Thursday, December 27, 2007

RIP --- Benazir Bhutto

Her two periods of serving as Prime Minister of Pakistan were deeply marred by corruption, and in many ways she was a far from progressive figure. However, her assassination today is a terrible tragedy that bodes horrifying possible outcomes in Pakistan and throughout much of the world, given as I think she may have been the only serious alternative to an eventual fanatical takeover there, a country that actually does have nuclear weapons, in contrast with the fantasies of the Bush administration about Iraq and Iran. She was also personally a courageous and intelligent person. This is a deeply tragic event, and I, for one, shall mourn her loss.

14 comments:

J.Goodwin said...

Or, it could bode well if there's a successful popular revolution.

Most likely it will be perverted to serve the purposes of a new group of elites though, so you're probably right.

YouNotSneaky! said...

Ay, I fully agree with Barkley.

In this particular instance a "popular revolution" might = fanatical takeover.

Anonymous said...

There are three interesting posts on Counterpunch, each giving a less than glowing portrait of Benazir Bhutto, but each acknowledging her importance in recent Pakistani political history. It's a mixed review of Bhutto, from that of a strong leader to that of a self serving and corrupt opportunist. Sounds like your average politician. In either case the authors' opinions are that the troubles in Pakistan are olnly first beginning.

Anonymous said...

From what I've been able to gather (20/12 IMF, 24/12 Chicago Trib, Pakistani blogger), Pakistan's middle classes have been increasingly squeezed by high inflation (particularly food) and insufficient private sector employment opportunities. This sort of combination most always radicalizes groups such as professionals, small business people, sections of the educated youth, etc, so some more-than-political basis for what j. goodwin (and yns) mention as well as increased coercion on part of authorities.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Regarding the corruption issue, there is no question that her terms had lots of it, with her husband reportedly being knee deep in it, even if she herself was not so directly. However, it is also reported by all sources such as Transparency International that corruption has worsened under the dictatorship of Musharraf, with the latest figures putting it as the 7th most corrupt nation on the planet, up there in Nigeria range.

Barkley

Anonymous said...

Certainly Pakistan is a sorry example of the kind of "democracy" that our executive branch has been crowing about so loudly over the past eight years in particularly, but for decades before as well. It has been reported, though it seems to be a well kept secret from the MSM, that the military has a major stake in the economy of the country. It appears that any inidustry worth owning is owned by the military or its officer corps. The sale of Pakistan's nuclear technology is one good example of the tie between the two, the military and the economy. While one individual in their nuclear program is focused on as the primary culprit, the sale of such information and technology is said to have taken place with top millitary clearance and participation.

If this is an accurate portrayal of the interconnection of Pakistan's industrial-mililtary complex, and it soes seem to be, then it will be a long and sorry time before that country enjoys any real semblence of democratic leladership and rule.

Anonymous said...

Jack,

Yes, not so differently than took place in, e.g. Guatemala, the military tends to establish a moreless autonomous economic base so also maintain/increase its weight as one of the primary anti-democratic power centers. IMO and In relation to the middle classes, this tends to be shorter-term most effective when at least partially masked by a nominally democratic president and/or PM, so long as inter-elite tensions do not sharpen to open rupture. Bringing Bhutto back was most likely an attempt to repair relations which seem to have moved beyond repair.

BTW, here's a review of Ayesha Siddiqa's 2007 book,Military Inc. — Inside Pakistan's Military Economy.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/04/19/stories/2007041902931200.htm

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

There is no doubt about this. After all, the Musharraf regime has been a military dictatorship, despite his very recent doffing of his military uniform, which I am not sure has yet even been formally taken off. Clearly lots of people were hoping that Benazir Bhutto would somehow fix things, but clearly that is now a lost hope, and the situation looks extremely dire to me. Quite aside from her personal tragedy, I see absolutely nothing good coming out of this horrible event.

Barkley

Anonymous said...

Barkley,
I don't mean to sound blasse about the issue, but that's how the Pakastanis have always "resolved" their political issues. Mrs. Bhutto should have known best of all that the military regime would brook no interference with its power. If they showed no respect for her father before her, not to mention her brothers, what possible positive effect could she have had. Having been the PM twice before doesn't mean that she was in control at that time. More likely she was a useful "face of democracy" for the regime. Musharraf himself is probably looking over his shoulder, not for potential acts of terrorism, but to keep an eye on his colleagues who still wear their uniforms. More lilkely than not, the General has only sent the fancy suit out to the cleaners for a good crease in the trousers.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Well, my own wife thinks that Benazir Bhutto was either consciously sent in by the US to be killed or went consciously herself to become a martyr. I find all of this hard to believe. Given statements she made to Wolf Blitzer and others before she went, she seems to have been fully aware of the dangers she faced. Over on Angry Bear, cactus is denouncing her as a "klepto" and "Feragamo Princess." Sorry, I think that she is someone who realized that she was probably the only person who had a chance to rein in both the military and the fundamentalists, and went in courageously facing the dangers, only to meet her fate.

Barkley

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't discount the possible US sent her there scenario, though it is a bit draconian, even for the Bush regime. Unfortunately all possible scenarios of political activity in that part of the world are likely to have a draconian character. I can't believe that she would truly believe that she had any real likelihood of reigning in the military regime, though like the Bay of Pigs fiasco, she may have been given to believe that there was to be some form of "assistance" coming from those who she should not have relied upon.

As we know all too well regime change is never a bloodless phenomenon. History has repeatedly pointed out that power is at the end of a gun. Castro in Cuba, Robespierre and his buddies in France, Mao in China, etc. What more do we need to know? Bhutto had no apparent power of that kind.
What she thought she could accomplish is now a mystery.

Anonymous said...

Barkley,

On the basis of this WP article it appears that what I'd outlined above and has for decades been a fairly standard, almost 'cookie cutter', policy logic was indeed being attempted. And yes, your wife is correct.

Few clips:

"For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.
[...]
"Bhutto's political comeback was a long time in the works -- and uncertain for much of the past 18 months. In mid-2006, Bhutto and Musharraf started communicating through intermediaries about how they might cooperate. Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher was often an intermediary, traveling to Islamabad to speak with Musharraf and to Bhutto's homes in London and Dubai to meet with her.
[...]
"The turning point to get Musharraf on board was a September trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte to Islamabad. "He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy."

Complete article: U.S. Brokered Bhutto's Return to Pakistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481_pf.html

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

There is no question that the US government played a major role, arguably the major role, in convincing BB to return. However, I question that she went with the intention of being martyred. I do think she was fully aware that the probability of this occurring was very high, however. Hence, I continue to view her as personally courageous here. I think she intended to work her way into achieving full power, but, we shall never know now.

Barkley

Anonymous said...

I would add that Bhutto was most likely given to believe that she would have the full support of our State Dept. That should have been her first clue as to the high likelihood of the entire plan going down the crapper. Who can name one foreign policy initiative that either Rice or, and especially, Negroponte has completed to the successful satisfaction of the client state? I think that the last successful "regime change" scenario was Castro taking over in Cuba before the State Dept realized that he had no intention of being a puppet to the US. He's obviously a good deal smarter than the many across the world who have gone down in US State Dept flames.