Bonus: Why Did Pakistan’s Military Arrest Khan?

Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove

Guest

Episode Summary

Judges in Pakistan have ordered the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan from custody after his dramatic arrest in Islamabad on what his supporters claim are trumped up charges of corruption. The Supreme Court has ordered Khan be freed on protected bail, meaning he cannot be re-arrested on the same charges for another two weeks. The country has seen waves of violence after his supporters who have protested his arrest clashed with the police and the military. Several people have died and thousands have been arrested. Authorities shut down internet and cellphone networks to try and quell the unrest. One Decision's Sir Richard Dearlove, who ran MI6, reflects on his past dealings with the country's powerful military and intelligence services, and why many are speculating that Khan's ouster last year from office and his current troubles are to do with him running afoul of Pakistan's powerful army and intelligence chiefs.

International Intrigue is a <5min daily newsletter written by former diplomats. They scan over 600 sources a day so you don't have to. Sign up to join 50,000 global thinkers.

Listen & Subscribe

• Watch on YouTube
• Listen on Apple Podcasts
• Listen on Spotify

Transcript

INTRODUCTION

Mcfarlane: You're listening to One More Decision, an update from the One Decision podcast coming to you from London, Washington, and LA. I'm your host, Julia McFarlane, and with me today is my cohost, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service. Richard, there's been something extraordinary happening in Islamabad, Pakistan that has had ripple effects across the entire country. The former prime minister Imran Khan, was ousted last year, was arrested in quite dramatic fashion this week on corruption charges, and he was remanded in custody these last few days. His arrest, which his former cabinet colleagues and members of his party have been describing all week as an abduction by the state, it's ignited protests across Pakistan. Some of them have been very violent that have seen his protesters clashing with police forces. At least half a dozen people have died. Thousands have been arrested. And in some provinces, they've actually imposed emergency measures, banning all gatherings and protests from taking place. And in the latest turn of events, Khan's arrest has now been ruled as illegal by the Supreme Court, who have ordered his immediate release. Richard, I first wanted to ask you about this instability that Khan's arrest has triggered and the anger that is now spilling out, not just in Pakistan but also around the world. There have been hundreds of people protesting outside the Pakistani High Commission here in London. There has been a lot of anger that is being directed at the country's powerful military and intelligence services. So why are the people blaming the military and Pakistan's intelligence?

THE MILITARY AND THE ISI

Dearlove: Well, I think you have to accept that an aspect of Pakistan's politics is the background and sometimes the foreground presence of a very powerful and influential military. I mean, what hasn't happened in Pakistan is what has happened in Turkey, which we were talking about a few days ago. The military in Pakistan has never really released that grip that they've held on aspects of the political system. And I think the problem here is that Imran Khan, who, as you remember, was forced out of power by a parliamentary vote, the sort of breakup of the coalition that supported him. But there's another election, you know, due quite soon. And I think that he has become too popular, too populist, too powerful on the street. And I think he has stated his wish to cut the military out of politics to the degree that that's possible. So I think what you're seeing here is an attempt to put Imran Khan beyond the political system on a type of sort of trumped up charge. I mean, it's laughable. I think the accusation against him is selling political gifts. Well, I mean, Pakistani politics are such that this would be a very minor infraction. And if he's guilty of that, every politician in Pakistan is probably guilty of something. So, you know, it is the military having a go at him. And of course, the core part of the military is the ISI, which is the intelligence part of Pakistani military. And they are pretty much like a state within a state. I mean, they're very autonomous. They're very powerful. And you know when you enter their world, which I've done on previous visits to Pakistan, you have the feeling that you know these guys are amongst the nation's power brokers. And of course, the other aspect to this, which you have to remember, is that Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT treaty and possesses nuclear weapons. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, yeah. Of course, the guardians of those nuclear weapons, are seen as a deterrent against the overwhelming conventional force of the Indian military, are the ISI who have a key role in all of that. So I don't think any of this is particularly surprising. And, of course, the sort of street violence is a fundamental part of, you know, daily political life in Pakistan, whether it's radical Islamists whipped up to cause huge problems or whether it's bomb attacks by Islamists on the Pakistani military from time to time, which have happened quite frequently. I mean, it's a very, very fraught place and very difficult.

Mcfarlane: Richard, you can't drop such a tantalizing little nugget such as, you know, the time when you had to deal with the world behind the curtain that is the domain of the ISI and not elaborate further on what exactly it is that you were up to. When was this? What were you sort of working with them on? Tell us about your trips there and how you found them.

Dearlove: Well, I'm not going to go into detail. You're always pressing me. But I'll give you an idea. Of course, it was about Kashmir. And it was about the tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. And over time the Pakistanis have been supporters of the terrorist movements which have destabilized Kashmir and have been, you know, the bane of the Indian government. And I mean, I'm going right back to the time that Musharraf was in power, obviously a military man, and really trying to get it across to the Pakistanis that we knew what they were up to, and they should desist from, you know, supporting radical Islamic movements. But the issue of Kashmir has never been settled. It's still a sort of bleeding wound between the two countries. And of course, the Indians have taken a very tough military line there. So I mean, both sides have their problems. But obviously, in a situation like that, I would, if I went to Pakistan, I would be talking to the ISI, but let's leave it there.

Mcfarlane: You obviously have a lot of backstory with Afghanistan and there of course have been long standing accusations and claims that the ISI were supportive of the Taliban. Did you ever rattle sabres with them on that issue?

Dearlove: Well of course we've covered that issue. I mean I think what you have to understand is this concept of what's called Greater Pashtunistan. So the Pashtun are the dominant tribe in the sort of northern parts of Pakistan and large areas of Afghanistan, and there's an ethnic identity which crosses borders there. So for reasons of almost tribal loyalty to the Pashtun, and the Taliban have a massive Pashtun element, well they are largely a Pashtun movement. They, of course, have had support from Pakistan. And I mean, one of the problems with the Afghan situation has been that during the war in Afghanistan, the Pakistanis were sort of indulgent in allowing Taliban to come over to the border into Pakistan where they were out of reach. So, I mean, they have supported that conflict. I mean, I don't know now what the state of the relationship is between the Taliban and the Pakistanis. I think it's more tense than it used to be, but I'm sure that it still exists. And I'm sure that the ISI are still an important agent in that rather complex tribal situation. And of course, you know, you do see competing Indian and Pakistani straight Pashtun influences being fought out in aspects of the situation in Afghanistan. I mean the area is hugely complex historically as those who studied it know, and you know these issues run deep and have a certain intractability about them.

Mcfarlane: The last thing on this particular aspect of the ISI I have to ask is, of course, you know, famously, Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan in Abbottabad, there have been, there's long been rumors that there is a Pakistani support network, had been a support network for bin Laden. Do you think the ISI would have been involved in that?

Dearlove: Well, let's put it like this. I just can't, I mean, Abbottabad is the equivalent of Aldershot in the UK. It is the military town in Pakistan. And the idea that bin Laden was living in a villa in a street in Abbottabad and the Pakistani military didn't know he was there seems to me completely farcical. And I think the problem has been elements within the Pakistani military have viewed these issues very differently. And did the ISI know that bin Laden was there? Well, I'm sure that the whole service didn't know he was there. Did one or two people in a group within the ISI, well sorry I think one has to sort of assume that there was some knowledge somewhere. I'm not saying this was the Pakistani state but it might have been a small group who were sympathetic towards him. So I think one has to conclude that that was a probability.

IMRAN KHAN AND THE BALANCE OF POWER

Mcfarlane: That's interesting. Going back to Imran Khan, I mean, the reason why I think it's important to talk a little bit about the military and the ISI and understanding that power in Pakistan is because many people ascribe Imran Khan's success and his route to office as one that led through the military and the intelligence services, that without their support, he never would have been prime minister. A lot of Pakistani experts and journalists have said that part of the reason for his sudden ouster last year, despite him being at one point a hugely popular prime minister, was because he fell foul of the military and the intelligence services. Tell me a bit about the background of who really holds the balance of power in Pakistan. Because I think it's so interesting that we're discussing this, as you point out, at a time when we're also anticipating the election in Turkey. And you have this kind of this similar but also opposite situation where you have an incredibly powerful military. But in the case of Turkey, it has been kind of castrated bit by bit and slowly by President Erdogan and he's done a lot of that in response to that failed coup against him in 2016, which we discussed. It's not quite the same in Pakistan, and there are of course many other countries around the world, Myanmar is another one, Egypt, where civilian governments have tried to hold office and to see full terms in government and have not been able to before being displaced by a powerful military. Pakistan has been ruled since its independence sort of half, half and half between military leadership and then the other half has been political dynasties, these two families, the Bhuttos and the Sharifs who've led civilian governments. But they have done so with the support of the military. So would you say that it really is the military still that rules Pakistan, or is it a bit more nuanced than that?

Dearlove: I think it's more nuanced than that. I mean, there is a sort of functioning democracy, but there's an aspect of Pakistani politics which is very feudal. And what I mean by that, there are these dominant families who literally have retainers amongst the rural poor, and they have very influential positions and their power bases are built almost around feudal loyalties. However, there's no question that the military have not let go of all of their power, that democracy functions with, to a degree, their oversight and approval. And if things start getting out of hand, getting out of control, and you lose the approval of the military, which clearly Imran Khan has done, I mean he has become a rather populist element, he's able to rouse the street in a quite dramatic fashion, and I guess this sort of frightens the military. So you get this, what people have phrased his abduction by the state on a very trumped up charge which is intended I think eventually probably to put him on trial to disqualify him from politics from having a penal offense on his record. But, you know, as you point out, the high court now has demanded his release. I mean, there is, you know, there are the remnants of a system of democracy and independent judiciary in Pakistan. So it's not clear cut. It's not straightforward. But I mean, my guess would be if the military really put their foot down, eventually, you know, they will get their way. But it may be that they might have to compromise with Imran Khan if, you know, he's getting, you know, if the sort of street backing him becomes too disruptive and too powerful. And, of course, you have to remember that Pakistan is in a pretty powerless state economically, partly because of the dreadful floods it's been through. And, you know, partly because, you know, it's on the point of of going bust. And I think at the moment, isn't it waiting for approval for an IMF loan, which has a whole lot of conditions attached to it, which it can't fulfill and it's on the point, you know, of running out of hard currency and therefore that will further affect the poor in terms of, you know, the availability on the internet of purchase of food and grain on the international market. You know that there are a host of problems at the moment which destabilizing it and it's always close to destabilization. But as I said, if you go into the mess of the ISI, you enter a completely different world. It's rather extraordinary. It's like a nineteenth century British regimental mess. It's very hierarchical, very formal, very rigid, and actually very Muslim as well. It's a peculiar mixture.

Mcfarlane: Have you watched any of the Homeland TV shows? There's a series where they do quite a lot on the ISI, and they do characterize them as really being quite devious and quite sinister. But of course, that is a very American take on the ISI. But what you describe as this kind of this feudal system and this sort of state within a state? There were quite a few, some similarities between that fictitious, I should stress, TV show.

Dearlove: Yeah. Well, I mean, that's really what it's like. It's quite unnerving in a way because you go to a military mess and you know there are aspects of the British nineteenth century infantry regiment, you know, of the officers, they're very smart, they've got handlebar moustaches and you know there's an awful lot of saluting and stamping around. It's a little unexpected in Pakistan that they've preserved this aspect of what, of course, was originally the Indian army. You know, it split in two at partition. And, you know, both sides took bits of that tradition with them. And they're still very, very strong. It's extraordinary. And, you know, they're in many respects, they're also impressive. I'm not, you know, they are an ordered group, a disciplined group within a very disordered and seriously, politically, socially vulnerable country. And that's why it's reminiscent for me of going into, you know, Turkish military messes when the Turkish military were on a high and still very much a force in the land. And in Pakistan, they haven't been cut down to size, and they look likely to be. And, of course, they do have their hands on the Pakistani nuclear weapon.

Mcfarlane: Just one final quick question. You say that Pakistan is a country that's very often teetering towards destabilization. What's at stake? You know, you mentioned it is a nuclear armed country. It is a country that often has these borderline spats with the Indians. It shares a border with Afghanistan. How dangerous could it be for Pakistan to really fall into the grip of real destabilization?

Dearlove: Well, it's geopolitically in a crucial area. And, you know, if you look at the places in the world where you could have major conflict, India-Pakistan remains one and a destabilized Pakistan would be of a huge worry internationally and to India. It's also a nuclear armed power that makes it very, as it were, significant if those weapons were to get into the wrong hands in a destabilized country. I mean that's hugely worrying. And then, you know, it's played a crucial role in Afghanistan, not a constructive role, I might say, in promoting war and instability there. So on the other side, you know, it points towards the Middle East. It's a strongly Muslim country as well. So I think there are many reasons why we have to take the place very, very seriously. And if it begins to fall apart, things like the outflow of the population in terms of an immigration problem to other parts of the world. You can see all sorts of problems which, you know, would affect Europe and the UK very significantly.

Mcfarlane: That's it from this world update from the One Decision podcast. If you enjoyed this little conversation, why not check out our channel for our main offerings which drop every Thursday? Just search One Decision wherever you find your podcasts. From me and the team, thank you for listening, and see you next time.