The Military Intelligence Agency (MI) is the third important intelligence agency in Pakistan. I am not sure if the MI's reach today is greater than that of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), but it is a top intelligence player. Although it does not have a significant external presence, military attaches in selected embassies around the world are the eyes and ears of both the ISI and the MI. The MI, however, operates directly under the control of the Pakistani army. During Musharraf's rule, the MI had a central role in Balochistan and military operations there. Understandably, the role of the MI expands during the rule of a military government.
Naval and Air Intelligence are junior partners of Military Intelligence. All three service intelligence branches have linkages with the ISI. While the work of the three services basically focuses on counterintelligence, they do follow changes and developments in the capability and intentions of the external threat as it relates to their specific areas. They also carry out limited trans-border intelligence at the tactical and operational levels. This is true of defence service intelligence agencies throughout the world.
Each province has a Special Branch. Special Branch is the prime provincial intelligence agency with its focus on prevention of crime, and now fighting terrorism as well as. The special branch has a presence down to the tehsil level. It is headed by an additional inspector general at the provincial level and a superintendent at the district level. The Special Branch, being integral to the provincial police, has a close relationship with the police at almost all tiers of the government, the two share the task of crime prevention.
It is this close relationship between the Special Branch and the police at the lowest level of government which can be a major asset in developing actionable intelligence against militancy at the grassroots level. In the heyday of the IB, the director general of the Intelligence Bureau used to hold two annual conferences with the heads of the four Special Branches. This arrangement provided critical institutional linkage between the local police and the IB, which is almost nonexistent today. The fact that both the IB and the Special Branches drew their officer cadre from the Police Service of Pakistan greatly facilitated the required sharing of the provincial and federal intelligence assets.
The police are a provincial law-enforcement agency whose job is to prevent crime, maintain, and investigate breaches of, law and order. Not a long time ago it was believed that the officer in charge of each thana (police station), the thanedar, had his finger on the pulse of his area of jurisdiction. In other words, a police station had an excellent intelligence network at the grassroots level. This is no longer true, for a variety of reasons.
Besides the obvious decline in professionalism, rampant corruption and political interference in the operations of the police force are the other reasons. Today, a thanedar would be lucky to stay on his post even for six months. In the old days, police officers usually spent an average of three years on a single assignment. With enhanced professionalism, better working conditions and solid guidance the police, the Special Branch and the IB together made up an efficient force.
There are a number of law-enforcement and investigative agencies like the FIA, Railway Police, Pakistan Customs, the Anti-Narcotics Force, the Immigration Department and the CID, which all have small intelligence units to support their respective missions. Many times these units come across a wealth of information which could be very useful for the overall intelligence effort against militancy. For one, the Immigration service has a record of all foreigners entering and leaving Pakistan.
Recently I read about the possibility of the creation of a new ministry in Pakistan, like the Homeland Security Department of the US. I hope we understand that Homeland Security is mostly a collection of law-enforcement agencies.
The two most important issues to move our intelligence efforts to face the challenges of the future are:
• Reforming each major intelligence agency to fulfil its prescribed mission.
• Develop a mechanism to integrate the total intelligence effort to fight the primary national threat, without sacrificing their specific missions.
There are a number of models that are available around the world, we are fairly familiar with the British, the US and the Indian models, but we will eventually need to develop a model most suitable to our specific environment and needs.
For starters, we need to build up the IB, to bring it at par with the ISI. It should be given a mandate and an organisational structure of the pre-Musharraf era and a role possibly beyond that. For it to be effective at gathering intelligence at the grassroots level, there is a need for the development of a vertical link between the IB, the Special Branch and the police in all the provinces. The ISI already has a vertical link with the three service intelligence agencies. But there may be a need to review the ISI's mission and mandate.
However, it will be counterproductive and short-sighted to reduce the capability and capacity of the ISI to fight militancy and terrorism, as it will take years for the IB to develop its full potential.
The fundamental point that needs to be kept in mind is that the coordinating office for all intelligence agencies must report directly to the prime minister, and not be placed under any one ministry. The office should have the capability of evaluating raw and processed intelligence and place an integrated intelligence picture in front of the prime minister and his or her cabinet. The coordinator may have any title like Advisor on National Intelligence, Advisor on National Security, or Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. He should have the status of a federal minister to be able to play an effective role.
It is no secret that both ISI and the IB have been used to spy on political opponents of governments in power. In fact, intelligence agencies have in the past actively participated in the making and breaking of governments. This practice must end, once and for all. This should be done through an Act of Parliament forbidding the present and future governments to use intelligence and law-enforcement agencies for political advantage.
Mahmud Ali Durrani, News International (Rawalpindi), June 18, 2011, http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=53239&Cat=9&dt=6/18/2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment