by Shuja Nawaz
Kayani had impressed his American colleagues with his dedication to the common soldier and JCOs. A senior US military officer recalled flying with Kayani over various housing schemes that Kayani proudly pointed as new quarters for soldiers and Junior Commissioned Officers. He also took great pride in his indigenous efforts to set up counter-insurgency training sites replicating villages and towns of FATA so that his troops were prepared for action when they were deployed in the border fight. 26 Once Kayani distanced himself from Musharraf, the president was isolated politically. Sharif and Zardari then formed an alliance with a view to impeach Musharraf and force him to be tried for treason for upending the Sharif government in 1999. ‘I gave concessions to Sharif brothers to get rid of Musharraf,’ Zardari explained later, while interacting with newspaper editors and workers of his Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) at the Governor’s House . . . He further said, ‘The Sharifs have stiff necks and I know how to humble them.’ 27
The marriage of convenience between the PPP and the PML-N resulted from their respective strong showing in the elections and common hatred of Musharraf. The PPP had garnered eighty-six out of the 342 seats in the parliament to the PML-N’s sixty-six, and the forty seats of the PML-Q, Musharraf ’s supporting party. By promising to bring other parties into the fold of the new ‘national consensus’ and producing a two-thirds majority, Zardari threatened Musharraf with impeachment. 28 This unlikely partnership was doomed from the outset, but its immediate target, Musharraf, kept it hanging together for six months.
August, the month when Pakistan was born in 1947, remained among the cruellest months in Pakistan’s calendar. On 18 August 2008, Musharraf succumbed to pressures from home and abroad and negotiated a departure to avoid impeachment, citing his devotion to Pakistan in his farewell television address. ‘If I was doing this just for myself, I might have chosen a different course,’ he said, wearing a Western suit and tie but speaking in Urdu. ‘But I put Pakistan first, as always . . . Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the dignity of the nation would be damaged, the office of the president harmed.’ 29
Many in Pakistan must have noticed the irony in that date—twenty years to the day that the previous military ruler Gen. Zia-ul-Haq was killed in a plane crash. Not only had the Pakistan Army distanced itself from Musharraf, even his American friends recognized the futility of trying to keep him in power. Surreptitious visits of emissaries from the White House, including some claiming to be from the vice-president’s office, accompanied by their Pakistani fixers, 30 traipsed through the luxury hotels and corridors of power in Islamabad, cobbling together the deal that allowed Musharraf to escape without being held accountable for his extraconstitutional actions.
A very senior member of Musharraf ’s government told me that he had been informed by senior staff of the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi that during a visit of Crown Prince Mohammed of Abu Dhabi to President George W. Bush at Camp David, the idea was bruited that Musharraf could be encouraged to depart Pakistan with a promise of ‘protocol’ and property. Bush was reported to have referred to Musharraf as a ‘protocol President’, that is, someone who enjoyed the perks of his position. As a result of that exchange, the Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud was approached and provided a reported $2 million, and the ruler of Abu Dhabi approved another $2 million, according to this Musharraf confidant. The amounts were reportedly deposited in Musharraf accounts in Dubai and London and used by him to make cash purchases of apartments in both cities. Musharraf later acknowledged the gift by the Saudi king. He did not name the second Arab nation that had provided help to purchase property in Dubai. A senior British officer recalls some discussion about the possibility of London being a destination for Musharraf once he left Pakistan. But he said he was not aware of the financial background to the move. Richard Boucher, the American emissary, would often brief senior Abu Dhabi and Saudi officials between visits with Bhutto and Musharraf. 31
Once the glue of hatred for Musharraf that was holding the tenuous coalition together gave way, the PML-N and PPP had little reason to stay together. Sharif announced the break-up within a week of Musharraf ’s departure from his office. Sharif ’s excuse: ‘Zardari’s party had failed to restore judges ousted by former President Pervez Musharraf according to a timetable they had agreed on.’ Sharif said the two coalition partners also had failed to agree on a neutral successor to Musharraf. 32 Zardari offered himself as the replacement for Musharraf. Sharif found a retired judge to run for president against him. Zardari outplayed Sharif in creating a coalition across the political spectrum, except with the Islamist parties.
The army kept a low profile as the presidential campaign unfolded. The US, however, continued to have an active interest in aiding the departure of Musharraf and in some ways clearing the way for Zardari to ascend to the presidency. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher, and Ambassador Patterson were the point persons for Pakistan. Unbeknownst to them, US ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad had developed a relationship with Zardari when the latter was living in New York, and he continued to provide information and advice to Zardari until Boucher found out and had to rein him in. ‘Can I ask what sort of “advice and help” you are providing?’ Mr Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail to Mr Khalilzad. ‘What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel [sic]?’ Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department. ‘Why do I have to learn about this from Asif after it’s all set up?’ Mr Boucher wrote in the 18 August message, referring to the planned Dubai meeting with Mr Zardari.
We have maintained a public line that we are not involved in the politics or the details. We are merely keeping in touch with the parties. Can I say that honestly if you’re providing ‘advice and help’? Please advise and help me so that I understand what’s going on here. 33
Even Special Representative Richard Holbrooke complained about this ‘freelancing’. Khalilzad does not mention this episode in his book but does mention an older relationship with Pakistan that was marked by a palpable disdain for Pakistani politicians. During a visit to Pakistan when Zia-ul-Haq was in power, suggested by Pakistan ambassador to Washington Lt. Gen. (retd) Ejaz Azim, he noted that ‘there is always a gap between declaratory policy and actual policy, but never had I seen officials tell flat-out lies to their American counterparts so frequently and with such impunity’. 34 Khalilzad’s own ambitions, beyond his meteoric rise in US officialdom, apparently extended to his native Afghanistan where he had been a powerful US ambassador and virtual kingmaker in local politics. Reports on his telephone conversations, captured by the British agency GCHQ (General Communications Headquarters) reportedly had him speaking from his New York perch with Afghan ‘warlords and politicians’ with a view to assessing his chances of running for the Afghan presidency himself. 35 (Khalilzad later become instrumental in President Trump’s efforts to end the Afghanistan war on the basis of peace talks amongst Afghans, with help from Pakistan.)
This contretemps among US colleagues did not obscure the fact that the US, in the midst of its Afghan adventure, was actively seeking a new ally in Pakistan, having had to jettison its relationship with Musharraf. It worried about Pakistan’s nuclear activities; after all, the architect of nuclear proliferation Dr A.Q. Khan was still at large. And the US needed a counterterrorism (CT) partner in the region that could buttress its efforts inside Afghanistan by reducing the footprint and ability of Al-Qaeda operatives to function inside Pakistani territory. Terrorism was on the rise inside Pakistan. The number of fatalities from terrorist violence rose from 1,471 in 2006 to 3,598 in 2007. (In 2008 they nearly doubled to 6,715 and then further to 11,704 in 2009.) 36 The total number of terrorist attacks inside Pakistan more than doubled from 260 in 2007 to 567 in 2008. 37 This deterioration could not be ignored by the US or by Pakistan.
But the US saw Sharif as an unsure partner, and he had never cultivated the Americans as much as he had cul
tivated the British and the Saudis. In Zardari, the Americans saw the potential for a more vulnerable and hence pliable ally. He took advantage of their attitude and, as WikiLeaks later revealed, was prepared to play the game of shadow puppetry, criticizing US policies in public to gain support at home, while privately applauding US actions in the region, especially their drone attacks inside Pakistan. In truth, he was not alone in playing this game. His prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, and army chief confided similar thoughts in their interactions with US officials.
Against this background, Zardari entered the presidential race. The presidential election in Pakistan is indirect, with voting only by lawmakers in the National Assembly, the Senate and in the four provincial assemblies around the country. Under Pakistan’s constitution, the president is elected by a majority vote.
According to the chief election commissioner of Pakistan, Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Zardari received 481 votes. Retired Chief Justice Muhammad Saeed Uzaman Saddiqi (sic) [of the PML-N] received 153 votes and Senator Mushahid Hussain [of the PML-Q] received 44 votes . . .
‘The (sic.) democracy talks, and everybody hears,’ Zardari said in a televised address Saturday evening. ‘And to those who would say the People’s Party or the presidency would be controversial under our guardianship and under our stewardship, I would say, listen to democracy.’ The president-elect said he would hand over many responsibilities to the parliament. ‘Parliament is sovereign, this president shall be subservient to the parliament . . .’ 38
The PPP had come into power without a great deal of preparation. There was no blueprint for the transition in hand when its leadership returned from exile overseas. When I had asked Bhutto in Washington about her plans, whether she had set up a shadow cabinet and if she intended to reform the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in particular, her reply was, ‘We’ll deal with all that once we are back in government.’ Some of her party colleagues in Pakistan had been preparing plans, including one for the reform of FATA. But they were sidelined by Zardari as events unfolded.
Bhutto’s death changed the internal dynamics of the party. Zardari, who prided himself on his loyalty to friends and sought the same from his friends and colleagues, brought in his own team of friends and relatives into key positions. The Bhutto loyalists of the ancient regime fell into line. He inherited an economy on the downswing and headed a coalition that was beset by continuous blackmail by his various partners. Soon, he had to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to get assistance to stabilize the economy. But lack of institutional mechanisms and whimsical decision making produced less than ideal results. Zardari was also wont to reverse rules and regulations to please business groups from Karachi. He did favour improvement of relations with India and Afghanistan. Inviting Afghan president Hamid Karzai to his inauguration as president was a smart PR move. But he could not follow up since the Afghan policy was largely made in army headquarters in Rawalpindi with controlling input from the ISI Directorate. The civilian government did not devote the manpower or resources needed to formulate sound or sustainable policy on security or foreign relations.
Capturing the ISI
From behind the scenes, Zardari began exerting his power through his compliant prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, and his own hand-picked group of ministers, including Rehman Malik. Similar to Benazir Bhutto’s attempted internal coup against the military during her first term, when she appointed a retired general to head the ISI, Prime Minister Gilani attempted an administrative coup against the ISI on 26 July 2008. He did this by issuing a notification that placed both the civilian IB and the military’s ISI under the Minister of Interior. Technically, the ISI head was supposed to be picked by the prime minister and reported to him. In practice, he worked closely with and under instructions of the army chief.
The news that appeared in Pakistani media the next morning came as a surprise:
In an unprecedented move on Saturday evening, the government placed Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Intelligence Bureau (IB) under Interior Ministry, which according to defence analysts could undermine the role of the supreme spy agencies.
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has approved the placement of IB and ISI under the administrative, financial and operational control of the interior division with immediate effect, according to a cabinet division notification . . .
Adviser to the prime minister on Interior Rehman Malik talking to The Nation from London hailed the decision, which according to him would boost coordination between different security institutions. He said even before the move the security agencies had been working against terrorism in a well-coordinated manner and helped a lot to curb the menace of terrorism in the country. 39
The notification was issued in the name of the prime minister while he was en route to London. NSA Gen. Durrani recalls Malik informing a small group of officials on the prime minister’s London flight of the notification with some glee. With the prime minister out of the country, it was expected that the action would be a fait accompli.
According to later explanations, the decision was made after a seemingly innocuous exchange between the PM and the Army Chief Gen. Kayani at the end of a meeting on security matters when the PM suggested en passant, according to Kayani, that there needed to be better coordination between intelligence agencies. Kayani recalls that he agreed to that general principle. A similar exchange had reportedly occurred with President Musharraf. Malik then proceeded to act upon the transfer of power to the Interior Ministry but gave no prior warning to the military leadership.
Almost the entire senior brass of the army was gathering that evening in Rawalpindi at an officers’ mess to mark the wedding of the daughter of a senior colleague at army headquarters. Word of the notification spread rapidly among the gathering. When Kayani arrived, a knot of senior officers surrounded him to ask about the change that had been made by the prime minister. Kayani confessed to have been unaware of the notification, though one report states Musharraf had called him to ask about it. His first reaction was cautious. He suggested to his senior colleagues that he would speak to the PM on the latter’s return from his foreign trip. He was told in no uncertain terms that delay would allow the decision to take root. So, he agreed to speak to the prime minister in London.
On the plane carrying the prime minister, Durrani recalls raising a warning about the reaction of the military to this attempted coup by Malik. He was asked to call Kayani to placate him. By the time the army chief spoke with Gilani at 11 p.m. Pakistan time, a clear decision had been made by the military.
Gilani was informed that the army, and especially the ISI, was trying its best to stay away from politics for the past many months but his decision to place the ISI under the control of Rehman Malik would be seen as an attempt to again politicize the ISI for achieving certain political objectives. 40
The notification had to be rolled back and put into abeyance. This was done in a matter of hours. The army had won back control.
According to Hamid Mir, who spoke with Zardari about these events:
Prime Minister Gilani immediately contacted PPP co-chairperson Asif Ali Zardari in Dubai and informed him about the ‘feedback’. Asif Ali Zardari suggested to the prime minister that the country could not afford any misunderstandings between the armed forces and the civilian government, so it will be better to reverse the decision immediately . . .
Asif Ali Zardari said that there was no bad intention in placing the ISI under the control of the Interior Ministry and stressed: ‘We don’t want any confrontation between different state organs and that was why the prime minister tried to remove some misunderstandings through a clarification released by the Press Information Department.’
Asif Ali Zardari accepted that some more homework and detailed consultations were needed before such a sensitive decision was announced but claimed: ‘It’s a new government with a lot of challenges and problems. Anybody can make mistakes in such a situation but nobody should doubt our intentio
ns.’ 41
Looking back on this misstep, I wrote at that time:
The incident illustrated the civilian government’s lack of understanding of the nature and role of security organizations, especially those under the military’s jurisdiction. Only one of the ISI’s six wings actually deals with domestic political issues. Most of the rest of its operations deal with military matters at home and abroad. In addition to the three-star general head of the ISI, there are six two-star major generals responsible for each of the wings of the agency, more than even in a corps headquarters of the regular army. The overwhelming majority of the staff at senior levels is from the army. The idea that such an organization would report to a civilian entity with a narrow remit of law and order inside Pakistan was never examined or tested in debate or discussion, even if it had merit in the context of strengthening the civilian role in an emerging democracy. But for that to happen, the civilian establishment would need to prepare itself with knowledge and experience to handle high-level decision making related to the military and especially to intelligence—as in India and the United States, among others, and as intended in Pakistan’s 1973 constitution. 42
In India, both, the IB and the ISI-equivalent Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) are under civilian leadership. Military Intelligence resides in the Indian military’s domain.
But in Pakistan, the ISI had a carved out a special territory for itself. Ostensibly reporting to the prime minister, it acted fairly autonomously and often in concert with the army chief, who effectively controlled its budget and provided its staff, especially at the top levels. Generally, it operated within the broad remit of the official policy, determined by whichever branch of government, the civil or the military, had the greater power at any point. However, it also took advantage of operational secrecy to act independently at the tactical level, guided by the ambivalent loyalties of local field operatives, particularly locals in the tribal areas, who guided senior officers in Islamabad. The senior officers were often temporary, rotating in and out of the regular military. They did not have complete knowledge or control over many aspects of the detailed operations below them, as a result.
