Benazir Bhutto Killed in Pakistan

[allabootmatt]

Bhutto dies in bomb attack

By Farhan Bokhari in Karachi and Jo Johnson in London

Published: December 27 2007 12:35 | Last updated: December 27 2007 19:14

Benazir Bhutto, the first elected female leader of a Muslim state, was on Thursday killed in a gun and bomb attack after a rally in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi. The death of Ms Bhutto, 54, who had served as Pakistan’s prime minister from 1988-90 and again from 1993-96, raised the spectre of instability and violence in the nuclear-armed Muslim nation.

Ms Bhutto – who returned to Pakistan in October after eight years of exile – had hoped to stage another political comeback in the parliamentary elections scheduled for January 8. The leader of the Pakistan People’s party, the former prime minister had recently been negotiating the terms of a power-sharing agreement with President Pervez Musharraf.

Mr Musharraf, a political rival of Ms Bhutto’s who overthrew then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, quickly condemned the attack. “This cruelty is the work of those terrorists with whom we are fighting,†Mr Musharraf said in a brief televised address.

“The biggest threat to Pakistan and this nation is from these terrorists. I seek unity and support from the nation . . . we will not sit and rest until we get rid of these terrorists, root them out.â€

Mr Sharif, another former prime minister hoping to stage a return to power after a lengthy exile – and another rival of Ms Bhutto’s – called the assassination a “tragedy†and appeared to blame Mr Musharraf for the security lapse. “Benazir Bhutto was also my sister, and I will be with you to take the revenge for her death,†Mr Sharif said.

Audio interview
Benazir Bhutto

Richard Edgar speaks to Jo Johnson, South- Asia bureau chief, on his reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto

‘I did not come this far in life to be intimidated by suicide bombers,’ Ms Bhutto wrote in the Financial Times

The shock of the assassination reverberated strongly elsewhere in the region. Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s president, who had met Ms Bhutto hours before her assassination, condemned her killing. “I met with her this morning [and] I found her to be a very, very brave woman, with a clear vision for her own country, for Afghanistan, and for the region, the vision of democracy and prosperity and peace,†Mr Karzai said. “I am deeply sorry, deeply pained, this brave sister of ours, brave daughter of the Muslim world is no longer with us.â€

“The subcontinent has lost an outstanding leader who worked for democracy and reconciliation in her country,†said Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India, Pakistan’s neighbour and nuclear rival. India also issued a nationwide alert to all of the country’s states to remain vigilant following the assassination.

Leaders around the world echoed Mr Karzai and Mr Singh. Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, called the day’s events “a tragic hour for Pakistan†and referred to Ms Bhutto’s attackers as “cowardsâ€.

In Crawford, Texas, President George W. Bush said the US strongly condemned “this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistani democracyâ€.

As the United Nations Security Council held urgent consultations on events in Pakistan, Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, expressed shock and outrage at the killing of the PPP leader, describing it as an assault on stability in Pakistan and its democratic processes.

Mr Ban, who urged calm and restraint, said: “I call on all Pakistanis to work together for peace and national unity.â€

The 15-member Security Council met in closed session to prepare a joint statement on the assassination. A top Russian diplomat said the killing of Ms Bhutto could trigger a wave of terror in Pakistan. “An act of terror is a bad sign,†deputy foreign minister Alexander Losyukov, Russia’s most senior Asia diplomat, told Itar-Tass news agency. “We hereby offer our condolences. This will for certain trigger a wave of terrorism.â€

Police said a suicide bomber fired shots at Ms Bhutto as she was leaving the rally venue in a park before blowing himself up. “The man first fired at Bhutto’s vehicle. She ducked and then he blew himself up,†police officer Mohammad Shahid said.

Officials had initially reported that Ms Bhutto was safe after the attack – the latest attempt on her life since her return from exile. A suicide bomber killed almost 150 people in an attack on Ms Bhutto on October 18 as she paraded through the southern city of Karachi after returning home from self-imposed exile.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007






I'm not a Pakistan expert, and it always seemed to me that Bhutto was a much more complicated figure than her supporters made her out to be, but this news nonetheless strikes me as, uh, really bad. Pakistan is not a place I'm eager to see get out of control, or more out of control than it already is, maybe. Seems like things might be about to get quite nasty, which makes me glad that reading-between-the-lines of some news stories a few weeks ago suggested that American troops have Pakistan's nuclear warheads under lock and key.

 

[Zephyr]

Benazir Bhutto had fascinated me over the years.

Not only was she the first female Prime Minister in that fairly young, politically and religiously troubled country, she was also the youngest elected to that position - and she was elected once again.

She was flat-out brilliant in an academic sense - having graduated from elite American schools, Radcliffe/Harvard, with a BA cum laude, and of course was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Then she went on to Oxford for post-graduate studies in which she excelled as before.

Despite her attempts at bringing social and poltical reform, against the greatest tide of opposition one could imagine in Pakistan, she had a curious role in supporting the Taliban to 'stabilise' her country. That is the same Taliban which we all know about, not a branch that somehow differs from the rest: with its opposition to women in certain roles, and extremely violent solutions to most issues. Let us just say that was her first big mistake.

Her father was executed before her. Yet, after almost eight years in exile, she accepted a suspicious arrangement to come back - a foolhardy decision indeed. And from the last report I've read, the Taliban took part in the many plans that were hatched to assassinate her, leading up to that final tragic act to-day.

 

[theman23]

She was flat-out brilliant in an academic sense - having graduated from elite American schools, Radcliffe/Harvard, with a BA cum laude, and of course was a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Hmm...I smell an Illuminati conspiracy.

 

[Hydrogen]

This is very sad. It would not be at all surprising if the military decided to stay in power.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What is it about the WASP countries, such as Canada, Australia, USA, New Zealand, UK, etc. that gives them almost automatic or by default political and economic stability, while countries with similar colonial pasts such as Pakistan and almost of South America and Africa are in such a mess politically and economically? It can't just be about poverty.

 

[theman23]

The colonial past of countries like Pakistan and South Africa is hardly similar to that of Canada or the United States.

 

[Zephyr]

What is it about the WASP countries, such as Canada, Australia, USA, New Zealand, UK, etc. that gives them almost automatic or by default political and economic stability, while countries with similar colonial pasts such as Pakistan and almost of South America and Africa are in such a mess politically and economically? It can't just be about poverty.

The colonial past of countries like Pakistan and South Africa is hardly similar to that of Canada or the United States.

A few quibbles:

theman23 - Admiral Beez never mentioned South Africa - he mentioned South America and Africa.

Admiral Beez - "WASP countries" does not seem to fit your list, and is generally unclear as to what you mean.​

 

[DENTROBATE54]

WASP is the acronym White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. In other words he's saying that Caucasian-run nations are more politically civilized than their non-white counterparts, whatever that's supposed to mean .

 

[Admiral Beez]

The colonial past of countries like Pakistan and South Africa is hardly similar to that of Canada or the United States.

I said Africa, not South Africa. By WASP countries I'm referring to those countries that were former colonies of Britain, then populated by ex-pat white British populations, and then achieving full independence from Britain either through war or diplomacy. To be far, many of what I'm calling the WASP colonies were in fact largely populated by folks of all different origins. For example, in Canada, our original colonial population up to confederation in 1867 included Irish Catholics, Germans, etc... followed by the early 1900s by Sikhs, Japanese, Chinese, etc. So, when I'm referring to WASP colonies, I'm more referring to their adherence to the mother country's legal, political and economic rights and traditions more than any reference to skin colour or background.

The colonial pasts of other colonies are similar to the WASP colonies. India and Pakistan, for example, when the British left in 1947 both inherited a strong legal system (with indigenous, not only British judges), strong rail infrastructure and good economics. India seems to be running quite nicely as the world's largest democracy, with an established legal and rights system. With a similar past and inheritance (warranted, many would call it a burden, instead) from Britain, I wonder why Pakistan can't get it right.

As for South America, these colonies of Spain and Portugal were also populated by ex-pat European populations, who then mixed with the local native populations (sort of a Latin American Metis). However, there are few nations in South America with stable politics, middle class economies nor a tradition of individual rights. I wonder again, where the Spanish and Portuguese went wrong in setting the foundations of their colonies.

 

[ganjavih]

I wonder again, where the Spanish and Portuguese went wrong in setting the foundations of their colonies.

Forget the colonies, what about Spain itself? It didn't become a stable democracy until the 1980s. Italy hasn't been a democracy for that long either. Why did some countries work and some didn't? It's a complex question with a complex answer that can't be boiled down to generalisations. As for India being a stable democracy, I would argue with that. How many Gandhis have been assassinated there in the last 30 years? And sectarian violence continues. And have you seen some of the stuff coming out of Bollywood? No stable country would produce that.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hCrxEUU5UwU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IxbbdALeT4o

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6yS9AtFgWmE

 

[Chuck]

What is it about the WASP countries, such as Canada, Australia, USA, New Zealand, UK, etc. that gives them almost automatic or by default political and economic stability, while countries with similar colonial pasts such as Pakistan and almost of South America and Africa are in such a mess politically and economically? It can't just be about poverty.

I think that the amount of conflict is directly proportional to the length of time that humans have existed in a particular area, and the degree to which religion forms the basis of daily life.

The above noted "stable" countries are fairly secular, and with the exception of the indigenous population which was brutally wiped out, had little prior settlement. On the other hand, deep rooted hatred developed over thousands of years of human settlement in the "unstable" countries, and to fuel the flames, many of these countries are religious regimes.

 

[theman23]

The colonial pasts of other colonies are similar to the WASP colonies.

I disagree. The "WASP colonies" were settled by Europeans, with the native population being almost completely marginalized. In comparison, the colonisation of South America and Asia is more similar to the current Iraq occupation. The native population was too large to be swept aside, so it was largely repressed and manipulated. In addition, none of the South Asian countries achieved self governance until very recently (after World War II).

India and Pakistan, for example, when the British left in 1947 both inherited a strong legal system (with indigenous, not only British judges), strong rail infrastructure and good economics.

Except the "good economics" of British India did not benefit most Indians. When India and Pakistan were created, they may well have been left with sound infrastructure. However, they also had to contend with the issue of an extremely large, poor, and illiterate population. To this day, Pakistan and even India are plagued by ethnic strife, rampant corruption, high levels of illiteracy, and mostly poor economic indicators. I certainly don't believe that the colonization of South Asia had a net benefit, as it stalled the entire region's social development.

As for South America, these colonies of Spain and Portugal were also populated by ex-pat European populations, who then mixed with the local native populations (sort of a Latin American Metis). However, there are few nations in South America with stable politics, middle class economies nor a tradition of individual rights. I wonder again, where the Spanish and Portuguese went wrong in setting the foundations of their colonies.

Again, I don't see the similarity. Much of what I said about about the South Asia could be applied here. In addition, none of the WASP colonies were used as pawns in the cold war to the same extent that many South American countries were. How many U.S. backed military dictatorships have Canada, Australia or New Zealand had?

There are other issues at play here, as well. Deeply ingrained ethnic tensions, the rigidity of religous conservatism, the lack of any prized natural resources in the case of some countries, and just plain old bad leaders.

 

[afransen]

I'll agree that is mainly that Canada, USA, Australia, NZ all had small indigenous populations that were readily marginalized. It also isn't to say that tensions don't exist. I don't know if most realise this, but native land claims are issues that have great potential to be highly explosive in this country. It isn't exactly far fetched. When most of southern Ontario is claimed in one treaty or another, we could have serious problems if we even attempt to honour them, and some seriously pissed off natives if we don't. It would make Ipperwash and the current stand-off in Caledonia look like minor disagreements.

The US has managed to do much of the same, though it seems like they've managed to escape much of the present day legal ramifications. Instead they've managed to create an extraordinary degree of racial tension that persists even 140 years after the abolition of slavery.

And the extent that white-dominated former british colonies are wealthier than non-white, I attribute much of it to racism. I guess one counterexample might be HK. It's a bit fucked up in its own way, but it certainly is wealthy, relatively stable and relatively democratic (excepting PRC's desire to minimalise democracy there).

 

[Admiral Beez]

And the extent that white-dominated former british colonies are wealthier than non-white, I attribute much of it to racism. I guess one counterexample might be HK. It's a bit fucked up in its own way, but it certainly is wealthy, relatively stable and relatively democratic (excepting PRC's desire to minimalise democracy there).

Not just Hong Kong. Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, Guyana, Belize, much of the Caribbean, and until recently Fiji are all examples of mostly non-white populated former British colonies that seem to more or less have their democratic and economic lives in order (granted South Africa started off as white dominated, but its transition to non-white rule has been quite successful).

 

[afransen]

I don't think you can really say South Africa has its act together, or at least put it anywhere near the same league as Canada or Australia. I'd probably give you Singapore, though my impression is that civil liberties are not very expansive there. Haven't checked the others, but I'm pretty sure that the others (except Malaysia?) are significantly less wealthy than the white former British colonies.