Misinformation or disinformation?

The Pakistani public has been subjected to sustained misinformation, at best, and, at worst, disinformation for sometime now. That this charge is not unique to one minister, one government, one political party or indeed the establishment is becoming patently evident. However the critical question is: are we being misinformed defined as being provided false or inaccurate information unintentionally or are we being disinformed defined as intent to mislead?
Perhaps the most telling proof that the political government as well as the establishment has been engaged in disinformation, as opposed to misinformation, has been provided by WikiLeaks. The most notable example of disinformation remains the drone strikes operated by CIA. Pakistan's then newly appointed Prime Minister Gilani's views were revealed in a cable sent by former US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson as early as in August 2008, "Malik suggested we hold off alleged Predator attacks until after the Bajaur operation. The PM brushed aside Rehman's remarks and said, 'I don't care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.'" President Zardari has been reported by Bob Woodward in his book titled Obama's Wars as stating, after being notified that the CIA would continue to launch missile strikes from drones over Pakistan's sovereign territory, "Kill the seniors. Collateral damage worries you Americans. It doesn't worry me." And this position according to State Department cables released by WikiLeaks has not wavered. And in 2009 Anne Patterson, in a cable to the State Department confirmed that Chief of Army Staff General Kayani directed his forces to aid US drone strikes. According to a CBS story aired late 2010, 'various US operations in Pakistan's northern and tribal regions were...almost certainly with the personal consent of General Kayani.' This has been denied in a statement issued by ISPR recently.
But where does Pakistan's parliament stand? Was it complicit too? There have been a sum total of two resolutions condemning drone strikes - neither has led to a cessation of drone strikes. The last resolution on the subject was passed this month in the aftermath of the bin Laden killing with the two houses (in the presence of the establishment) agreeing to consider stopping Nato supplies in case of another strike. No one responded to the statement by the establishment during the more than 10-hour in-camera session that the drones could be shot down if the government so directed the armed forces. There have been more than two drone strikes since. Pakistani official response has been more disinformation: Rehman Malik's statements with respect to the US apology for the drone strike, post-bin Laden killing has been denied by the US; but Malik's disinformation record is well-known and remains unblemished given this latest example. However an ISPR statement informed the public that General Kiyani had protested to the Americans. There has been no US response to this claim.
The victims of the drone strikes are almost routinely dismissed as militants or suspected militants. The US television network CBS broadcast the following report end 2010 that has remained unchallenged by the US or Pakistani officialdom: The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (a Washington based non-profit organisation with the objective of working for war victims) "took a careful look at nine drone strikes from the last two years and concluded that they had resulted in the deaths of 30 civilians, including 14 women and children. (Perhaps, of course, superior American military intelligence classified them as 'militants in Training'.) Based on this study, an average rate of error can be calculated: 3.33 civilians mistakenly killed in each drone attack. The dead, Pakistanis will assure you, are largely unnamed, faceless, unindicted, and unconvicted civilians...Pakistanis are considered irrelevant, however, and collateral damage, as it turns out, doesn't seem to worry anyone in the government elite.....During what UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon termed the worst disaster he'd ever seen (floods 2010), with the country desperate and prostrate, the CIA launched its most extensive drone campaign yet. Over the 30 days of September, as Islamabad rushed to assure Washington that it would not divert too many troops from the war effort to help with flood relief, 20-odd strikes were called in. They would produce the highest number of drone fatalities for a single month in the last six years."
The second major disinformation has been with respect to investigation of scams ordered by the courts that implicated members of the ruling PPP and, in some instances, their immediate family. This is reflected by the Supreme Court's expression of deep concern over the removal/transfer of those Federal Investigation Agency's officials (under Malik's Interior Ministry) who were known to be undertaking the investigation in a transparent and unbiased manner and their replacement by those who, the Court opined, dragged their feet and in some instances made false statements exonerating the culprits. It is symptomatic of the independence of the superior judiciary that some of the money from the scams has begun to be returned to the exchequer. And need one add this is a reflection of change (with one former Federal Minister in jail, and another expected to answer charges in court while the immunity of others may be as short-lived as their stint in power). This change does not compare with the Arab spring because, as analysts maintain, our public has not yet begun to vote on performance, but continues to vote on the baradari/tribal system. This trend however is changing in the cities.
Macroeconomic statistics have also been subjected to disinformation to reflect a rosier picture than what is the reality. But what has been unprecedented till now is the disinformation, reportedly fuelled by Pakistan's economic team itself, with respect to the outcome of their talks with the International Monetary Fund from May 11 to 17. The Pakistani media widely reported that talks with the IMF had led to the approval of the draft 2011-12 budget that included an agreement not to implement the controversial Reformed General Sales Tax and instead to withdraw all exemptions and distortions on the existing sales tax regimen and a 4 percent of the GDP fiscal deficit.
This may have compelled the IMF to issue a statement on its website dated May 17, which noted that, "Reducing the budget deficit will require higher revenue through tax reform to broaden the tax base, including steps to implement reforms in the general sales tax. Measures to reduce spending on general subsidies in the energy sector have begun to be implemented. The quality of expenditure could be improved by increasing the share of spending on health, education, and infrastructure. Continued efforts are needed to reduce the budget deficit to take the pressure off monetary policy and create space for more credit to the private sector. In addition, as government debt has increased, debt management needs to be improved. Moreover, careful monitoring of the financial sector is needed to assure continuing financial stability. The IMF remains committed to the ongoing dialogue with Pakistan and discussions will continue in the weeks ahead and a mission is planned for July 2011." The fact that no quantitative targets were mentioned reveals the obvious: there was no agreement on these targets. So essentially it is back to the negotiating table for the Pakistan economic team: negotiating not with the Fund but with its coalition partners to ensure that the controversial tax measures are passed by the parliament, a fact that many argue accounts for the distinct possibility of a delay in the presentation of the budget to the parliament by a week.
The days of disinformation should be passe in the context of today's global communication systems - both with respect to the media and the internet that is well-nigh impossible to control. In short, it would have been advisable to take the people into confidence about the difficult/challenging reform process. The government's reluctance to do so can be attributed simply to its poor governance for until and unless it can convince the people that its own elite is paying taxes and has effected austerity that pinches the influential, few in public would be willing to support the government by paying taxes honestly.