flynn and Shedd both had planned to retire for a number of months.

The intelligence agency´s statement said the pair had led a "transformation" that "helped reshape DIA culture," allowing "the agency to nimbly respond to recent crises without having to create special task forces or move people.

"Flynn´s successor has not been announced but the Post said it would likely be Lieutenant General Mary Legere, who would be the first female officer to lead the agency if nominated and confirmed by lawmakers.

Osama commission’s call for intelligence reforms ignored

 

ISLAMABAD: The debate on bringing the intelligence agencies under legal oversight has not popped up suddenly after the attack on Hamid Mir, as even the Abbottabad Commission represented by an army general had also made strong calls for intelligence reforms.
However, like all other reports, the government and intelligence agencies did not pay any heed to the recommendations of the commission and, as a result, the gulf between the ordinary people and intelligence agencies is widening.

The Abbottabad Commission, constituted by the Supreme Court after the killing of Osama bin Laden in a covert CIA operation, had called for comprehensive reforms to improve the working of intelligence community, both in terms of effectiveness and respecting human rights and the rule of law.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Javaid Iqbal headed the commission while its members included Lieutenant-General (retired) Nadeem Ahmad, former Pakistani envoy Ashraf Kazi, civil servant Nargis Sethi and former Inspector-General of KP Police Abbas Khan.

While criticising the intelligence agencies for failing to detect OBL in the country for nine years, the commission said: “There is an urgent need for the scrutiny of the power and mandate of security agencies, the laws under which they are supposed to work, the nature of oversight and accountability mechanism.”

The commission also stressed that intelligence agencies must not overstep their mandate. “Unless this happens, relations between the intelligence community and the people will remain adversarial and counter-productive. Instead of Pakistan making the transition from a dysfunctional security state to a functioning development state it will run the risk of becoming further degraded to an intelligence and police state.”

The report pointed out that in the absence of proper accountability procedures, the intelligence agencies, including ISI, have lost competence. “The problem was apparent: none among the intelligence community, including the premier intelligence organisation, which is ISI, has ever been subjected to proper accountability procedures. It is a law of nature that under such circumstances, institutions degenerate and progressively lose competence. This has happened in Pakistan.”

Urging the political leadership to reform intelligence agencies through proper accountability, the commission endorsed the views of a Pakistan human rights activist who said: “Unless there is political initiative in this regard no technical, administrative procedure or other reforms of the military/intelligence system can happen.

“There are a number of reports that have been written, including Air Marshal (Retd) Zulfikar Ali Khan’s report and recommendations to redesign our intelligence system and make it more effective. The commission therefore recommends that these reports be studied,” the report said.

The attack on Hamid Mir and the allegations on the ISI by his family have once again brought the issue of intelligence reforms under public spotlight but the chances of any outcome in this regard are still very slim.

According to a report on international legislation on intelligence oversight, Pakistan is one of the few democracies in the world with no mechanism of parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies.

The report titled “Making Intelligence Accountable: Legal Standards and Best Practices for Oversight of Intelligence Agencies,” states that even countries which were previously governed by military rule under authoritarian regimes have carried out intelligence reforms, a study of legislation indicates.

Pakistan has no law to govern intelligence agencies: Umar Cheema

 

ISLAMABAD: ‘The News’ investigative journalist Umer Cheema has said that no intelligence agency in Pakistan, including the ISI, MI and IB, had any law to govern their working.
Talking to Kamran Khan in ‘Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Sath’ show on Tuesday, Cheema said these intelligence agencies worked under the standard operating procedure due to which their work carried no legal value.

He said the Saleem Shahzad Commission report had also talked about intelligence reforms. He said even Bosnia had a law to govern the working of intelligence agencies.

He said a number of Central Asia states, which broke away from Russia, had suffered a lot at the hands of intelligence agencies and the first thing these states did after independence was that they introduced reforms for their intelligence agencies.

He said when Dr. Shoaib Suddle was DG Intelligence Bureau, he had made a law to govern the working of the agency but he was removed before he could present it to the government for presentation in Parliament.

He said the good omen for a county was that its rulers learn a lesson from their mistakes but unfortunately here in Pakistan we commit mistakes and repeat them. He said not even a single example existed in the United States where its premier intelligence agency CIA had ever kidnapped, attacked or killed a journalist.

Cheema mentioned the case of American computer professional and former employee of the CIA Edward Joseph Snowden. He said when Snowden was in the US he was not afraid of being abducted by the CIA and killed and dumped on the roadside rather he feared the US law.

He said one could imagine the consequences if someone in Pakistan had blown the whistle on the Inter-Services Intelligence or Military Intelligence (MI).Agreeing to Kamran Khan, Cheema said the CIA faced the allegation of killing President John F. Kennedy but there was not as much fuss and hue and cry from the intelligence agency against the accusation as was being witnessed in Pakistan these days.

He said a murder attempt had been made on senior journalist Hamid Mir and the channel pointed a finger at the ISI director general in the light of the attacked journalist’s statement that if something terrible happened to his life then the responsibility would lie with the agency. He said it was just an allegation but the security institutions were not ready to face it.

To a question, Cheema said that he was attacked in September 2010 after which he talked of ‘intelligence reforms’ and wrote many articles about it. “I did not talk of revenge and wanted to become part of the solution. Let’s find a solution to this problem. I also put blame on the ISI for beating me up. This should not happen to anyone,” Cheema said.

He further said, “Year 2014 has come. Mistakes can be made by anybody. Being a patriotic Pakistani, I think of the future of this country and am perturbed by it. We invest confidence over others but not in the Parliament. Whenever we see corruption, we expose it.”

To a question by Kamran Khan, Umer Cheema said that the ongoing talk on Geo was not of a single institution but of one personality. “We respect the ISI chief, but Hamid Mir is no lesser in status. He is a star anchor and has been attacked. He feels unsafe in his own country. He is afraid of those who are to save him, which for me as a Pakistani, is a shame,” he said, adding that a “Gentleman Agreement” was essential, and if not so, there should be legal limits for all.

To another question, Cheema said that the procedure for overall coverage should be changed. “Either we should not have aired the bakery-affair of Sharif family, or we should not have aired the picture of General Pasha with reference to Raymond Davis case? Moreover we should not have telecast the picture of DG IB when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated? Law should be equal for all,” he said.

Umar Cheema added that Hamid Mir had come to many people before this incident took place, and whatever he discussed was aired. He noted that the news with reference to ISI chief was aired and it is essential to present the picture of the person in question, which is a new phenomenon of electronic media. He further said that we were not mentally prepared for this new phenomenon in electronic media which had led to prejudice or obscurity. He said that when clarification came from DG ISPR, no one objected upon the airing of the picture of the DG. “Neither ISPR, nor ISI complained for telecasting his picture,” he clarified.

Responding to another query, journalist Umer Cheema said that back in 2010, his case was highlighted by the then opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar. “At that time Mian Nawaz Sharif also said that the ISI was involved in the case of Umer Cheema,” he said. Moreover, he said that at a certain stage, Chaudhry Nisar also demanded for the resignation of General Pasha, which led Cheema to question if law was not applicable in this case.

In response to a query, Cheema said that Chaudhry Nisar should clarify whether he was wrong then or right.In reply to a question, Umer Cheema said that the government’s spokesman Pervaiz Rashid had said many things between the lines. He said that those groups, who talked with arguments, were standing together with the government and civil society. He said that this statement was different from that of Chaudhry Nisar. “Perhaps the office of Chaudhry Sahib has some requirements, or he is playing the role of a fire fighter which he wants to retain,” Cheema said.

To a query, Cheema said that we knew only to rule over the ignorant. “We talk of only those things which the people want to listen to. If we turned to a different talk, they will call you a ‘traitor’. There is a dearth of media’s overall training. We should also enforce relevant code of conduct,” he added.

Umar Cheema, responding to a question, said that his opinion was not necessarily the prefect one. He added that everyone had his own opinion about a thing or two. He noted that if it could be highlighted that someone was being blamed then also Hamid Mir was not an ordinary man; he held a respectable status in journalism, and if his family said that they had his recorded statement, this was a newsworthy thing. However, he said that some people might not conform to this opinion, but he opined that a meeting should be held to decide whether or not this opinion be revisited, as there is always a room for improvement.

Speaking on the show, Editor Investigations ‘The News’ Ansar Abbasi, to a question Kamran Khan about his demand that the ISI chief should step down after the attack on Hamid Mir, said he had said that it was a serious allegation raised by Hamid Mir and his brother Amir Mir pointing a finger at the DG ISI. He said this allegation caused bashing of the institution and he thought that institution should be protected as individuals do not matter.

He said if he were in place of the DG ISI, he would have stepped down so that allegation is not made on the ISI and the institution is not bashed worldwide. He said many people including Mir’s brother shared his opinion.

Asked why he did not advocate going to court to prove the allegations, Abbasi said this matter is not about allegations and indictment. He said he is talking about respect of the institution as the whole world is bashing the ISI now. He said if the allegations are proved, it will be a matter of shame for the country. He said he wants to protect the ISI from bashing.

Kamran Khan pointed out that allegations were also levelled against Nawaz Shaif and Iftikhar Chaudhry but none of them left the office.Abbasi said what he had said was his opinion and not that of Geo TV. He said if his opinion is in violation of the Constitution, it should be taken to the court of law.

Kamran Khan again pointed to Arslan Iftikhar case and the fact that they did not at that time demanded that Iftikhar Chaudhry should leave office.Abbasi said Malik Riaz had told him that he had evidence against Arslan but he did not have any evidence against the then chief justice. He questioned if a son did something wrong, should the father be punished?

He said Hamid Mir is not an ordinary person. He said Hamid Mir had shared these allegations with many persons, so what should we do now? He said wrongly or rightly, Mir had shared his apprehensions with top management of Geo TV.

He said things should not be twisted. He repeated that DG ISI is not more important as an individual than the institution. He said he thinks that if you remove the DG, you save the institution of the ISI. He said it is his viewpoint which can be rejected.

He explained that this is not the opinion of his organisation. He said he often speaks against his organisation so when he is doing so, how can it be opinion of his organisation.

Kamran Khan questioned how things will be settled when the Defence Ministry has accessed the Pemra against Geo TV, and the Interior Ministry also disliked the coverage.

Ansar Abbasi said there should be a fair deal as he is a man of rule of law. He said he only called for a fair deal but his comments were stretched beyond limits. He said, “Leave me. I am a traitor. Every body in Jang Group is a ‘traitor’. We all should be given medals for being traitor.”

He said those levelling allegations against them should monitor their activities. He said totally free media is a dangerous thing. He said had Pemra been doing right things, it should have called Geo TV to restrict if any red line was being crossed. He said Pemra has asked the media to show restrain at the time of Chehlum tragedy in Rawalpindi because there was a risk of violence in the country.

He said why Pemra and the government were sleeping at the time of transmission of Hamid Mir attack. He questioned why Pemra did not make a phone call to mention that Hamid Mir’s allegations are wrong and these pictures should not be aired on the media. He said he has objections to the working of Pemra which took no notice of abuse of the former chief justice, adding that the government and the Pemra should regulate themselves.

Kamran Khan questioned how should they defend themselves at a time when the ministries of interior and defence are levelling serious allegations against them?

Ansar Abbasi said Pemra is the body to deal with media legally and the ministers criticising the media are not in apposition to do so. He said Pemra should hear the ministries. He said justice should done with them (media) and the Ministry of Defence. He said if an assurance for such a justice is made, then they should fully submit to the law. He said they could go to the independent judiciary in case of any injustice.

Abbasi said there should be no conflict between military and civil government portraying his or others’ statements on Geo TV. He said some channels are stocking fire. He said he heard at a channel that the prime minister is siding with Geo TV but the interior minister and some other people are on the other side.

Ansar Abbasi has said that a divide is being created because of them but for them, national interest is supreme. He said they would never want that a dark environment is created because of them in the country. He said they should submit to the law as they believe in institutions. He said those who oppose should put up all their complaints to Pemra. He added fire is being stocked by wrong interpretations of their statements and these issues should be brought before the institutions concerned

Sharif risks straining ties with military, warns US intelligence report

WASHINGTON: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif may strain his relations with the new army chief if he continues to expand his policy-making powers, warns a US intelligence report.

The report, presented before the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday, notes that Mr Sharif is seeking to “acquire a more central policy-making role” for civilians in areas that the Army has traditionally dominated.
“His push for an increased role in foreign policy and national security will probably test his relationship with the new Chief of Army Staff, particularly if the Army believes that the civilian government’s position impinges on Army interests” the report warns.
But it also notes that the prime minister has publically stated that the Army and the civilian government are “on the same page.”
The annual report is an assessment of the threats the United States may have to deal with in 2014 and is compiled jointly by all US intelligence agencies.
Pakistan figures prominently in a chapter on South Asia, which predicts that Prime Minister Sharif’s primary focus in 2014 will be on improving the economy, including the energy sector, and countering security threats.
The report says that Mr Sharif probably won the May 2013 election primarily because the previous government failed to improve either the economy or the generation of electricity.
It also notes that in September 2013, Islamabad secured an IMF program and met the conditions for fiscal and energy reforms under its three-year, $6.7 billion Extended Fund Facility. This paved the way for a second disbursement of $550 million in December.
But the report warns that “continued use of scarce foreign exchange reserves by the State Bank of Pakistan, to prop up the Pakistani rupee might make future disbursements difficult.”
The US intelligence community informs the Senate that Pakistan wants good relations with the United States “but cooperation with Washington will continue to be vulnerable to strains, particularly due to Pakistani sensitivities toward perceived violations of sovereignty.”
It notes that Prime Minister Sharif entered office seeking to establish good relations with the United States, especially in areas that support his primary domestic focus of improving the economy.
Mr Sharif and his advisers were pleased with his late October 2013 visit to Washington. Pakistan was eager to restart a “strategic dialogue’ and its offices and press have touted results of the initial meetings of several of the five workings that comprise the dialogue.
The report notes that Mr Sharif also seeks rapprochement with New Delhi in part in anticipation of increased trade, which would be beneficial to Pakistan’s economic growth. Mr Sharif will probably move cautiously to improve relations, however, and India also will probably not take any bold steps, particularly not before the Indian elections in Spring 2014.
The two other South Asian nations that drew the attention of the US intelligence community are Afghanistan and India.
Afghanistan
The report notes that the status of the Bilateral Security Arrangement remains unresolved despite its endorsement but the Afghan leaders during the mid-November 2013 Loya Jirga. Regardless of the status of the BSA, the bilateral relationship still might be strained if Afghan officials believe that US commitments to Afghanistan fall short of their expectations.
The IMF estimated that Afghanistan’s GDP growth rate fell from 12 per cent in 2012 to 3.1 per cent in 2013. It forecasts four to eight per cent growth in2014 and beyond, largely because of reduced ISAF expectations.
Afghan elections in 2014 will be an important step in the country’s democratic development. President Hamid Karzai has stated that he will step down after the election; eleven candidates are currently competing to succeed him.
The Taliban, confident in its ability to outlast ISAF and committed to returning to power, will challenge government control over some of the Pashtun countryside, especially in the South and East. The Taliban senior leadership will maintain a structured and resilient leadership system. The Afghan National Security Forces, however, will probably maintain control of most major cities as long as external financial support continues.
India
The report on India includes an assessment of New Delhi’s desire to improve relations with Pakistan. It says that India shares US objectives for a stable and democratic Pakistan that can encourage trade and economic integration between South and Central Asia. We judge that India and Pakistan will seek modest progress in minimally controversial areas, such as trade, while probably deferring serious discussion on territorial disagreements and terrorism.
India will continue to cooperate with the United States on the future of Afghanistan following the drawdown of international forces. India also shares concerns about the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, seeing it as a long-term security threat and source of regional instability.
India and China have attempted to reduce long-standing border tensions through confidence-building measures, such as holding the first bilateral military exercise in five years in November 2013 and signing a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to China in October 2013.
However, mutual suspicions will likely persist.
In this election year in particular, coalition politics and institutional challenges will remain the primary drivers of India’s economy and foreign policy decision making.
Any future government installed after the 2014 election will probably have a positive view of the United States, but future legislation or policy changes that are consistent with US interests in not assured.
Coalition politics will almost certainly dominate Indian governance. Since the 1984 national elections, no party has won a clear majority in the lower house of Parliament.
We judge that this trend will continue with the 2014 elections, and the proliferation of political parties will further complicate political consensus building.
In 2014, India will probably attain a 5 percent average annual growth rate, significantly less than the 8 percent growth that it achieved from 2005 to 2012 and that is needed to achieve its policy goals.