Registered user login:

A revenger's tragedy

Ziauddin Sardar

Published 03 January 2008

The intelligence services and religious extremists were behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, argues Ziauddin Sardar, and politicians have been too preoccupied with settling old scores to fight for real democracy

Pakistan has a new political leader barely out of nappies. Bila wal Bhutto, 19, has become the new chairman of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), after the assassination of his mother, Benazir Bhutto. The teenager, who has hardly spent any time in Pakistan and speaks virtually no Urdu, will share the responsibility of leading the most powerful political party in Pakistan with his widower father, Asif Ali Zardari, who has become co-chair of the PPP. This is what Benazir has bequeathed to the party and the nation.

Despite all the rhetoric about democracy, the PPP did not even consider holding an election to find a new leader. There are devoted PPP politicians who could have assumed the mantle of leadership - from Makhdoom Amin Fahim, who managed the party during Ms Bhutto's exile, to Aitzaz Ahsan, the brilliant lawyer who led the agitation against President Pervez Musharraf yet was marginalised by her because of his immense popularity. But quite simply, at no time during its existence has the PPP actually practised democracy.

Though she was seen as liberal and west-leaning, Bhutto based her political power on the feudal tenants of her ancestral lands in Sindh. For all that she proclaimed the need for democracy, the PPP, of which Bhutto appointed herself "chairperson for life", is another autocratic fiefdom. It is a family, dynastic business; a Bhutto can only be succeeded by another Bhutto - even if he has to return to Oxford to finish his studies. Ms Bhutto was fully aware of her husband's reputation for authoritarianism and corruption. During her two terms as prime minister, he was known as "Mr Ten Per Cent". Still she appointed him as successor in her will.

"Democracy is the best revenge," Bilawal quoted his mother as saying at his first press conference. In Pakistan, however, this mantra is not as positive as it appears. Politics has become a revenger's tragedy in its regular oscillation between civilian and military rule. Each painful transition creates an agenda of animosity and scores to be settled. When politics begins with the unfinished business of old wrongs, genuine development takes a back seat. The groundwork for another round is evident in the bizarre argument about how Bhutto actually met her death. Did she die from an assassin's bullet, as the Bhutto camp claims? Or from a skull fracture after hitting her head on the lever of her car's sunroof, as the government suggests? Then comes the question of who instigated the murder.

The government claims Baitullah Mehsud, a leader of the Pakistani Taliban, was behind the assassination. It produced in evidence a telephone transcript in which Mehsud, speaking in Pashto, congratulates a lieutenant on the operation. Yet Mehsud has denied any involvement. "It is against tribal tradition and custom to attack a woman," his spokesman declared. "This is a conspiracy of the government, army and intelligence agencies." The Bhutto camp endorses this view.

Bhutto herself pointed the finger at Musharraf. "I have been made to feel insecure by his minions," she wrote in an email to her friend and confidant in Washington Mark Siegel. "There is no way what is happening in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted windows or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides could happen without him." People's Party stalwarts also believe that "remnants" from the period of President Zia ul-Haq, who executed Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, intended to kill her. She talked of a state within a state, of around 400 people attached to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) who saw her as a threat and would stop at nothing to remove her.

Quite what motivation Musharraf's government would have for assassinating Bhutto, it is hard to discern. He expected her to provide legitimacy for his presidency. Indeed, the very fact that she was eager to participate in the elections put a democratic sheen on his clinging to power. Her death not only weakens Musharraf's position further, but may actually write the final chapter of his rule.

Security experts in Pakistan have little doubt who is behind the assassination. "I am convinced that the intelligence services were involved," says Ayesha Siddiqa, author of the highly acclaimed book Military Inc: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy. Only through the collusion of the security services could both a gunman and a suicide bomber have got so close to Bhutto, she says. Other analysts agree. There seems to be a general consensus that renegade current and former members of the ISI are working with religious extremists to spread a reign of terror.

Benazir Bhutto is the highest-value victim so far, but it is not just the PPP that is being targeted. Almost all Pakistani politicians are under threat. Hours before Bhutto's assassination, an election rally organised by the Muslim League, the party of the other former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, was attacked by unknown gunmen. Four party workers were killed. The Muslim League blames a pro-Musharraf party, the PML(Q), for the incident. But Musharraf allies are themselves under attack.

On 21 December, the day of the festival of Eid ul-Adha, a suicide bomber attacked a mosque in Charsadda District, near Pesha war, during Friday prayers. The intended victim, the former interior minister Aftab Sherpao, escaped unhurt but the blast killed more than 50 people. Even religious politicians, such as Maulana Fazlur Rahman, head of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Islamic Party of Religious Leaders), who has close ties with the Taliban, have received death threats. "The truth is that anyone can be bumped off in Pakistan," says Imran Khan, the former cricketer and leader of the Movement for Justice Party, and it can simply be "blamed on al-Qaeda".

The real function of these threats, attacks and assassinations is to strengthen the hand of the religious extremists and undermine all vestiges of the political process in Pakistan. The intelligence services want to ensure that power remains not just with the military, but with its hardcore religious faction. "Anyone or any institution that can possibly undermine this goal is seen by them as a threat," says Siddiqa. Bhutto was targeted because she was capable of uniting the country against the military as well as the religious extremists. Indeed, most of her criticisms during the campaign were directed towards the extremists and the security services.

Paradoxically, it was Bhutto herself who unleashed these forces. It was under her second administration that the Taliban came into existence with the aid and comfort of the ISI. While she was the first woman to lead a Muslim nation and was seen as secular, moderate and imbued with the liberalism and western approach of her Harvard and Oxford education, Bhutto fostered the politics of elective feudalism in Pakistan.

Under her leadership, the PPP became a vehicle for righting the wrongs of the past - specifically the overthrow and execution of Benazir's beloved father - rather than an institution generating policy and debate about the changing needs of Pakistani society and maturing a new generation of political leaders. Her brother Murtaza Bhutto was killed when he challenged her leadership of the party. His whole family, including Benazir's mother, believes she was behind the murder. Her terms in office were characterised not just by corruption and nepotism, but also by revenge and human rights abuses. She had the largest cabinet in the history of Pakistan; she even made her unelected husband minister for investment, which was generally seen as an open invitation to corruption. A common joke during her second term was that the infant Bilawal had been awarded the portfolio of minister for children.

Musharraf in the balance

These democratic deficits stop the PPP from becoming anything other than a dynastic, feudal institution. Yet such deficits are common throughout the political scene. Most politicians in the country, including the spotless Imran Khan, are feudal landowners. Increasingly, Pakistani politics has become sectional, sectarian and regional, tending to spin the country apart rather than offer a vision of a united and hopeful future. Politicians appeal to tribal, regional loyalties and to their feudal "vote banks". Few, if any, escape being tarnished in the eyes of much of the population.

As a consequence, Pakistani politics and governance have totally failed to resolve the basic dilemmas the country has faced since its creation: what is Pakistan as a nation, as an idea? In Pakistan religion has always been a factor. But is that all there is to Pakistan? How should religion find expression in the life of the nation? There must be more to Pakistanis and their deep attachment to Islam than being swept along on the tide of jihadi ideology and the violence and terrorism it breeds. But how can Pakistan develop an alternative vision of itself as a viable state? When can such a vision become the bedrock of public life? These questions cannot be asked, let alone explored, in the current political climate.

The assassination also leaves the future of President Musharraf in the balance. The former general must be seen as a figure of declining utility to western interests. The armed forces, now one of the most hated institutions in Pakistan, are no longer a monolith. They display the same fissiparous tendencies as Pakistani society as a whole. Pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathies have taken root within the army, the only agency Musharraf supposedly controlled and could use to combat terrorism. His room for manoeuvre was always limited. After Benazir Bhutto's murder, his chances of delivering on any of the hoped-for initiatives in the "war on terror" have evaporated. The last vestiges of US strategy have been destroyed by the gunman and the suicide bomber.

As long as Musharraf remains in power, Pakistan will be unstable, continually teetering on the edge of chaos. Further US or British manipulation of the country's politics will only make matters worse. Even those who would never support religious extremism and are determined to oppose the growth of terrorist sympathies have an intense dislike for US involvement in Pakistani politics. Opposition to the course of US foreign policy since the 11 September 2001 attacks has hardened antipathy and made countering the rise of religious extremism ever more difficult.

Civil society

A great deal of hope is being pinned on the coming elections. Bhutto's death has brought the opposition parties together. All political parties will now participate in the elections, including the Muslim League, the second major party, which had decided to boycott them after the assassination. However, it would be wrong to assume that a PPP victory, based on a sympathy vote, would greatly reduce the underlying, simmering tensions. The extremists and their supporters in the ISI are not through with Pakistan quite yet. The polls will undoubtedly be rigged in favour of Musharraf's party. If his supporters lose power, the scene would be set for further, and open, confrontation between the president and the newly elected government. Far from resolving anything, the elections, which were expected to be delayed until next month, may actually perpetuate the crisis.

The only sign of hope lies in the diverse character of Pakistani society, in which comment, opinion, ideas and debate are vibrant and thriving, powered not least by the emergence of satellite and cable television stations. A civil society exists, which stands apart from politics and the military. Neglected, yet robust, that civil society is the unexplored pole of all the sectional interests in Pakistan. It was elements from this sector - the judiciary, lawyers, human rights groups, news media, non-governmental organisations, students and minor parties - whom Musharraf had to restrict and destabilise to ensure his survival. They offer the prospect of a fresh departure from which a healthier, more sustainable and enduring politics might emerge.

Although the agencies of civil society are themselves still in disarray, they may yet rescue Pakistan from the motley crew of Musharraf, the military, feudal politicians and religious fanatics. Bringing a country where the political process becomes ever more discredited and hostage to violence back to sanity will not be easy, painless or swift: Pakistan is poised to endure a great deal of pain and suffering for the foreseeable future.

the Bhuttos by numbers

4 suffered unnatural deaths (Zulfikar, Shahnawaz, Murtaza, Benazir)

5 studied at Oxford (Zulfikar, Benazir, Murtaza, Shahnawaz and now Bilawal)

$8.6m fine imposed in 1999 on Benazir and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, over corruption charges (later overturned)

$1.5bn estimated profits from kickbacks made by Bhutto family and associates, according to 1996 investigation

0 pieces of major legislation passed by Benazir in first term as prime minister

10 per cent Zardari's nickname, on account of dubious business dealings

Research by Alyssa McDonald

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

23 comments from readers

Tuff Gong
03 January 2008 at 12:32

Dear Ziauddin

What is your evidence that pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathies have taken root within the army?

The military and the ISI are, if anything, hardline secularist institutions where no-one displaying any commitment to religion is promoted.

The military and intelligence top brass are not even vaguely islamist and to suggest that they would somehow tolerate a couple of hundred people forming a state within a state and going around assassinating all the country's top politicians is inconcievable.

Yes, the military and the ISI have close connections with islamist and jihadi groups, but only so they can be used to further Pakistani/military/intelligence interests - and therefore no different to any other military or intelligence apparatus.

Bhutto was killed because she had become not only a spent force politically, but had actually become a political liability. She promised to deliver Pakistan to the US and failed miserably. The likes of Aitzaz Ahsan and Amin Fahim were aware of this and that's why they had started jockeying for position.

Bhutto's death allows the military to continue working with the US by removing the US suported thorn in the military's side.

You're right that Musharraf's future is in the balance - all eyes are now on the new Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kayani to see if he will politely ask Musharaf to step aside and allow a PPP / PML-N alliance to form a government.

Bhutto's death has benefitted the military, the US and the PPP too - in allowing it to select a new leader that isn't as completely unacceptable to the military as Bhutto was.

writeon
03 January 2008 at 21:49

There seems to be generally held belief in the West that elections and democracy are an almost universal medicine to cure the ills of society. In Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Kenya... I wonder if this is really true?

Isn't 'democracy' western style a system which is introduced after the fundamental power relationships have 'settled-down' in a society and the socio/economic 'cake' has been shared out? Then, once these underlying, structural relationships have crystalized, the danger of democracy is no longer perceived as a threat by rich and powerful. Elections and voting aren't really going to change the nature of soiciety, only the colour of those in charge of administering it. Wetern style democracy comes after stability has been established, not before.

However, the historical process by which stability is established is often extraordinarilly bloody and can last centuries.

Perhaps what Pakistan needs isn't an imposed stability, but instability? Perhaps Pakistan needs a old-fashioned, Revolution, which will sweep away 'fuedalism' and give political power to the middle-class and the peasants? Doesn't Pakistan really resemble a fuedal society in a rapid era of change, a very complex and volatile mix.

Carl Jones
03 January 2008 at 23:45

Lets get back to basics. The war on terror is a US/UK/Isreali construct. Osama Bin Laden (if he ever existed) is nothing but a NWO creation who was built up into a living ledgend by the NWO controlled media. The CIA blamed him for all sorts of terror attacks prior to 9/11.

Here in this sad article, we have Ziauddin Sardar peddling the NWO mantra and he was no doubt well briefed by MI6 prior to putting pen to paper.

Checkout this article by Robert Fisk.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id+7760

At the bottom af the article, Fisk fails to list two questions. Musharrraf let Bhutto back into Pakistan and MI6 let her go!!!lol

We can`t blame Fisk for this, he has to earn a living.

Now watch this video of David Frost interviewing Bhutto on December 2 2007.

http://vloggingtheapocalypse.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=439&...

Tested link, it works and if it doesn`t, you know who to blame.lol

In this 15 minute video, Bhutto names Osama Bin Laden`s assassin....Bhutto says this as a statement of fact...this is after the first attempt on her life Dec 2)...was she throwing NWO cherries out of the pram, because she`d realised that her return to Pakistan was a M I6-Musharraf trap....a plot to remove her.lol

After Bhutto names Bin Laden`s assassin, she continues to talk, but when Frost next speaks, he ignors Bhutto`s statement...THE FACT THAT THIS INTERVIEW WAS LIKELY SHOWN IN MSM NEWSROOMS ACROSS THE WORLD....and not a word....well, thats what you`d expect from the NWO controlled media.

Sardar says Bhutto couldn`t deliver Pakistan to the US. This is what I`d expect from an MI6 organ grinder.lol

Remember Musharraf`s speach just after 9/11....he had the look of death on his face. Musharraf knew his future NWO role was to perpetuate the NWO constructed was on terror in a post 9/11 world.

Sardar`s last paragraph has a bone of truth. But this claimed fuedel society is really under the control of MI6 and the NWO led by London.

As the chaos mounts in Pakistan, you will notice that London and Washington are totally relaxed about an unstable nuclear state...of course, they know this is an illusion. However, I wouldn`t be suppried if a few Pakistani nukes went missing and these to be used in the NWO sham war on terror.

Bhutto was returned to Pakistan by the NWO to die...you can only have so many Litvinenko`s in one city...

...MI6; you must try harder and just because Musharraf is impressed by the Menezes coverup, you can`t fool all the people all the time.

Poor Bila wal Bhutto....he has no doubt been recruited by MI6 and its likely that MI6 persuaded him to keep this secret from his mother as to could damage her.

gnuneo
04 January 2008 at 14:28

no country likes being ruled by another, and that is double when the external rulers are the modern-day Romans, the ignorant, arrogant, loud-mouthed and frankly stupid Americans, who can never shut up about any gains or control they have over others.

hell, even the UK is waking up to this, even though *we* don't have presidential candidates talking about us as though we are just a slight irrelevance to the US elections (as has been done to Pakistan).

Pakistan *is* a failed state, its roads and general physical infrastructure has been collapsing since independence, and spending on the military *FAR* exceeds anything spent upon education - such an equation does not lead a nation towards progress and development, as the example of America shows us dramatically.

we will now almost certainly see a collapse of civil society, and the religious extremists and uber-patriots will now divide the country and ally, and break up, and squabble, and be even more corrupt than before.

BTW, that last comment was about Pakistan, not America - although...

who killed Bhutto? It actually doesn't really matter now, her death has had its effects, and those effects are so intricate it is impossible to determine who gains and who loses, and indeed the situation is so volatile it is highly doubtful that Musharaff did indeed have a hand in it - such an experienced old hand would not have risked such a move.

perhaps the only group who gains clearly from her death are the religious extremists in the US, who can use the destabilisation of Pakistan to further their own agendas, both by being able to point to a further Islamic country going to hell, as a supposed comment upon the viability of Islam as a political force, as a gain of making the region more unstable thus likely meaning other states will have to invest further in military power (ie India), and also to be able to give a 'clean show of hands' if it turns out in the months to come that Iran had a couple of nukes purchased from Pakistan at some point (but not with a US ally at the helm... oh no, not then, only after the Islamists took power), that will be used to obliterate the fleets in the gulf and attack Israel, thus causing ww3, and allowing the NWO to take over our own countries as our economies collapse.

if this *was* an attempt orchestrated by the NWO bunch of crackpots, then that strongly indicates it was at least organised by the ISI, or the ISI affiliates within the religious extremists.

it MUST be borne in mind however, that she was as corrupt as any bushite republican (it is hard to imagine someone being even more corrupt), and that there were 'legitimate' elements of Pakistani society that despised her - so who really is to say?

what is a fact however, is that Pakistan is now lurching at a tremendous speed towards collapse, possibly dissolution, that Turkey will soon follow suit if it attacks Kurdistan, that the western/global economy is teetering, that all major powers are ramping up their military expenditures dramatically, that global warming is already at such a point that most of Europe (including over 50% of the UK) will be drowned unless massive action is taken NOW to prepare flood defences and dikes etc, and most of all - that our political leaders are running around like headless chickens, with no definite plans or goals except to ensure the global elite remains the global elite, and the anti-democratic forces are strong enough to defeat the growing democratic awareness across the world.

frankly, i am losing belief in the notion that homo sapiens sapiens is actually an "intelligent species".

Carl Jones
05 January 2008 at 01:21

Hi fellow commentators. In my cooment above there is a link to a video which shows Sir David Frost interviewing Mrs Bhutto on DEc2 2007. Bhutoo names Bin Laden`s assasin. It appears that MI6 are blocking the link....the truth hurts.LOL

radius
05 January 2008 at 14:55

The most fundamental obstacle to democracy - and to the eradication of poverty - in Pakistan is feudalism. The National Assembly is populated by a parasitic feudal class, who treat the country as their personal property.

Whatever Pakistan's role may be on the international chessboard, the mullahs and the americans are united in their desire to uphold this rotten system: in the past any limited reforms have been opposed by the religious groups and sabotaged by the sharia courts.

Radical agrarian reform is needed, and ultimately democracy can only come from an alliance of workers and peasants that challenges feudalism and the concomitant aspects of the tribal system.

radius
05 January 2008 at 15:05

re the Frost interview, Benazir had a bunch of names ready to mention, and just came out with the wrong one: she obviously meant to say Daniel Pearl. Omar Saeed Sheikh - a man with close links to both bin Laden and the ISI (and, according to Musharraf, MI6) - was sentenced to death in 2002 for killing Pearl. The idea that bin Laden's "special son" killed him beggars belief anyway.

Not that anything will stop the conspiracy theorists....

Naveed
05 January 2008 at 22:19

well, I am not a politician nor I have any such deeper understanding. But being a pakistani, I know what has happened and what happening in my country. What is very surprising to see is that people from societies, which are responsible for investing so much in pushing my country deeper in such situation, .... people from those societies are worried about it ..... What I have seen is that the rule was almost always in the hands of those who are not sincere.... not to the country and not to the people at all .... but those are supported more by outside nations for their interests .... now its a point where an average person with common sense knows that politics is a game in which the elite plays with the nation and the country.....

Pakistan going to break or collapse .... well, I think its the cycle of history ..... I hope people from EU knows their history ... the way they travelled to this point ... same as the people from Muslim world remember their boom .... Pakistan and india came into existance by a planned which included the collapse of pakistan ASAP .. a country with no army, no reserves, no infrastructure, nothing at all ... but SURPRISINGLY it survived for a long time ......

Western interests are pushing pakistan towards worst conditions .... People like the AUTHOR of this article quote from sources which THEY LIKE .... they wana earn their living EVEN if the earning is not an HONEST earning .... still we, people from pakistan, face everything with inside and outside the country, with the hope that we will one day realise what choices we have and what choice is the best for whole nation .... right now, everyone is thinking very limited .... and this is also the result of the financial problems .... made more problematic by wealthy INDIVIDUALS of wealthy nations ....

Europe went through wars and feudalism for centuries ... now they reach to a point when they advice and suggest to nations like us ... but history tells a lot of the bloodshed and curroption they went through to get to this point ... Pakistan ( 1947 - 2007) ... still not that long ... still a long way to go ....

Thanks to everyone for their opinion about my country ... I saw many honest comments from the readers ... though the writer is just focused on a single day ..... If some has to understand Pakistan, they should go through the history in details .... its not easy to understand and predict without knowing the history of the land and the people ..... and without knowing those nations and their politics who have deep interests in Pakistan .....

May innocent human be in peace and may those who are blinded with material interests be blessed with vision .... Ameen

Peace be on you dear reader ....

writeon
06 January 2008 at 11:00

Most people seem to agree that Pakistan is a complex and volatile country, with substantial economic and social problems, and underlying ethnic tensions. It's also a country of 165 million people, mostly peasants, with a dýnamic and restive middle-class, a fabulously wealthy, pro-western, and powerful fuedal elite, and a masssive military caste whose influence cannot be overestimated. A military which is currently receiveing over ten billion dollars a year in US aide, and is a vital element in the war on terror. A military elite that live well and weigh the country down rather than lift it up, and that is yet another problem.

Personally I would be very wary of becoming involved in Pakistan's internal affairs, given its complexity, volatility and history. What concerns me is that our interference in Pakistan is actually making things worse, not better, and creating enromous stresses and strains that appear to be pushing Pakistan towards something close to civil war. Surely this can't be in our interests, let alone in the interests of Pakistan? But, we don't really give a damn about the ordinary people of Pakistan, as long as they keep quiet and follow our interests.

In the West we almost seem to have an obsession with elections, voting, and 'democracy', at almost any cost. I think one can argue that pushing for 'democracy' in 'immature' countries like Pakistan, has the effect of deepening the socio-economic divisions and risks pulling the country apart into chaos, and who knows what chaos may bring?

Perhaps the model for deveopment in Pakistan shouldn't be western-style democracy at all, at least not for now. Later on the people of Pakistan themselves should be allowed to choose what kind of 'democracy' they prefer. Maybe what Pakistan needs is 'development' and 'progress' along Chinese lines? Perhaps China, whether one likes it or not - seen from a western perspective - is the way forward for most developing countries?

First one needs a 'nationalist/socialist' Revolution. The old 'fuedal order' has to be toppled, an order which was incapable of resisting western domination anyway. The elite, in reality, as the history of the Bhutto family shows, effectively became westeners. We liked them, but were these people really what Pakistan needed? Were they really going to 'reform' or destroy a system which provided them with such massive and disproportionate ammounts of wealth and power? I think not!

Then, post 'Revolution' one needs a minimum of twenty to thirty years of strong, centralized government, to establish a functioning state and promote economic development, along Chinese lines. Economic and social nationalism. A Pakistan first policy. Then once a functioning state/country has been created, then one can begin to think about 'democracy' and all its blessings, but first one has to put the cart before the horse. One way or another fuedalism has to be replaced by a modern, nation state, and I'm convinced that history shows this simply doesn't happen through elections alone.

The problem is, that following the Chinese 'model' implies 'Revolution' 'Civil War' ,Chinese style in order to bring it about. The history of the Chinese Revolution was incredibly bloody and destructive, surely nothing to emulate? And Pakistan has atomic weapons!

It's a contradictory postion to hold. On the one hand one thinks Pakistan needs a social revolution, on the other hand the consequences might well be dire and disasterous! Also breaking the power of the Pakistani army risks breaking Pakistan; if the army is, in fact, what holds Pakistan together as a state?

Then perhaps what's needed is a mass mobilization of the people of Pakistan as an alternative to a 'Revolution'? Maybe after free and fair elections the fuedal elite and the military elite will voluntarily give up their power and priviliges, or maybe it will just take another hundred years or more?

Carl Jones
06 January 2008 at 13:32

radius: what ever you want to believe.lol Bhutto said it as clear as crystal...she made no attempt to correct herself and Sir David MI6 Frost ignored it as well. Of course, we don`t know if this interview went out on air. But if it did, it was seen in newsrooms around the world and ignored. While the assassins name might be incorrect, the idea that the NWO`s most wanted man has been assassinated and some time ago, only to have this blown open by a minor expendable politician must have really wound up the NWO.

I can only imagine that after the first alledged attempt on her life (which wasn`t a serious effort), Bhutto had concluded she`d walked into a NWO trap and had decided to throw her mugs into the sink by stating that Bin Laden had been killed. Now Bhutto is dead.

Its seem the Nazi style of removal has returned, but then again, we do now live under the IV Reich.lol

writeon
06 January 2008 at 16:48

Reality check on Pakistan.

I just been listening to Bill Richardson, one of the Democratic candidates talking about Pakistain. He talked about the need to 'push Musharraf aside' and form a 'broad-based technocratic caretaker government in Pakistan' until the elections, this was in the interests of the United States.

If one listens to Richardson and the other candidates, he isn't alone in his views, one hears powerful American leaders talking about Pakistan as if they are discussing a backward colony, run by childlike 'darkies', who need western guidance because they are almost genetically unable to rule themselves!

One really wonders about these Americans, they have a explosive cocktail in their heads; a deadly mix of rampant racism, ignorance and imperialism. These people really believe they can 'rule' Pakistan, having won their 'imperial spurs' in Afghanistan and Iraq!

In truth these American leaders are a bunch of deluded and dangerous numbskulls. Listening to them talk about the need to push Musharraf and force him to take resolute action against the 'terrorists' is frightening. Richardson said that Musharraf was terribly unpopular and useless in the figtht against terror, a new man was needed. What Richardson and the other US candiates don't seem to undersand, or refuse to understand, is that it's the 'war on terror' which is unpopular in Pakistan and US policies which are pushing the country towards civil war, by destabilizing the delicate ethnic and political balance in Pakistan.

What's frightening is that the American political class seems to believe their own propaganda and rhetoric about the 'war on terror'. It's not so much that they question the Imperial Project which is about controling Asia and its resources, what they object to is the incompetance of Bush and company in achieving these ends! Vote for Clinton and get an empress that really knows how to rule! With these people in charge we're all doomed.

gnuneo
06 January 2008 at 17:06

writeon: the 'revolution' you refer to in Pakistan is indeed on the cards, but it will be an Islamic revolution, not a maoist one.

this actually is a definite improvement however, at least there is a solid corpus of law that the society already has open to it, which will avoid the incredibly horrific circumstances of the Maoist revolution, where the whims of one man could leave millions dead.

it is likely that such a revolution would split Pakistan, as the feudal areas and structures will resist the modernising, democratising and totalitarian Islamic revolution - not least because of the rights such a revolution would bring to the women of these areas.

this is also, i am sad to say, a deliberate policy of some of the Western elite, who not only have laid out that they want to see Islamic states schismed and at internal conflict, but also because the kind of society left afterwards is generally a far weaker one, and economically/scientifically hampered.

unfortunately, if one regards oneself as having a 'divine right to rule', and wish to see that right extended over the whole planet, such policies make complete sense - nevermind that such a belief is a sign of mental instability, or the mind-boggling amounts of suffering it will cause to innocent people.

Douglas Chalmers
06 January 2008 at 17:16

Quote writeon - 06 January: [i]"Personally I would be very wary of becoming involved in Pakistan's internal affairs, given its complexity, volatility and history. What concerns me is that our interference in Pakistan is actually making things worse..."[/i]

Its already a little late for that, 'writeon'. If Britain and Europe had taken the trouble to ensure the safety and electability of BB, she would have easily solved their own home terrorist problems for them. Now, that can never be done. Propping up the boys' club there (the military) was a fatal mistake. They and the USA are Al Qaeda's paymasters.

People don't like to have other nations running their country. That is where the complexity lies. You also seem to fail to realise that it is Islam, not the army, which holds Pakistan together. Actually, none of your recipes for change are in any way workable although you seem to understand that "western-style democracy" is not really appropriate.

The Chinese model is not really the one that you imagine. Their revolution started quite successfully with Sun Yat Sen around 1900. It was then derailed by warlordism and Mao's gang of ignorant thugs. Feudalism in Pakistan is no worse than anywhere else. If you think having the peasants running the country is such a great idea, look at the mess Britain has made for itself, uhh.

Douglas Chalmers
06 January 2008 at 17:40

*Quote Carl Jones - 06 January: "Bhutto said it as clear as crystal...she made no attempt to correct herself and Sir David MI6 Frost ignored it as well. Of course, we don`t know if this interview went out on air..."

It most probabaly did, Carl Jones, because there was a lot of blog comment about it but it was later edited out and the BBC's version on the net no longer has that statement in it about OBL.

Her son will be in a quandary now living and studying in Britain under British protection. He will, in effect, be a hostage under MI6 "protection". How his father pursues things in Pakistan will thus be coloured by that reality - or maybe he's simply safer in Britain?

That "London and Washington are totally relaxed about an unstable nuclear state" is illusory, though. The fact is that they haven't a clue what to do while Russia and China have the game sown up with INDIA. Making an enemy of IRAN was a fatal mistake!!!

*Quote radius - 05 January: "Omar Saeed Sheikh - a man with close links to both bin Laden and the ISI - was sentenced to death in 2002 for killing Pearl. The idea that bin Laden's "special son" killed him beggars belief anyway..."

No, 'radius', she was definite about all those names she mentioned. Omar Sheikh was also a British double agent so he could have quite easily infiltrated Al Qaeda. That means that it has been a fake bogeyman since then.

Additionally, though, BB also mentioned Beth-al-a Massoud (Ahmad Shah Massoud, I presume) who was supposedly assassinated in 2001, was still alive as others had already said, judging by the way she mentioned him as “the Afghan warlord”. She also mentioned “the Pakistan Taleban IN Islamabad...." and "a group IN Karachi...” !!!

In other words, the Taleban are actually behind the show in Pakistan anyway and Mushi is only nominally in control. They can pop him and take over the nuclear arsenal almost any time they wish. It would be the easiest thing for them or Al Qaeda to infiltrate the Pakistani military.

Nothingbuttruth
06 January 2008 at 21:15

Nothingbuttruth

06 January,2008

A clarification for Mr. Douglas Chalmer.Baitullah Mehsud who is alleged to be the mastermind of suicidal attack on Benazir Bhutto is different from Afghanistan's Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Masood who was slain just a couple of days before the 9/11. Baitullah Mehsud is a warlord and prominent leader of Mehsud tribe in south waziristan. Baitullah Mehsud from his brorther Abdullah Mehsud who blew himself up finding his imminent arrest by the pakistani forces who laid a seige around his hideout in Quetta town last year. Abdullah Mehsud started his terrorist activities soon afrter his return from the guantanmo bay camp where he was detained for four years.

Douglas Chalmers
06 January 2008 at 22:02

Quote Nothingbuttruth: "Baitullah Mehsud who is alleged to be the mastermind of suicidal attack on Benazir Bhutto..."

Thanks for that, Nothingbuttruth, some how I missed it (blame Google, ha ah).

writeon
06 January 2008 at 22:43

Gnuneo,

Thanks for your comment. I wasn't actually advocating a maoist revolution in Pakistan as my personal preference. I've always thought we've underestimated the strong nationalist and modernizing elements in the Chinese Communist revolution. Clearly, over the last twenty-five years the nationalist and modernizing faction has triumphed over the Communist faction.

I agree that the most likely outcome in Pakistan is some sort of Islamic Revolution, but how would we react to that prospect? Are we really going to intervene militarilly in Pakistan as leading US politicians are advocating? Won't this policy actually undermine the status of the Pakistani army and the sovereignty of the state? Where will this all end? Personally, I believe there is a nightmare scenario. I think there are powerful forces in the US that want to find an excuse to use nuclear weapons against some Muslim country, and push eveyone else back into line at the same time. Whether this is a 'conspiracy' or not, whether we'll simply blunder into a nuclear war, is perhaps of minimal importance. That we appear to be moving inexorably towards more and more war in Asia, with untold consequences for all of us, is what's really important.

Carl Jones
06 January 2008 at 23:19

Douglas Chalmers; that is an excellent reply, but I must disagree. We are all standing around the pot, its lamb stew...lamb, potato, onion and carrots. Most just assume that these names are in the pot, I don`t.

I believe that Pearl was murdered because he was getting too close to the NWO construct...that MI6 and the CIA are running the global terror show. The BBC`s Frank Gardiner was chased for a mile and a half by alledged terrorists and then shot...not a serious attampt on his life. More like stay away. While FG was on the ground, no one put a cap in his head. Terrorists don`t chase ""JOURNALISTS" one and a half miles just to wound someone. The fact is, Gardiner was getting to close like Richard Pearl.

Giuliana Sgrena was another journalist who had got to the truth in Iraq...the fact that the CIA was running Iraqi warlords who were tasked with killing coalition forces. Sgrena was rescued by Nicola Calipari who was a senior Italian secret service officer. Calipari also knew the truth and that why after passing two US security check points with in the US controlled Baghdad airport, Calipari`s car was stopped by a mobile checkpoint who fired over the car...this fire was used as cover for Cheney`s hired assassins to do their dirty work. After the incident, Berlusconi was briefed on the truth in Iraq...he couldn`t come to terms with it and the matter was never closed. In the following Italian election, some of the worlds major investment banks backed the communists and this led to Berlusconi being kicked out of office by the NWO.

So we have two dead and one alive due to an Italian spy throwing himself over Sgrena and taking the sniper shot in the neck. Gardiner has got by in a wheelchair, but has recently started to stand when delivering his script.

If the Frost interview went out, it was seen in newsrooms all over the world, yet not a squeak from anyone. The NWO control over the MSM is almost absolute, so when they drop these names into the 6pm news, it is designed to confuse and misslead.

Osama Bin Laden real, or created never stopped working for the, at this point I`m supposed to say "CIA", but thats a decoy. OBL is MI6. You will note that the 9/11 phase of the NWO sham war on terror was Saudi centric, but now its all Mi6/Pakistan centric. This goes all the way back to the Afghanistan/Russia occupation/war. It was MI6 who was laying the foundations for the war on terror. The best of OBL`s men were used by MI6 in Bosnia and after that they were allowed into the UK and that`s the circle. Musharraf is CIA. Since 9/11 he hasn`t put a foot out of place. Bhutto has been holed up in London under the wing of MI6. Bhutto walked right into a pincer movement and this is why she made her dramatic outburst on Sir David MI6 Frosts "Over this World" programme. Did She pick Frost`s and his show, because Al Jazeera is an MI6 front?LOL

The destabaliazation of Pakistan is the likely NWO objective. The only possible reason for this is to provoke the use of nukes. In context to this I should point out that Iran has two nukes. The fun has only just begun.lol

Douglas Chalmers
07 January 2008 at 01:53

Correct, Carl Jones, whether you disagree with me or not, the effect is the same. If suppressing the truth about OBL and Al Qaeda was so important that even the BBC got in on it, there must be great value in having the fantasy continue.

Smearing BB and then blaming her for her own assassination once no-one believed that she died because she merely bumped her head is the typical boys' club game. She lived in Dubai and was well aware of all that was going on.

Thus, Benazir Bhutto went back to Pakistan knowing full well that she was already on someone's hit list. At least she was doing something worthwhile rather than merely waiting for a bullet whilst still in exile. She was a brave person.

But the game is really the USA's military-industrial complex, Mushie's $billion boys' club in Pakistan and the bullshit war in Iraq. Britain and France always manage to have a finger in the pie but those in Washington who want the game to go on are in trouble now.

A shooting war is one thing but a nuclear strike on any country by any country is too much. This is where we all are again thanks to the Neocons' game-playing - a new 'Cuban missile crisis' and the N.Korean issue still isn't solved. Bad can quickly go to worse and India must know it.

mitchy
08 January 2008 at 12:28

Interesting and educational (if disturbing) commentary from you gentlemen. Reading between the lines, I had guessed some of this already when I first heard of BB's assassination, but you have illuminated me further, many thanks.

Christ, no wonder Martin Rees reckons we only have 50:50 odds of surviving this century as a species. Asteroids and global climate change aside, we're apparently perfectly capable of doing ourselves in without further assistance.

gnuneo
08 January 2008 at 14:04

mitchy:

"In an era of lies, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

it is hard indeed, to imagine analysis such as the above comments to be put into mass-media-print, and it is also certain that were the UK to experience 'Suhartoisation', then many of the people taking part will be quietly disappeared.

nevermind, "for evil to succeed, it only requires that good people do nothing."

and with mankind's insane 'investment' in WMD, to allow evil to succeed now, is to ensure our children have no future.

many buddhist priests in burma recently risked their lives for a good future for their people, can we do any less in our currently freer societies?

when we become too afraid to speak out, then we have already lost.

nawawimohamad
27 January 2008 at 03:37

One can write so many articles and analysis on politics in Pakistan but ultimately the one in power will be the one endorsed by the US. The is no bloody democracy in Pakistan!

Riaz Ahmad
09 February 2008 at 00:59

I have great deal of respect for the author, but I fail to understand which democracy is he talking about in Pakistan. The political parties are simply a racket of the corrupt sharing the loot of the nations coffers. Corruption is the first qualification one must have in order to succede in anything in Pakistan, it is a country where an honest man becomes a misfit. Then there is police and the judciary, they sell law and justice like a comodity, something from which great deal of profit is made daily. It is easy and convenient to blame the politicians and the instutions, but the fact is, they are the symptoms of the deep rooted and entrenched corruption in society. Had the society been even mildly honest, it will never tolerate such state of affairs even for a day.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Ziauddin Sardar

Ziauddin Sardar, writer and broadcaster, describes himself as a ‘critical polymath’. He is the author of over 40 books, including the highly acclaimed ‘Desperately Seeking Paradise’. He is Visiting Professor, School of Arts, the City University, London and editor of ‘Futures’, the monthly journal of planning, policy and futures studies.

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?