Who really killed Daniel Pearl?
The US is ignoring evidence of links with Pakistan's secret service
Tariq Ali in Lahore
Guardian
Friday April 5, 2002
It has been a stunningly beautiful spring in Pakistan. But the
surface calm is deceptive. When the war in Afghanistan began, I
suggested that the Taliban would be rapidly defeated and that
the "jihadi" organisations and their patrons would regroup in
Pakistan and, sooner or later, start punishing General
Musharraf's regime. This process is now under way.
In recent months, the jihadis have scored three big hits: the
kidnapping and brutal murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter,
Daniel Pearl; the assassination of the interior minister's brother;
and the bombing of a church in the heart of Islamabad's tightly
protected diplomatic enclave. There have also been targeted
killings of professionals in Karachi: more than a dozen doctors
belonging to the Shi'a minority have been shot.
All these acts were designed as a warning to Pakistan's military
ruler: if you go too far in accommodating Washington, your head
will also roll. Some senior journalists believe an attempt on
Musharraf's life has already taken place. Are these acts of
terrorism actually carried out by hardline groups such as
Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkatul Ansar, which often claim
them? Probably, but these groups are only a shell. Turn them
upside down and the rational kernel is revealed in the form of
Pakistan's major intelligence agency - the Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI), whose manipulation of them has long been
clear.
Those sections of the ISI who patronised and funded these
organisations were livid at "the betrayal of the Taliban". Being
forced to unravel the only victory they had ever scored - the
Taliban takeover in Kabul - created enormous tensions inside
the army. Unless this background is appreciated, the terrorism
shaking the country today is inexplicable.
Colin Powell's statement of March 3, exonerating the ISI from
any responsibility for Pearl's disappearance and murder, is
shocking. Few in Pakistan believe such assurances. Musharraf
was not involved, but he must know what took place. He has
referred to Pearl as an "over- intrusive journalist" caught up in
"intelligence games". Has he told Washington what he knows?
And if so, why did Powell absolve the ISI?
The Pearl tragedy has shed some light on the darker recesses
of the intelligence networks. Pearl was a gifted,
independent-minded investigative journalist. On previous
assignments he had established that the Sudanese
pharmaceutical factory - bombed on Clinton's orders - was
exactly that and not a shady installation producing biological
and chemical weapons, as alleged by the White House.
Subsequently, he wrote extensively on Kosovo, questioning
some of the atrocity stories dished out by Nato spin-doctors to
justify the war on Yugoslavia.
Pearl was never satisfied with official briefings or chats with
approved local journalists. Those he was in touch with in
Pakistan say he was working to uncover links between the
intelligence services and terrorism. His newspaper has been
remarkably coy, refusing to disclose the leads Pearl was
pursuing.
Any western journalist visiting Pakistan is routinely watched and
followed. The notion that Daniel Pearl, setting up contacts with
extremist groups, was not being carefully monitored by the
secret services is unbelievable - and nobody in Pakistan
believes it.
The group which claimed to have kidnapped and killed Pearl -
"The National Youth Movement for the Sovereignty of Pakistan" -
is a confection. One of its demands was unique: the resumption
of F-16 sales to Pakistan. A terrorist, jihadi group which
supposedly regards the current regime as treacherous is putting
forward a 20-year-old demand of the military and state
bureaucracy.
The principal kidnapper, the former LSE student Omar Saeed
Sheikh - whose trial begins in Karachi today - has added to the
mystery. He carelessly condemned himself by surrendering to
the provincial home secretary (a former ISI operative) on
February 5. Sheikh is widely believed in Pakistan to be an
experienced ISI "asset" with a history of operations in Kashmir.
If he was extradited to Washington and decided to talk, the
entire story would unravel. His family are fearful. They think he
might be tried by a summary court and executed to prevent the
identity of his confederates being revealed.
So mysterious has this affair become that one might wonder
who is really running Pakistan. Official power is exercised by
General Musharraf. But it is clear that his writ does not extend
to the whole state apparatus, let alone the country. If a military
regime cannot guarantee law and order, what can it hope to
deliver? Meanwhile, Daniel Pearl's widow is owed an explanation
by her own state department and the general in Islamabad.
· Tariq Ali's latest book, The Clash of Fundamentalisms, is
published by Verso
-- For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST