If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then … anyone who tells you it is a duck must be hiding something. So goes the logic of conspiracy theories which are gaining increasing currency in Pakistan because of the wave of gun and bomb attacks in its towns and cities.

As reported in the New York Times, India, Israel and the United States are frequently blamed for the violence, as is the U.S. security company formerly known as Blackwater.

The Pakistani Taliban, according to al Jazeera, appear to have capitalised on that by blaming Blackwater for two attacks that most shocked Pakistanis — one a suicide bombing on a market crowded with women and children in Peshawar which killed more than 100 people and the other an attack on the Islamic University in Islamabad.“Surprisingly enough, this whole India-US-Israel theory has a lot of popular currency these days in Pakistan,” writes Asif Akhtar in a blog for Dawn newspaper. ”The myriad of television talk-shows on every news channel are heavily relying on this theory of a triangulated axis of evil out to destroy Islam and Pakistan with one nifty stone’s throw of insurgent terror.”

“If the present reasoning of global evils out to destroy Islam and Pakistan continues, then the only answer is the apocalyptic war which is talked about in fringe mythologies related to the arrival of the Antichrist. The last thing we want is for this to be a self-fulfilling prophecy!”

Foreign journalists have not escaped, being accused of working variously for the CIA, Mossad, and India’s R&AW spy agency, and of course, Blackwater, according to Marie-France Calle in her French-language blog for Le Figaro newspaper.

Conspiracy theories are not new to South Asia, and are usually driven by the assumption that some much more powerful nation must be pulling the strings behind the scenes.

They gained momentum during the 1980s when intelligence agencies ran the covert war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The collapse of the Soviet Union shortly after its withdrawal from Afghanistan underpinned a view of all-powerful intelligence agencies who could redraw the world map – no matter that many historians argue that the collapse was due to many other factors which were quite independent of its Afghan defeat.

“In the world of the conspiracy, powerful actors are not merely mortals with influence but rather god-like beings who direct geopolitics like an opera, and that is just how the powerful often appear to be in this country,” writes Mustafa Qadri in Britain’s Guardian newspaper. “By marshalling conspiracy theories many people, not just in Pakistan, abdicate responsibility for confronting the ills their societies face. If you are playing cards with a cheat, is there any point in trying to get a better hand?”

There is a fine line between conspiracy theories and a healthy scepticism about what those in power are saying. And there is always room for sensible discussion both about the agendas of intelligence agencies, and about the role of private security firms like Blackwater.

But in a country trying to re-establish itself as a democracy, and where economic development is seen as one of the better ways of draining support for the Taliban, how do you develop a strong civil society if voters are constantly being told they have no hope of change since everything is being run by a Hidden Hand?

This article by Myra MacDonald originally appeared on Reuters Blog on  the 17th of November.

Ikram Sehgal: Conflict of Interest?

In two recent pieces published in The News ‘Just Say No’ and ‘The Ultimate Defining Moment’, former army officer turned security consultant turned defense analyst Ikram Sehgal, praised Hilary Clinton’s recent visit to Pakistan. Since PMW believes in fighting for “A Free, Fair and Factually Correct Pakistani Media” we believe Mr. Sehgal should be upfront and come clean about his own ties.

Mr Sehgal is head of SMS Security Company which is tied up with Wackenhut Services, a US-based private security services provider. Wackenhut-SMS are one of the contractors who provide security to the American embassy and to Americans in Pakistan.

We find it very interesting that in his recent writings Mr Sehgal concentrated not just on praising Secretary Clinton but also repeatedly emphasized the need for Pakistan to accept the $7.5 billion US aid package. And yet Mr Sehgal has refused to point out that there is a ‘conflict of interest’ issue at heart.

Mr Sehgal has the right to write articles praising or critiquing people but his readers have an equal right to know that he is benefiting monetarily and professionally from the people he is praising in his article. We recommend that all media outlets require and publish full disclosure from themselves and those individuals that they invite to write or speak for their publication. With full disclosure, we will be able to judge the arguments of the speaker on the merits of his words.

As a side note: At PMW we believe in ‘equal opportunity’ and strive to correct factual and ethical errors in our media regardless of political alignment. Yesterday we had a piece on The Nation, which is a constant critic of US and US-Pakistan ties, and today we have a piece on Ikram Sehgal who supports these ties. If you have a tip about a factual or ethical error in any Pakistani media – regardless of the politics – please send us a tip at pakistanmediawatch@gmail.com so we can investigate and publish a correction. It is up to us to keep our media honest.

In his article, Mr. Quraishi refers to the VOA as a “US propaganda network,” but a 2007 article by Shaista Sindhu reveals that Mr. Quraishi had previously applied for a job with VOA and been denied due to discrepancies with his resume.

During the course of applying for the VOA job, Ahmed Quraishi was actively promoted by the Government of Pakistan’s Secretary for Information and Broadcasting Anwar Mahmood who is a key figure in the Musharraf regime’s media handling for several years. Mr Mahmood made calls on Mr Quraishi’s behalf to the then head of VOA Urdu, Brian Silver, who was later removed from his position due to professional reasons.

Mr Silver and Mr Mahmood had worked closely in the run up to VOA getting permission to start an Urdu TV program on the Geo network. The United States government paid Geo for air time in a deal that has never been fully made public. Allegations that could not be independently verified suggest that a Pakistani media company close to Mr Mahmood acted as middle man betweenVOA and Geo at the time and the key individuals on both sides personally benefited from the financial arrangements.

Mr Mahmood also sought the help of VOA’s Islamabad correspondent Ayaz Gul to promote the case of Mr Quraishi. Several senior members of the media cell of inter Services Intelligence (ISI) also put in a good word on Ahmed Quraishi’s behalf. The ISI had earlier succeeded in securing a job at VOA Urdu TV for Faiz Rehman, a pro-government activist with close ties to the Pakistan embassy in Washington. Mr Rehman has now relinquished his job at VOA.

Mr. Quraishi goes on in his article to criticize PBC Director General Murtaza Solgani for having a “policy direction [that] betrays itself in the recent deal and might even be seen as running counter to what Pakistan should be pursuing in terms of its own public diplomacy,” despite his admitting that Solgani “is a professional radio journalist by the testimony of most of those who worked with him.” This is, as with his omission of his previous attempt at working for the organization, troubling as it suggests that Mr. Quraishi believes in a policy “political litmus test” for journalists. Such a test would clearly, especially in a government funded operation, result in a propaganda machine rather than an unbiased reporting outlet.

Mr. Quriashi’s failure to disclose his failed attempts to obtain a job with the VOA in an article represent a disconcerting lapse in journalistic ethics and should be soundly reprimanded by his supervisors at The Nation. In the future, we suggest Mr. Quraishi fully disclose any relationships he has had with a person or organization before he offers a critique.