Why this anti-ISI propaganda?

BOTH the Foreign Office spokesman and the ISPR chief have rubbished the NYT report that accuses the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of masterminding the July-7 bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul - with promptness and anger that this half-baked ‘scoop’ probably did not deserve. Given western media’s biased coverage of Pakistan’s national attributes, ranging from its ideological basis to its nuclear status, the NYT report is nothing but an ante to keep Islamabad in line in matters that essentially promote its rivals’ objectives. Such subversive accounts always pop up if Pakistan is seen to be making diplomatic gains in relations with other . But, sometimes, they shifting the focus from the real to the mirage. Not unexpectedly, therefore, at the time the ISI is being pilloried by the US media, Pakistan’s so-called partners in the ‘war on terror’ are falling over each other in the rush to sanctify the illegal and immoral co-operation India is going to get from the Western countries in the name of helping its civilian nuclear programme. Who doesn’t know it is being done in clear violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Perhaps, there is also this rising criticism of the US-led coalition forces’ failure to control and snuff out the Taliban militancy in Afghanistan, for which the ISI has been found as a scapegoat. To insist that Pakistan is an unwilling partner in the war on terror is too naïve an assertion to sell in Pakistan. If Islamabad had decided not to be a partner it could well do it. After all, Pakistan had turned down American pleadings to send forces to Iraq; signed up the gas pipeline project with Iran despite Washington’s loud protestations; and rejected President Clinton’s intense pressure not to conduct the tit-for-tat nuclear tests. The fact is that the 9/11 attacks in American causing huge loss of innocent lives had saddened every Pakistani. Such an act of wanton mayhem generated deep revulsion among the people here who had lost whatever sympathy they had for the al Qaeda and their supporters. This is also a fact that the Mullah Omar regime in Afghanistan did not have very comfortable relations with the Pakistan government as both nurtured mutual suspicions.
That Pakistan lost over a thousand soldiers in its battles with the Taliban in the tribal areas and suffered a series of suicide-bombing attacks should be blown off the palm just because of an ambiguous conversation on phone, it is not acceptable. Very conveniently, anonymous sources leak information to newspapers suspecting the sincerity of an ally who has paid more in terms of damage to its internal security, economic setbacks, and military and civilian losses than all the US-led coalition partners put together. The fact is there is no conclusive proof of the ISI’s alleged involvement in the Indian embassy blast. If Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies are bent upon maligning Pakistan, that is an old game. It is time that the newly elected coalition government should conduct a comprehensive review of its policy to continue to be a thankless ally of the West in Afghanistan. If in seven years the world’s greatest military alliance, Nato, has not been able to secure even the capital city of Afghanistan, then it is definitely not a handful of terrorists they are fighting against. The fact is that the US-led coalition is pitted against a whole nation who has a history of standing up to the invaders and never surrendering. If the coalition governments think they want to improve the quality of life of Afghans, who supposedly suffered oppression of medieval times under the Taliban government, then why nothing is being done to rescue them from their biggest bane - the scourge of opium production. If the mission was to establish democracy in Afghanistan then is it the one under Karazi and his warlords that the coalition had envisaged? There was this great realist American, Alan Greenspan, who in his life-long distilled wisdom found “For Oil” as the only motivation behind the US invasion of Iraq. One would not be widely of the mark to say that in Afghanistan it’s not the Taliban but the need for a “central base” to control fossil fuels of Central Asia that has brought there the Nato forces. The review suggested above should look into the emerging reality of the situation particularly the growing Indian political and diplomatic presence in Afghanistan and then, if warranted, reframe its response irrespective of what the NYT writes. Like all intelligence agencies the ISI forms Pakistan’s first line of defence. The knowledge that attempts are being made to break it up does remind us of the impending dangers to our national survival.

Shifting sands

SLOWLY and quietly one of the greatest shifts in economic power is taking place as GCC countries accumulate extraordinary financial reserves from record oil revenues. The impact on global commerce could not be more profound — and fraught with difficulties. This is translating into an investment armoury the GCC is using to acquire stakes in some of the world’s most well known companies and financial institutions. Just as well — recent investment in financial groups such as Citigroup and Merrill Lynch probably prevented a much more catastrophic subprime fallout and amounted to a bail out by any other name. According to a recent estimate by Professor Robert J. Shiller, professor of economics at Yale University, there is as much as $100 trillion of oil in the ground, meaning that state investment or sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) are likely to become very large indeed. Yesterday’s news that GCC’s foreign assets will reach $3.5 trillion by 2010 demonstrates the pace with which Gulf economies are diversifying oil income. Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) alone is planning to as much as triple investment in Japan to $48 billion according to the finance minister.
Given the strategic nature of these investments it is likely there will increased calls for SWFs to clarify their investment intent. The GCC has frequently stated investments will be passive and long-term in nature. However this may not be enough to allay some concerns regarding national interest by recipient governments. Track back to DP World having to relinquish ownership of P&O’s US assets just over two years ago as a recent example. The GCC is home to some of the world’s largest SWFs including ADIA (Abu Dhabi Investment Authority) and KIA. In order to address worries the GCC in particular would be well served in considering a transparent set of guidelines. The EU, with Germany very much the driving force is already considering a regulatory code that may curtail investment by SWFs. As with most things in life anticipating and addressing the concerns of others usually makes for a positive outcome.

—Khaleej Times