Jamaat-e-Islami leader Syed Munawwar Hasan addresses a February 25 anti-U.S. protest in Lahore against the likely release of Raymond Davis (Image courtesy: Roznama Ummat, February 26, 2011)
Several Pakistani writers have questioned the CIA's role in Pakistan in the wake of the arrest of Raymond Davis, who is now reported to be a CIA contractor working for the U.S. Consulate in Lahore. Davis was arrested following the killing of two Pakistani nationals in a shootout in Lahore, the capital of Punjab province. The government of Punjab is seeking his interrogation by Pakistani intelligence agencies rather than by provincial police.
Following the arrest of Raymond Davis, the relations between the two intelligences agencies – the CIA and the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – have deteriorated rapidly. Western media reports have indicated that the ISI has demanded that the CIA disclose all data regarding its operations in Pakistan, while Pakistani religious groups and political parties have called for the death penalty for Davis.
In an article titled "The CIA, the ISI and 'Desi Liberals," Pakistani author and former Citigroup executive Yousuf Nazar questioned the CIA's operations in Pakistan, also noting however that the CIA could not have placed its operatives inside Pakistan without the consent of the ISI. Nazar also accused 'desi liberals' – i.e. local/indigenous liberals – of becoming defenders of the CIA's 'biggest' operations in Pakistan in their zeal to fight Islamic extremism.
In another article, titled "America's Mala Fide Intent?" Pakistani politician and strategic affairs commentator Dr. Shireen Mazari questioned the "U.S. agenda" in Pakistan and called for Davis to be tried for espionage in view of new evidence that he is a CIA operative.
However, political commentator, Ayesha Ijaz Khan, who writes from London, wrote against the "dangerous proportions" of anti-Americanism in Pakistan and wondered whether it could actually lead to the resolution of Pakistan's problems. In an article titled "Hating America: Who Pays the Price," She noted: "The public in urban centers is being rallied, orchestrated by design, to use America as a scapegoat for all our ills. America looks out for its own interests and these may, or may not, align with Pakistan's interests – but to think that suddenly, upon 'standing up to America,' our problems will be solved, or even begin to be solved, is utterly misleading."
Following are excerpts from Yousuf Nazar's article "The CIA, the ISI and 'Desi Liberals,"[1] from Dr. Shireen Mazari's article "America's Mala Fide Intent?" [2] and from Ayesha Ijaz Khan's article "Hating America: Who Pays the Price."[3]
Nazar: "It is Critically More Important to Find Out What Hundreds of CIA Agents… Are Doing in Pakistan"
"The most important fact to come out in the open is not that Raymond Davis is a CIA contractor, but that it is beyond any doubt that he was a covert operations person, as has now been officially acknowledged by the U.S. It has astonished me that so many of our 'desi liberals' have been defending him, and focusing just on the academic question of immunity or the possibility that the ISI might be exploiting this.
"It is critically more important to find out what hundreds of CIA agents… are doing in Pakistan, and why they were provided cover by an embassy whose facilities are being upgraded by a massive spending program exceeding one billion dollars, according to official U.S. documents.
"We are being told that the ISI was not even aware that Raymond Davis was a CIA agent. According to The New York Times, the ISI has demanded an accounting by the CIA of all its contractors working in Pakistan. Does all this represent a major turf battle between the ISI and the CIA, in which Raymond Davis happens to be a pawn? Or is it that the military establishment was so embarrassed by WikiLeaks, revealing its close ties with America, that it decided to use this incident to prove to the Pakistani public that it is not them but the politicians who are American puppets?
"The ISI was most certainly aware of the drone attacks and indeed gave permission to the CIA to conduct them as I had documented in my article 'Whither Sovereignty?' (The News, September 14, 2008). Permission was given by General Musharraf in January 2008 – months before the PPP [Pakistan People's Party] came into power. As far back as September 2008, the Los Angeles Times had reported that Pakistan's military leadership had agreed to receive U.S. military 'advisers.' It is no longer a secret that some, if not all, drone attacks were launched from an airstrip near Quetta. Was the ISI also not aware of this?"
"[Pakistani] 'Liberals' Would Do Well to Reflect Upon the Perception That In Their Zeal to Fight Extremism, They Have By Default, Intent or Design Become Defenders Of the… Biggest CIA 'Covert' Operation in the History of Pakistan"
SUPPORT OUR WORK
"Many 'desi liberals' had dismissed earlier reports of the presence of hundreds of CIA operatives as right-wing conspiracy theories. But now U.S. officials have confirmed this to papers like the Washington Post. Moreover, they have acknowledged that Raymond Davis was a CIA agent, that he did work for Xe (formerly Blackwater), that he did live in a private home in Lahore, and was so important that the CIA specifically requested the American media to not disclose his association with the agency and his background. It is therefore, no longer rational, or in fact possible, to dismiss questions about the presence, motives, activities and scale of the operations of CIA agents in Pakistan.
'Desi liberals' would do well to reflect upon the perception that in their zeal to fight extremism, they have by default, intent or design become defenders of the most blatant and biggest CIA 'covert' operation in the history of Pakistan – or, for that matter, one of the biggest in the CIA's history.
"But that is a secondary issue. The real issue is that either the ISI allowed the CIA to send hundreds of agents, and is pretending ignorance or innocence now that the beans have been spilled, or it didn't know this in the first place – which means that questions should be asked about the agency's job performance."
Mazari: "[There is] Growing Evidence That Davis was Indulging in Spying – Which Makes It Relevant for the Pakistani State to Formally Frame Charges of Espionage Against Him"
"It seems there are some in the Pakistani media who will buy into the official U.S. line on Davis and get irked, by the likes of this columnist, enough to name her in their rather histrionic defense of the murderer [Raymond Davis]…"
"[T]he U.S. continues to muddy the grounds of the Davis case and, unfortunately, has succeeded in pushing into the background the issue of what happened to the murderer of the third victim and his car. Amongst the more bizarre logic being offered for freeing Davis, is the argument that the trial would not be seen as 'fair' – presumably by those in the U.S. This is ironic given how the Dr. Aafia Siddiqui trial by jury in New York was a visible sham, and yet that has not prevented the U.S. from penalizing the lady in a most despicable fashion. In any case, are we to try murderers based on how the U.S. views these trials and condemn the credibility of our judiciary proactively?
"While most arguments dealing with Davis continue to touch on the same issues, some new developments are interesting. The first is the growing evidence that Davis was indulging in spying, which makes it relevant for the Pakistani state to formally frame charges of espionage against him. In this connection, his links to banned terrorist groups are also coming to light… Under the law, no one can maintain contact with such groups without being questioned at the very least. To allow foreigners to freely have truck with such groups is even worse – whatever their intent. Nor is it far-fetched to assume that Davis may have had something to do with attacks against Pakistan's security establishment, specifically the military. After all, why were pictures of sensitive military areas found on his person?
"The point here being that, at a minimum level, the espionage issue should not be neglected and if, as most Pakistani experts think and as his visa shows, he is not a diplomat, then he can certainly be tried and punished for this very serious crime. If nothing else, the duplicity of our successive governments, in terms of hidden deals with the U.S., certainly needs to be exposed through this case and, perhaps, other Davis-like characters expelled forthwith."
"One Issue hHs Become Evident: The U.S. Agenda for Pakistan Has Growing Question Marks"
"The U.S. has now floated another idea – intended to be a threat of sorts from their blinkered perspective – and that is to take the whole issue of Davis's immunity to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the Optional Protocol attached to the 1961 Vienna Convention. Presumably Pakistan is also a signatory to this Protocol and, therefore, if the U.S. decides to take the issue to the ICJ, according to the Protocol, it becomes incumbent upon Pakistan to accept, not only this move, but also the decision that may follow, since, under Article I, disputes of interpretation or application of the Convention 'shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.'
"Of course, Articles II and III allow a certain time period in which other options can be exercised, including an arbitral tribunal or a conciliation procedure, since, once the ICJ is approached, its decision in this context will be binding on both parties.
"The ICJ option is a viable one since it will clear the issue for both the U.S. and Pakistan but this Optional Protocol (where the word 'optional' is actually a trifle deceptive) is applicable to the 1961 Vienna Convention and the whole issue is whether Davis is covered by this or by the 1963 Convention relating to Consular matters, since the U.S. itself first claimed that Davis was attached to the U.S. Consulate in Lahore. It is yet another irony produced by the Davis case, that the U.S., which is loathe to have anything to do with the ICJ and with the notion of international courts per se… is now going to initiate proceedings in the ICJ. Or, perhaps, that is merely a new form of pressure with which to browbeat the present government. Whatever the purpose, the ICJ is a viable option and Pakistan should not be fearful of it but, surely, first the issue of whether it is the 1961 or the 1963 Convention that applies to Davis, needs to be settled.
"One issue has become evident: the U.S. agenda for Pakistan has growing question marks to it. The appointment of Marc Grossman as [Richard] Holbrooke's successor is a case in point. A known critic of the ICC, as vice-chairman of the Cohen Group, he has been closely associated with furthering U.S.-India relations, including in the aerospace and defense fields. The Cohen Group was in the forefront of lobbying for the U.S.-India nuclear deal. Earlier, as [U.S.] undersecretary of state for political affairs, Grossman was the main architect of the 'Next Steps in Strategic Partnership between the United States and India' initiative. An active Indophile will now be dealing with Pakistan on behalf of the U.S. This really says it all about U.S. intent in Pakistan."
Khan: "How Long will Pakistan Ride On the High of Protecting 'National Honor'? Will It Fix Our Schools? Will It Provide Gas and Electricity? Will It Reduce Inflation?"
"So we've reached an impasse in the uneasy U.S.-Pakistani alliance. Too many red lines have allegedly been crossed and thus the Raymond Davis affair has brought mistrust to an all-time high. There is gloating in certain quarters. Pakistan will not sit this one down, and, if it does, then it is the end of this government. The street will decide this one. Banners that say 'Blood for blood' and 'Hang Davis till death' are to be taken seriously as 'public opinion.' To what extent that opinion is manufactured we are unconcerned with for now.
"Let's say we take America head on. Both countries call each other's bluff. The U.S. moves the International Court of Justice on the dubious matter of Davis's immunity. Pakistan is obliged to present its case, hire expensive lawyers and fight for an uncertain outcome. America scraps Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid. Pakistan stops cooperating in Afghanistan. Then what?
"How long will Pakistan ride on the high of protecting 'national honor'? Will it fix our schools? Will it provide gas and electricity? Will it reduce inflation? Will it provide employment? Some degree of anti-Americanism exists in every society – resentment against U.S. heavy-handedness, a disdain for American hubris – but the degree of anti-Americanism in Pakistan is reaching dangerous proportions. The public in urban centers is being rallied, orchestrated by design, to use America as a scapegoat for all our ills. America looks out for its own interests and these may, or may not, align with Pakistan's interests – but to think that suddenly, upon 'standing up to America,' our problems will be solved, or even begin to be solved, is utterly misleading."
"Let's Face It: We are a Weak State, and Weak States have No International Clout; In Spite of Our Military Might, We are an Economic Mess"
"To the contrary, our problems will only compound. Multinationals will begin to pull out and downscale, resulting in even more unemployment. With oil prices rising, given the events in the Middle East, financial aid will become even more important for us. Expatriates, who are often touted as the key to spurring economic activity within Pakistan, will run further away from any such prospect. In fact, money will begin to flow out of Pakistan and into places like London. To give one example, just in the two-week period since the uprisings in the Middle East, property prices in London's Mayfair have escalated by 15 percent. On the other hand, Egypt has lost $1 billion in tourism revenue alone.
"The loss may still be worth it for Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and others because for years they had been stuck with one-man rule, with no semblance of democracy or freedom of expression. The price they pay now to build their institutions, like Pakistanis did to restore a deposed judiciary, may reap benefits in the future. But what are we trying to achieve? Will confronting America build our institutions or harm them? Will it sustain democracy or end it?
"Let's face it. We are a weak state and weak states have no international clout. In spite of our military might, we are an economic mess. And thus, not only will we not be taken seriously at places like the International Court of Justice, but the banners calling for Davis's blood will be used against us, Pakistan as an unstable terrorist haven where global investment is unsafe. In today's world, 'standing up to the U.S.' also means losing popularity with other countries and growing international isolation. What then? Who suffers?… It is, in fact, the average… [Pakistani] who will suffer the consequences and pay the price for our zealous anti-Americanism."
