Pakistan's non-reaction to Wikileaks
By Madiha Sattar, July 28, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 11:10 AM
Share
On the morning of July 26 I woke up at home in Karachi, nine hours ahead of eastern time, to an e-mail from an American friend who writes for The Atlantic's website. "How is WikiLeaks playing in Pakistan?" he wanted to know. The story had broken overnight, and I had no idea what he was talking about. In turn I picked up Dawn, The News, and The Express Tribune, the three Pakistani newspapers that are delivered to my house every day. Not one of them had anything to say on the issue.
It was another matter entirely when I logged onto my computer and the New York Times website. For the next several hours I was transfixed, trying to digest both the firestorm in the international media and the pin-drop silence at home.
The most likely explanation of this is that the story
broke too late to make it into Pakistani newspapers on Monday morning. The
conspiracy-minded might argue it could have been suppressed, perhaps even in
advance, by the Pakistani state, or that domestic newspapers would not want to
jump into dangerous territory without taking the time to examine the matter
closely. Either way, the silence continued almost unbroken throughout the day.
By early afternoon the websites of dailies Dawn and The Express Tribune carried
only one story each; both were wire reports. Later in the day they had each
added one more. The News, which vies with Dawn for the top circulation spot
among English-language newspapers, remained silent on the issue. When I turned
on the television, news channels were focusing on domestic stories. Even the
small group of Pakistani journalists and analysts who are usually quick to
Twitter about politics and current affairs didn't seem to be particularly
interested. While the Western media tied itself into knots over the
implications for the war in Afghanistan
and for how information gets disseminated today, Pakistan maintained a stony
silence.
On Tuesday the indifference hadn't fully worn away. Only two of five English-language dailies, which are generally considered less right-wing than Urdu newpapers, carried editorials on the issue, and many newspaper reports were still based on wire stories rather than their own reporting or analysis. It was earlier today, finally, that the issue began to get some fraction of the coverage it has been getting in the West.
Tuesday's front pages show one reason why. Alongside the WikiLeaks story, and sometimes as the main lead, appeared the deadly suicide bombing outside the home of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa's Information Minster, an outspoken critic of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and a member of the secular ANP party that governs the province. Tragically, it targeted a gathering held to mourn the loss of his young son, who was killed at gunpoint just two days earlier in an incident the TTP claimed responsibility for. Another major story crammed onto the front page was about a 10-rupee-per-kilogram rise in the price of government-subsidized sugar, an increase that sounds minimal but, following massive earlier price hikes resulting in part from government inability to manage food supplies, has real and troubling implications for a population that can now barely afford anything beyond wheat and vegetables. Amidst the Western media's focus on Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, the war's political implications for Barack Obama and how Afghanistan is carpeted with Taliban IEDs, Pakistan simply has too much at home to worry about. Perceptions of the country in the West take a back seat when severe electricity shortages, spiraling food prices and devastating terrorist attacks confront us every day.
There is also, as Mosharraf Zaidi pointed out in The News in the rare (if not only) column on the issue on Tuesday, the country's lack of surprise any time the Pakistani intelligence service the ISI and the Taliban are mentioned in the same sentence. As a result of lingering suspicion of the U.S., the narrative here is not so much denying ISI involvement as it is resentful of American focus on that aspect of the leaks amidst all the material available, and of what could be considered unreliable evidence about the spy agency's actions. The first news reports to acknowledge the issue jumped straight to this secondary point instead of telling the story of the leaks itself: "US condemns leak alleging Pakistan spy-insurgent links" and "ISI denounces leaked intel documents" were the headlines of the stories on news websites on Monday. Editorials on Tuesday and Wednesday have focused heavily on the non-Pakistan aspects of the leaks, such as civilian casualties and the Taliban's stranglehold on Afghanistan, and expressed doubts about reports on ISI collusion. And when the New York Times led with the Pakistan angle while the Guardian focused on civilian deaths and more strongly emphasized the questionable nature of material about the ISI, these choices fed into the perception that U.S. media reports about the story were simply hype, if not biased.
My exchange with a fellow Pakistani journalist on Monday was telling. In a series of e-mails that afternoon, we wondered what the motive was behind the leaks and their timing -- was this really the work of a lone conscientious objector, or even a group of them, who were somehow able to release 90,000 documents that included details on classified military action and the struggling war strategy of NATO and the U.S.? Or was it a larger political move to hurt Obama before mid-term elections in November? Was it done deliberately by the White House, which subsequently pointed out that the reports covered the time period before Obama took office and therefore vindicated his new strategy? Was this the Pentagon trying to put pressure on the ISI, or a U.S. government attempt to curb Pakistan's role in Afghan Taliban reconciliation, and hence its growing influence over Karzai?
This is one stereotype about Pakistanis that is true. We have grown up as a security state run by the military and intelligence agencies, with a co-dependent yet troubled relationship with the U.S., and our instinct is to question the obvious version of any story. One could argue, in that vein, that some media outlets here initially suppressed this one under either implicit or explicit state pressure. But amidst daily tragedy, and in an atmosphere of enduring mistrust of the U.S., the story never really had a chance.
Madiha Sattar is a senior assistant editor at the Karachi-based monthly The Herald.
LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFPAK, AFGHANISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL, AL QAEDA, INTERNET, MEDIA, PAKISTAN, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
US deserves to be duped by Pakistan
Pakistan did continue its customary denial in the face of such damning evidence.
After having poured billions of dollars in aid, US deserves to be treated with such contempt by Pakistani establishment (Pakistani Army, ISI and Government) since US has intentionally ignored Pakistani complicity in Afghan insurgency until now.
Files leaked by Wikileaks more or less corroborate ‘The sun in the sky’ report published by Harvard Professor Matt Waldman from London School of Economics on 6/13/2010.
That report states that “support for the Afghan Taliban is ‘official Pakistani ISI policy’ and is backed at the highest levels of Pakistan’s civilian administration. Pakistan appears to be playing a double game of astonishing magnitude. There is thus a strong case that the ISI orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign in Afghanistan.”
According to Afghan Taliban commanders’ interviews with Matt Waldman, the Pakistani ISI orchestrates, sustains and strongly influences the Taliban insurgency movement. The Afghan Taliban commanders also say that ISI gives sanctuary to both Taliban and Haqqani groups, and provides huge support in terms of training, funding, munitions, and supplies. In the words of these Afghan Taliban commanders, this is ‘as clear as the sun in the sky’.
The ISI is said to compensate families of suicide bombers to the tune of 200,000 Pakistani rupees, claims the report. Thus US AID TO BANKRUPT PAKISTAN FINANCES THE DEATH OF US/NATO SOLDIERS in Afghanistan. So in a way, US is financing the death of its OWN troops in Afghanistan.
Pakistani government issued its usual denials just as it had denied umpteen times the existence of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s ‘Quetta Shura Taliban (QST)’ in the provincial capital Quetta of Baluchistan. But General Stanley McChrystal called QST as the biggest threat to US Afghan mission in his report to President Obama in August, 2009.
Pakistan has denied presence of Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil umpteen times and just yesterday Adm Mike Mullen repeated in Islamabad that Osama is hiding in a very secure place in Pakistan.
The most breath-taking part of this sordid saga is that US is NOT holding Pakistan responsible for sheltering, protecting and supporting Haqqani’s HQN network and Mullah Omar’s QST network all these years while those networks have been causing daily deaths of US/NATO soldiers ever since 2002 even though Pakistan was SUPPOSED to have joined US fight against same Taliban back in 2001!
Can American CIA not know what Matt Waldman knows? How come Obama administration is continuing Bush’s mollycoddling of Pakistan with such incriminating evidence against Pakistan’s double game? How can US mission in Afghanistan succeed if Obama administration continues to ignore such Pakistani duplicity like Bush had done it before Obama? How long will US continue to evade what is as obvious as a ’bright sun’ in the sky on a summer day?
I can tell your proud of this, but that doesnt give you a reason to keep saying it verbatim on everything related to Pakistan or Afghanistan. Please cut it out. Its just annoying. Ive never read it, because anything posted this obsessively is usually crap.
It's possible Marty/Suresh is a spambot, or if human, perhaps a call-center worker in Bangalore who makes extra dosh after posting the same rejiggered screeds on FP every day. Everything he writes follows a very strict script, and generally has nearly nothing to do with whatever the post topic is. Its a lot like a call-center op, frankly, which provoked that theory. It's clear he doesn't read the posts; he just sticks in his "US IS MOLLYCODDING PAKISTAN" rant every day regardless of the issue at hand. Whomever/whatever is motivating this character, clearly he doesn't understand the law of diminishing returns, that repeating yourself endlessly every day in such a tone-deaf manner Turns People OFF, even when sometimes he may actually have a point. I suspect he's paid by the word and by the number of posts; that would explain the constant repetition and the rhetorical (where do I stick "Mollycodding" today?) Mad Libs approach.
The only thing that makes him slightly less bad than A.Khan/Lal Qila/Babur, is he isnt as blatantly racist and so horribly full of himself. But it's a tight competition.
Speaking of which, I bet $1 they will show up just as late as the Pakistani press (maybe tomorrow?), and immediately divert the issue to something involving "hindoos". Make that $2.
i think he didn't read it either
moreover to the topic
Why the writer says it correctly why should press in Pak publish anything which is known to all when their are more pressing domestic issues.
1) "Perceptions of the country in the West take a back seat when severe electricity shortages, spiraling food prices and devastating terrorist attacks confront us every day. "
Funny, you wouldn't think so based on the rantings of A.Khan and Babur, who scream incessantly about the "unfair" perceptions broadcast in Western media, and say absolutely nothing at all about the realities of Pakistan's domestic disasters. Any time a mention of Pakistani-on-Pakistani terror is brought up, the topic immediately becomes something to do with the horrors of Hindoos and Joos, and that Pakistan's problems are overblown and part of 'discriminatory' attitudes by Westerners.
Basically, the opposite of what this journalist describes. But it is at least consistent with the 'silence' he characterizes; self-analysis does not seem to be a common trait in either case.
That said, #2)
"...the country's lack of surprise any time the Pakistani intelligence service the ISI and the Taliban are mentioned in the same sentence. As a result of lingering suspicion of the U.S., the narrative here is not so much denying ISI involvement as it is resentful of American focus on that aspect of the leaks amidst all the material available, and of what could be considered unreliable evidence about the spy agency's actions.""
This seems strangely contradictory: on one hand, they are acutely aware of the double-dealings of the ISI, and think there is plenty of evidence for it; but on the other hand, they are 'resentful' (? not sure how that works) that the US seems to be focused on 'unreliable evidence' of it? Is there some logic here that I'm missing? Resentful that Americans don't point to the more *obvious* information? It should be noted that the leaked docs were mostly raw intelligence reports to military officials, not the CIA's own analysis or source material, or any kind of more formalized analysis. The take away here should probably be: the US intelligence community knows darn well what they do (and have for a long time), but keeps their analysis closely under wraps because they want to engaged with Pakistan. Its like politely pretending your Tourrette's-syndrome suffering friend *isn't* always cursing uncontrollably. Would Pakistani's be *less* resentful if the US were constantly revealing distasteful information about how dysfunctional Pakistan is? I doubt it. It seems to me that Pakistan would have a knee-jerk defensive reaction no matter how these issues were presented.
#3) ""In a series of e-mails that afternoon, we wondered what the motive was behind the leaks and their timing..."
One option you don't consider is that the motive of the leakers/Wikileaks were mostly self-serving/promoting and naive, and that the government was caught totally surprised and flatfooted. (which seems to be the case, frankly) Meaning, that there was no real calculation involved as to what the impact was intended to be. Assuming there was is perhaps assuming too much. The idea that there is always a sub-plot seems to be endemic in Pakistan; nothing is just 'news' - it's all part of a scheme of some sort, as you say as much yourself. That may be true with a good deal of things, certainly but not always. One must never discount things at face value without more information. Sometimes, as they say, "shit happens".
It is also worth considering that nothing in these documents (mostly) was particularly revelatory to anyone who pays attention to the news or has followed the history of the region. What is perhaps more interesting is that they are serving to inform a larger audience about things most Americans tend to be rather sanguine about instead of cynical. The reports were embarrassing, frankly, because they confirmed what most critics have said for a long time, and that the military has apparently been saying the same thing to themselves, internally. I think if there was any particular motive for the leaks, it was to vindicate the views of American leftist critics of the war; I sincerely doubt there was any thought about how these documents would affect any international relations, or American views about Pakistan. That may seem surprising, but it should be considered that most Americans do not spend an iota of thought about Pakistan (or many other countries), the way Pakistanis spend their energies carping about American plots. That may change now, somewhat, but I don't think this was on the minds of Wikileaks; I think the intended audience for this material was American voters.
I think there is some potential for Congress starting to question continued aid to Pakistan - mostly as a political tool to corner their opponents, not for particularly practical reasons. In the past it was simply spun as 'helping them fight terrorism'; not Baksheesh to try and convince them to play nice. Now it may begun to be spun as "buying off the enemy"... which in many ways it may actually be. I think many who use this as a political lever probably in private would still agree with aid, but forcing one's political opponent to defend what may become an unpopular policy may suddenly emerge before November. Not particularly likely I think, but possible. There is hardly anything congresspeople won't do to smear each other.
Anyway, that said: Shut up Suresh (marty martel); we've heard it a million times already. Plus, you screwed up your Mad-Libs post style: "mollycoddling" goes in the *last* paragraph. You should be fired and replaced with a more boringly consistent hack.
I can't speak for AKhan etc. but first lets look at this very very simply cause thats probably teh truth. 1) The ISI might be involved is what the docs say - what really big surprise there? I mean seriously whats new in teh Wikileaks, 1 name, 1 date, nope at best ex-ISI members and lots of maybes. Thats not exactly earth shatterring. 2) People are more concerned about domestic politics - again surprise surprise, Pakistanis concerned about domestic politics ahead of international affairs - very suspicious sounds like...just about every damn citizen of every damn country including even the US which is actually fighting the war whcih brings me to my last point 3) Its not a Pakistan war. Whiel winning in Afghanistan for the US may require Pakistani help - how again is this a Pakistan't war? US wins - they leave, we live with Af. US loses - ghan warlords etc. they leave we live with same. Oh and don't bet on this taking up any extra pages/news in next few days - we're all mourning and questioning the Isloo crash. What the US/BBC/CNN are not headlining the Isloo crash - conspiracy!!!!!!
I agree it is not a war of Pakistan's choosing. But do you not think IT SHOULD be Pakistan's war?
After PK building 100 nukes, do you sincerely think India is an existential threat to Pakistan? You have said in the past, your military is the biggest winner ( often at the expense of your populace) in all this? As some among you endearing call Indians Baniyas, do you think and Baniya will burn its own shop just to spite you? The proof came in 1999 ( Indians did not widen the war) and again in 2008 ( no Indian bombings, post Mumbai....) Just like your politicians, Indian Politicians like to shout and foam at mouth. But Even a "Modi" primeministership in India will not do it. India will keep suffering, bleeding. It will not take its revenge on the battlefield. It will use markets... it will play its games to make it harder for you to do business in the world! That again hurts your poor ....
So some smart leaders among you use US as a pre-text to get rid of the rot .. from Taliban to LeT ( or whatever its noms de guerre are). US will wholeheartedly pay for cleaning the swamp. So why don't they.
After going through 60 years of this, I think you sincerely deserve Jinnah Baniya's Pakistan. US will help you get that. Just use them cleverly.
Once you are done with that, the equation can turn on its head, India, PAK and AF will trade with and invest in each other and actually help each other get richer.... ( I expect a proclamation from Mr. Khan that it will not happen for 10000 years... )
You have to Live with AF just like India has to live with PK ( Many Indians they think China has very effectively used Pakistan as a "butt plug" up its rear so it is chronically constpated and can not run with its potential) so why not live in peace, however uneasy it may be? I know Pakistan thinks getting Kashmir is going to complete their nation. But Unfortunately it is held hostage to India's internal politics. It has a potential to throw India in turmoil and if any Pakistani thinks that bodes well for Pakistan is living in fools paradise (just like wishful thinking of some in India to think a broken up Pakistan will lead to peace)
ordinary people in India don't know much about Pakistan and hence don't care. We don't organise hate rallies. We don't have in our education system such hate cramming.
Who will think about gaining from breaking pakistan ?
only the semi literate opposite of Mr Khans
Here, we don't have them much either.
People in India know how big the refugee trouble can be.
In fact if you are from India you might have read article of Mr M J Akbar in ToI in regards to this problem.
Mr. Ashok, there is no disagreement.
By and large of India wants Pakistan to become a friendly neighbour. Or at minimum stop being nuisance,
The friendliness is most evident in the entertainment industry where Pakistanis are generally received very fondly. So I agree,
There is a *small* "think tank" which *thinks* that A separate Sindh and a separate Baluchistan will reduce Pakistan to essentially Pakistani Punjab and NWFP ( even NWFP may go merge with Pakhunistan)
The conventional wisdom among them is that Sind and Balochistan will not be hostile to India ( some say may even be friendly) and thus reduce the threat
That thinking has several flaws some of those you have outlined.
One thing I would add to what you have written, The most major threat from Pakistan is not its Army but the terrorists. Their flow will not go down even if it splits. It will actually go up because the Punjab would have lost the moderating influence of the Sindhis and Muhajirs.
So any Indian who thinks this rationally would not want Pakistan split.
India will be a huge winner if Pakistan becomes what her founder Jinnah Baniya envisioned it to be. A secular and progressive entity. Not a paranoid entity but a proud civilization who does not think the world began in the fifth century.
It would be lovely to see Indians and Pakistanis fighting over the legacy of Panini. ( not the sandwich)
Does rationality mean, a government can abdicate its responsibility to protect its citizens from agreession?
I can only speculate as to why there was seemingly no response to 26/11.
My guess is that the US army in Pakistan's backyard had somewhat of a deterrent effect. can't discount the nukes either.
Thinking rationally, what incentive does Pakistan have to stop exporting terror to India, when apparently it has no consequences?
Wow, a thread on Pakistan that has not been hijacked by trolls? Amazing. Usually I get put off in posting anything after the usual people jump in.
I have to agree with Ahsean that there was actually very little substance in the wikileaks stuff. Hamid Gul is a known sympathizer who retains his contacts there but he was been out of the ISI for 20 years. Some of the other alleged ISI reports (such as the plot to buy beer and poison it, then truck it to US soldiers) seem absurd. There is a Polish report that connects ISI to Haqqani to the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, but the Pakistani army could easily tell the Americans that they were protecting their national interest in an intelligence operation against India etc. and it was not an operation aimed at Coalition forces.
The Pak army's stance has always been that they could bring the Haqqanis (and possibly Hekmetyar) on board in any negotiated settlement. Given Obama's announcement of a withdrawal it was obvious that there had to be a negotiated settlement. So the US actually needs the ISI's Jihadist connections.
Having said all this, as a Pakistani, I wish our army generals would move out of their palaeolithic mindset. This search for mythical 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan is a canard. And there is really very little they can achieve by continuing this sponsorship of Jihadist groups, while the blowback effect is extremely high. They complain that the Americans 'deserted' them in previous times of national crisis, but when you are going to behave like a petulant bully in your foreign policy, don't expect other countries to stick with you except when they really, really have to. If they were really interested in promoting the interests of Pakistan (as opposed to the narrow short-term interests of the institution of the army) they would realize that regional co-operation and stability is the way to go.
Look agree with most of what people have to say here (Great BTW to have a nonTroll set of posts). Peace for Pakistani't is paramount also - one of teh most popular newspaper chains in Pakistan the Jang group runs an initiative called Aman Ki Asha which is all abotu peace. ANd espite some of the baiting here, despite the perversion of history that is taught to many Pakistani's, you'll find enarly all want peace. The issue is that for those in power its not a priority - but thats going off topic. Why pakistan doesn't care about wikileaks - comes back to 1) Not our war 2) 'Victory' in Afghanistan isnt going to lead to peace (Most believe) just a rehash of 90's with various warlords and the US pulling a Saigon but more gracefully vs. less 3) Whats new in Wikileaks data that everyoen doesn't already know? There is a trust deficiet but teh conversation is often lop sided on how Pakistan needs to earn US trust - considering Pak history what has the US done to earn our trust? Lest we forget only past 10 years (So even leaving out Zia where the rot started) Musharraf, military dictator, responsible for Kargil setting back India-Pak peace by a decade, responsible for rigging elections to support religous parties from 3% vote to 20%, responsibel for the double game - and his biggest supporters? Not ordinary Pakistanis but US and its allies. Its a crazy world....
Pakistani media undeplaying the wiki leaks is hardly a shock
The indictment of ISI's role is a virtual indictment of the army and by extension the country as a whole. At this point even the White House has little option but to underplay the leaks. They have no alternate supply lines into Afganistan. The Pakistani double game in Afganistan seems to be succeeding.
Problems with Pakistani Identity
Pakistan was created to be Not India. Pakistanis are taught in school to hate India and Hindus. Pakistani military is obsessed with desire to harm India. Islamic supremacism against Hindu India is the openly stated cultural and political foundation of the state of Pakistan.
Most civilizations - whether secular, Christian, Hindu or Chinese are moving towards the principle of - Do No Harm. That is not the case with Islam or Pakistan. They are on a road to destruction both for themselves and others.
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE