Bhutto’s Assassination Called “Potentially Crippling Blow” to Pakistani Stability

By Lucy Jones

“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto…was an event as terrible as it was bleakly predictable,” wrote Britain’s Guardian newspaper on Dec. 28, a day after her death in Rawalpindi.

“She was a brave and charismatic democrat for all her barely hidden flaws, and her death will be perilous not just for Pakistan but for the world. If anyone could have unified her country after decades of military misrule, it was she. No other Pakistani leader can fill her place,” the newspaper lamented.

According to BBC world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, writing on the day of her death: “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a severe, and potentially crippling, blow to international hopes that Pakistan might emerge into a state of stability.

“The risks of Pakistan imploding have once again increased. It is a further setback for the U.S. “war on terror,” he added, “which has as part of its strategy in the region the restoration of democracy in Pakistan to offer an alternative path, away from militancy and extremism.”

However, the London Times foreign editor, Browen Maddox, wrote on the same day that Bhutto’s assassination does not have to mean the death of democracy in Pakistan, “provided that elections are held soon.” Her Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) may sweep to a powerful lead on the back of the “martyr effect,” she said.

“Bhutto’s death will be a terrible shock to Pakistan, but it is hard to say that it is a surprise,” Maddox noted. “When she returned after eight years abroad, in flight from corruption charges, many reckoned that her life expectancy could be measured in weeks if not hours.”

“In a country where the democratic urge is not only frustrated by dictators, but undermined by the cult of personality, complete disintegration may yet be averted while the Bhutto name remains the rallying cry of those who oppose both military autocracy and fundamentalism,” editorialized Britain’s Daily Telegraph on Dec. 31. “[Her party’s] message is what passes for moderation in Pakistan, and its appeal can only be enhanced by Benazir Bhutto’s memory.”

However, English socialite Jemima Khan (former wife of Pakistani cricketer and politician Imran Khan), in the previous day’s edition of the same newspaper, accused Bhutto of lacking “political bravery.”

“She wanted to boycott the…elections in January, which she knew would be rigged. Her instinct was to take a stand against the military rule that has blighted Pakistan’s history and which was responsible for the death of her own father,” noted Khan.

Bhutto was “personally brave but politically weak.”

“But in the end she didn’t dare defy those in Washington who were intent on arranging an ill-judged political marriage between herself and Pervez Musharraf: two Western allies in the so-called War on Terror united only by America and mutual loathing,” she wrote.

“She did almost nothing for Pakistan during her two terms in power,” Khan continued.

“As the first democratically elected female leader of a Muslim country her potential was limitless, but she never even tried to repeal the Hudood Ordinances, Pakistan’s heinous laws that make no distinction between rape and adultery,” she pointed out.

“In fact, during her first, 20-month-long premiership she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Instead, she kowtowed to the mullahs. During her second term, her government backed the Taliban takeover in Kabul, providing them with military and financial support,” Khan added.

“Benazir’s implacable courage was of course commendable,” she acknowledged, “but that part of the world is bedeviled by people who, like her, are personally brave but politically weak. Sadly, her tragic death can’t change that.”

The Independent’s Robert Fisk on Dec. 29 described Bhutto as “indeed a true martyr.”

Speculating on those who orchestrated her death, he suggested running “through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman’s notebook before he became the top cop in London.”

“Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf,” Fisk noted.

“Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir’s supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf,” he said.

“Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf,” Fisk added.

“Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf,” he continued.

“Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto? Er. Yes. Well quite,” he wrote.

“You see the problem? Our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a ‘murderer’ were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her,” he pointed out.

Qaddafi’s France Trip Described as “Five Days of Shame”

French President Nicolas Sarkozy came under fire from the liberal press for inviting Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi for his first visit to the country in 34 years from Dec. 10 to 15. The total value of deals signed, involving Airbus and French nuclear expertise, was not made public, but Sarkozy earlier had said they would be worth 10 billion euros ($14.4 billion).

“Qaddafi, the jailer of the Bulgarian nurses who were tortured in prison for nine years, is now being rewarded with a long official visit to France. There is nothing forcing France to show such attentiveness and such indignity,” wrote commentator François Sergent in Le Libération Dec. 13.

“On the evening of his election Sarkozy announced that France would stand ‘alongside the oppressed’ and was ‘back’ in Europe. He is now giving Qaddafi the opportunity to lord it,” Le Monde editorialized the same day. “Sarkozy is not keeping his word.”

“So five days of shame and trouble was the price to pay for a few lucrative contracts. In fact, this is not a very good deal,” opined Gerald Noel in that day’s La Libérté de L’est.

Wrote Jean Levallios in La Presse de la Manche of Dec.13, however, “no doubt the Libyan leader’s style is still atypical but the impression is that he has understood that his country’s role in the international community makes it necessary to accept some rules of good conduct. This is a major development, which needs to be encouraged.”

According to Pascal Aubert, writing in La Tribune the same day: “What is important is that when Qaddafi returns to his own country, in a few days, he leaves behind him a reasonable number of billion-euro contracts and orders. As long as it is good for French jobs and companies: Nicolas Sarkozy is not asking for anything else.”

Bush’s Mideast Trip Gives Israel “Clear Message,” Says Germany’s Bild

George Bush’s Middle East trip of Jan. 9 to 16 was generally welcomed by European commentators, even though there was a feeling that the initiative was too little, too late.

“George W. Bush also won’t be able to solve the Mideast conflict during his remaining time in office. But his trip is not for nothing,”editorialized Germany’s Bild on Jan. 11.

“When the lion is away, the hyenas dance, goes an old Arab saying. That’s why the presence of the U.S. president in Israel’s capital alone is a clear message to those who bank on chaos and violence. The message is: The global superpower USA is and remains the guarantor for Israel’s right to exist,” the newspaper wrote.

The same day, Süddeutsche Zeitung in Munich applauded Bush’s newfound attention, saying Israel also had to make concessions. “Bush shows that he’s become sensitive as far as these problems are concerned,” the paper noted. “Now he has to stay the course and remain steadfast in demanding painful political concessions from the Israelis.”

Bush “has used some of his strongest language so far to describe the vision he says he has of a Palestinian state alongside Israel,” pointed out BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen on Jan. 11.

At a news conference, he reported, Bush said there should be “an end to the occupation that began in 1967.”

The Israelis say they would not have chosen some of the language Bush used, Bowen added, pointing out that “the word ‘occupation’ is something with which Israeli governments have always had difficulties.

“A president who says freedom is the cure for the world’s ills now believes that Palestinians need it too,” Bowen concluded.

NIE Report Means “Third World War Averted,” Says Italy’s La Repubblica

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran publicized Dec. 3, which found that Tehran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons at present, makes an American attack on the country less likely, in the opinion of some European commentators.

“[It] has acted like a safety valve, letting off the steam that had been building up over a possible American military attack,” wrote BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds the following day. “It is also likely to make it more difficult to significantly increase international sanctions,” he added.

“While some, especially Israel, concentrated on the news that Iran indeed had a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003,” editorialized Vienna’s Der Standard on Dec. 5, “others saw the new information as a success for diplomacy that sweeps all military options off the table.”

According to Italy’s La Repubblica of the previous day, the U.S. can “allow itself the liberty of not doing anything… and dream the dreams of reconciliation with Iran and negotiations with Palestine.

“The Third World War that George Bush had threatened last month as an inevitable reaction to Iran’s nuclear bomb plans won’t happen—at least not at the moment,” the newspaper concluded.

Lucy Jones is a free-lance journalist based in London.