How To Improve ISI's Image

Last week, some Pakistanis in New York hosted a dinner for a few esteemed guests from their homeland. A very good friend, who is an editor of a respected newspaper, flew off the handle, insisting our guests were Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agents. The argument escalated until we were completely unable to enjoy the company of our guests. Just as mentioning CIA occasionally evokes images of global conspiracy and the KGB calls gulags to mind, the ISI has come to represent political deceit in Pakistan.

Ask anyone to name their reasons for despising the ISI and you will receive vague responses reflective of hatred rather than understanding. Every state apparatus requires intelligence agencies, and Pakistan is no different. There are actually three-well known intelligence agencies in Pakistan: Intelligence Bureau (IB), Military Intelligence (MI), and ISI. There are 26 intelligence agencies in the US. Somehow, the ISI and the CIA are the two that are most demonized.

The turmoil in Pakistan’s past has led to censure of the ISI. A visible feature of the ISI’s history that has done great damage to its reputation is the continual deterioration of civilian institutions due to multiple military coups. Despite some improvements in civil-military relations in recent years, the army remains a dominant actor in Pakistan’s political makeup.

Previous abuses of power should put intelligence reform at the top of the agenda for change. Before Pakistan can continue its democratic transition, these changes must be addressed. It seems some corrections to the system have already been made; ISI has recently demonstrated a previously unseen forthrightness with both local and international media.

Although reform to intelligence agencies will be difficult, the good news is that with patience, resolve, and international assistance, Pakistan’s government can indeed reassert civilian control over the intelligence community. Luckily for Pakistan, there are predecessors to take notes from. Indonesia and Chile have both undergone transformations in the intelligence arena and have plenty to offer Pakistan by way of example.

I wanted to know something of my friend who suspected our guests of being ISI agents: What did he think could be done to reform the intelligence agency? I was not surprised when he was unable to provide any coherent prescription. I find critics of the ISI to be a dime a dozen; if I had a penny for every time I heard someone criticize the ISI, I would be a millionaire. Yet none of these critics can give any recommendations to improve the situation.

In fact, the international community continues to blame Pakistan’s problems on the ISI, but still maintains working relations with the agency. Often, these relations undermine the democratic government and vindicate the very intelligence actors that need to be controlled. This double standard can be avoided by direct involvement with the Pakistani government, rather than going through intelligence services.

Pakistan’s government must reinforce the separation between civilian and military intelligence agencies. The integration of former ISI agents into other civilian bodies, particularly the IB, should be limited or stopped. Cross-recruitment prevents organizations from becoming independent.

Pakistan also needs to strengthen the police force. A better-trained and better-equipped police force can do a better job of counter terrorism, which work is currently exploited by the intelligence agencies to legitimize their control over politics in Pakistan.

US Secretary of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano recently visited Pakistan, and told us in New York last week that the US government is prepared to help develop Pakistan’s law enforcement infrastructure. From training police to setting up point-of-entries at Pakistan-Afghanistan borders, the US can help Pakistan using its experience regulating the US-Mexico border. Interestingly, every year there are several officers from the Pakistani army who train in American institutions, but no Pakistani police officer is coached by American counterparts. While army officers should continue to go to the US for training, it would be highly beneficial for Pakistan to invest in its law enforcement agencies in this manner as well.

Ignoring the urgent need to establish supremacy over the intelligence community would be a grave mistake on the part of Pakistan’s civilian government. Reducing the role of the military in the intelligence sector will allow the government to consolidate itself domestically, so it should be a top priority. In addition, government control over military and intelligence will cast a positive light on the state of Pakistan’s emerging democracy, and will improve international opinions of Pakistan.

In saying all this, though, we must remember not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Like any other state, Pakistan needs a strong defense system. Pakistan’s army is its most disciplined institution and employs over 500,000 people, and its military is Pakistan’s best protection at its borders. Calling for military and intelligence reform should not be confused with anti-nationalism; we must always remember the sacrifices of those foot soldiers who valiantly put their lives on the line for their nations’ security.