Ray

http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/se...004/pol1.htm#8



Hameed Gul

Politics of intelligence

The US, Russia and Britain were the countries who invaded Afghanistan...

But none of these countries ever signed the non-interference treaty. Their troops are now stationed in Afghanistan. So how could they ask us now to exert influence? We are not at all in a position. We have no influence in Afghanistan



By Rubina Jabbar

Former Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt General (retd) Hameed Gul says the national assembly should urgently come up with a legislation to check that no recruitment was made for Iraq. In an interview to Political Economy, he spoke on various issues of national and international politics. Excerpts follow:



PE: Government of Pakistan has accorded its official support to elections in Afghanistan. Would Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan sway the election results?

HG: Pakistan has no influence in Afghanistan following the hands-off policy dictated to it by the US who told it you would have no hands in Afghanistan. On 22 December 2002, six neighboring countries--Iran, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan--entered in a covenant and we signed on a dotted line that we will not interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan. And by doing that we made a mistake. Does anyone of these six countries have any record of ever invading Afghanistan? None of them ever fought war with Afghanistan. But the US, Russia and Britain were the countries who invaded it. America and Russia each launched one invasion while Britain invaded Afghanistan three times in the past. But none of these countries ever signed non-interference treaty. Their troops are now stationed in Afghanistan. So how could they ask us now to exert influence? We are not at all in a position. We have no influence in Afghanistan.



PE: Indian consulates in Afghanistan are accused of launching subversive activities in Balochistan. How much weight do these claims carry?

HG: America put India right in our neighbourhood while Musharraf had been telling us that the Northern Alliance would not be forming government in Kabul and they would leave early. But all these assessments of our president proved wrong in these three years. It's a complex situation. It's not necessarily the case. There are the people because of the 'plunder' culture unleashed there. How much of it is true how and much of it is fiction, I don't know. But the fact is that there have been common stories and then there is the fear among the locals that they might be discriminated. And another point is that democratic dispensation is not fully operative there, which has also been causing problems. Issues are not being discussed with the assembly and whatever discussions made have not been lent a sincere ear. So there are a lot of gaps.

Theoretically, we are a democracy but practically we are not. So there are many such things causing complexities. But, definitely, RAW factor is very much there. I won't say pre-dominant but it is important in Balochistan.

PE: Despite having composite dialogue with India and many other peace initiatives, why does the situation revert back to square one?

HG: Because all this is done under duress and repression. There is no willingness on the other side. They lacked sincerity. India simply told us 'you made an attempt in Kargil and you failed and now what do you want from us.' However, we, on the other hand, let them fence the LoC, accepted the cease-fire and incarcerated Mujahideen disregarding the UN resolutions. India will not listen to you because we miscalculated India. India doesn't take dictations from America for the reasons being so that India is much bigger and they have a self image that 'we are a great power'.

The other reason is that they have the support of the Jewish lobby and American policymaking cannot deviate from Jewish dictation. Another reason is that the US relationship with India is of strategic nature while with us it has always been of convenience. Nothing will come out of the peace rhetoric because India has never compromised on a single issue with us. They are not accepting the issues, while all other issues are peripheral.

PE: Is peace with Pakistan not in the interest of India?

HG: It's in their interest but at their own terms, not on our terms. That we should be sub-ordinate to them, we should accept that we are a smaller power and we accept the pre-eminent position of India. Peace is their requirement because they are a booming economy and their requirements are increasing and they alone cannot meet them. They want a gas and an oil pipeline through Pakistan. On the other hand, they fear that America who through its bases in Pakistan is sitting in their neighbourhood might intrude upon them one day.

Technically speaking, India and America are neighbours, although not physically. It's in the interest of India that America should be out of here but at the same time they do not want to concede the basic concession on Kashmir, not necessarily to Pakistan, but to the people of Kashmir.

PE: What is the solution of the Kashmir issue?

HG: No solution of Kashmir issue is in sight in the near future. It's alive till Jihad continues. For Kashmiris, there is a point of no return. It's a 'now or never' situation for them. They waited for 45 years for India to accept the UN resolutions. Pakistan also put pressure when America happens to be on our side but India did not agree. So now when America is on their side, why would they concede to it?

PE: Young men were recruited for jihad in Afghanistan and now for employment in Iraq. Recruitment agencies have been sending Pakistanis to Iraq without advertising it. What is the role of military agencies in such recruitment?

HG: No, recruitments were never made for Jihad. People came forward for jihad in Afghanistan voluntarily with their own free will when the word went round. The governments, including US and Pakistan, also encouraged people. There were no checks on it, but people came in voluntarily with their own free will and there is no doubt about it. And to call it recruitment is not fair.

PE: But don't you think religious parties prepared people for it?

HG: Jihad is an Islamic injunction and when it was declared in a hapless, poor, wretched country like Afghanistan after it was invaded by a powerful neighbour, who happened to be a superpower and the banner of jihad went up, people had a lure, a pull in it. What is being done in Iraq is something different.

PE: Is recruitment for employment in Iraq in the knowledge of the intelligence agencies?

HG: I think it has been reported. A company named 'Shannal' has been making recruitment in Rawalpindi after charging Rs10,000 each, and it's very much in the notice of all concerned what are they all about. Fake recruitments have been creating problems. What happened with people from Nepal killed in Iraq was that a fake company hired them for Qatar, Kuwait and elsewhere and sent them to Iraq. Therefore, before things moved out of hands we must check this. Americans who paid a marine $20,000 would definitely not mind paying $3,000 a month to a labourer who could also be of good use as gun fodder.

But the question is, should we do that? Learn from the experience of Nepal, India and Turkey and from our own experience. National Assembly should legislate now that there would be no direct or indirect recruitment for Iraq. Otherwise, these people will continue to be used as gun fodder.

PE: The government has been presenting operation in Wana as a success. Has the government achieved its stated objectives in that operation?

HG: First of all, it was quite unnecessary. I think the basic mistake was made when the Shakai Accord was unilaterally abrogated and I believe it was done under pressure. We have to, first of all, see who these people are. It's not enough to say that they were foreigners. Because some of them were born on the Pakistani soil, some of them have been living there according to our law, habiting that area for almost quarter of a century. They were married to Pakistani women and their children grew up there.

And the second point is that what crime has been committed, what law of the land has been broken. Have they committed any crime? It was all done under the US pressure. Americans are pushing us too hard. And I think that a very epic statement was made the other day by Munir Akram, our government representative in UN, when he appealed to them, please don't push Pakistan too hard in this direction. So I think there is a great deal of confusion about the Wana operation. And I understood that it will also settle and I don't think it has been settled yet. It will probably be settled when it's not Bush's election requirement any more, that means by the end of October.

It's simply that they (US) had to say that the operations are going on. The other day, President Bush mentioned glowingly about Pakistan that it was the only area from where he had been getting the good news. Otherwise no good news was coming from Iraq and hardly any good news coming from Afghanistan or any other part of the world for that matter. Pakistan is the only area and that's why it's going on. I think it has a political purpose for America for their domestic politics.

How can be you successful against your own people? Both ways our own people are getting killed on both sides. These people had not at all raised one word against Pakistan, and there is no evidence that they are involved in any thing.

PE: Intelligence agencies, not only in the US and Pakistan but also in India, came under criticism after 9/11 that they need to be overhauled. What are your views on it?

HG: If there was criticism, some heads should have rolled. In fact, no heads have rolled neither in Pakistan nor in America. They (US) have been defending their intelligence agencies. They have been defending them up to the hilt. George Tenet was not made to resign. FBI's Robert Mueller is still very much there. He is still heading it. About overhauling for America, I think there have been many failures and they have not been able to declare the target. 'I want Osama dead or alive' that Bush could quote. And then he says they want Taliban, they want this or that. We know some of these targets only because they say they are big targets. But how do we know what al-Qaeda is. For all you know, its make belief because there is no independent sources from where we can infer that these people are really what they are claiming they are.

Our intelligence agencies are very effective. The world recognises them. Intelligence has different departments. Take the ISI. Political intelligence is its one small function and it's the requirement of the government. I mean the agency is not doing this on its own. The dilemma of intelligence agencies is that their good work goes unreported and failures become public. Providing physical security is not the function of intelligence but the responsibility of the police and the army. Intelligence means providing the information. It is true that of late there have been some failures, which were bound to be because of circumstantial reasons, daunting situations. It's very challenging. Most of the challenges are met and some of the challenges are not met. We have very limited resources.

PE: Should intelligence agencies, in your view, be involved in local politics and governance?

HG: No, they should not. I had written to the Air Martial Zulfiqar Commission set up by Mohtarma (Benazir Bhutto) that please take it away from us. Don't give us this role. But its part of their charter and what can we do for it when the charter assigned this role. And this role was assigned in the charter by the elected prime minister of the time Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1975. This also happened to be the case during Ayub government and even during the British government who involved them in internal politics. But it was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who formalised this role through a proper government notification. If you want intelligence to play this role, give this to the IB and not to the ISI. Its hands are full already. ISI should be rid of this.

PE: Has the government handled Dr Qadeer Khan's nuclear proliferation case properly? Why did the intelligence fail to expose this network and foreign intelligence exposed it?

HG: It's still a very sensitive issue. I think that GoP was probably left with no other choice. There has been some mishandling, but I think the way international pressure was being exerted there was a need to contain it. There has been no basic mistake made but the way it has been delayed could invite some comments. But it's a very sensitive issue so we better bypass it. The whole world is against Pakistan's nuclear programme.

PE: Regarding Zia's assassination, people say you knew a lot about it...

HG: I have written in the articles and spoken on many occasions that America did this. I also narrated all these accounts in a detailed article published on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of this incident. It's all public now.

PE: Would President Musharraf keep the promise and doff the uniform?

HG: It's a constitutional requirement. My own hunch is that he will keep the promise of bifurcating the two offices--President and Chief of the Army Staff (COAS). So he probably will appoint a COAS. This is my guess. But how much power will still be left with the Services Headquarter, one doesn't know. I think it's a big question mark.

PE: Do you think General Mushrraf's political engineering would save him from the end met by Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq?

HG: I do pray that he doesn't meet the same fate. But how could we expect different results when you do the same thing, which produced so many times the same results. So how could you expect different result will emerge from this situation?

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Jay

whoa, so much bitterness when questioned about Mushraff. Unbelievable

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

Asim Aquil

There is no doubt was a smart ISI chief. ISI's vast influences that exist today, their bases were laid by Gul. But he IMO sides with the Mullah's. He's got this Islamic ideology for Pakistan and not a secular one, like Musharraf. He see's America as someone who'd betray Pakistan in the long run. Musharraf believes in engaging America, to make things work with them.

Two very different people. But I don't view Gul as a bad guy, just with different opinions from mine.

Jay

But I do heard/read that most people in Pakistan does view US like that. So how can you say that Gul has an Islamic agenda?

Ray

Dar ul Islam to be precise.

Aryan

Hameed Gul is a traitor who turned a respected international intelligence organisation into a third world pan-islamic terrorist group.

visioninthedark

This is how; please read the views of "most people" of Pakistan;

What Needs To Be Done To Make Pakistan A Haven Of, peace and security?

__________________

Please visit http://www.visiongwadar.com/platinum/index.html