Bhutto Assassination in Pakistan Intensifies Political Conflict, Raises Possibility of Direct U.S. Intervention
by Kenneth J. Theisen
The December 27th assassination of Pakistani opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, has significantly intensified an already explosive situation in Pakistan, and heightened the threat of more direct U.S. military and CIA intervention in Pakistan. While Bhutto’s death eliminates one of Pakistani President Musharraf’s political opponents, the Bush administration and Musharraf had hoped that parliamentary elections scheduled for January 8, 2008, and a U.S. brokered deal between Musharraf and Bhutto would result in calming opposition to the Bush regime’s dictator in Islamabad. But the assassination and the resulting turmoil has only made the rule of Musharraf more fragile and apparently increased internal Pakistani opposition.
Musharraf has now postponed the elections to February 18, 2008 using the excuse that the rioting in the wake of the assassination has disrupted the possibility of an earlier election. Outwardly the Bush regime is still claiming that the elections will resolve the situation in Pakistan. After the postponement, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino announced to reporters, “The important thing is that they have a date certain for the election. Hopefully in the next few weeks, the political parties will be able to campaign freely and make their case and then the voters can decide.”
Bush & Co. would like to convince people that it is only interested in seeing “democracy in action: in Pakistan. But the one million dead in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation of that country are mute testimony to what Bush means when he says he is bringing democracy to a country. Whatever course of action the Bush Regime takes in the weeks and months ahead towards Pakistan, the well being and freedom of expression of the Pakistani people are the furthest thing from their minds. On January 6, the New York Times reported that “President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan”.
Musharraf has been backed by the U.S. ever since 9/11. He came to power in a military led coup in 1999 when he overthrew another opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif. (Sharif is the other primary opposition leader still alive and he is leading an election campaign against Musharraf.) The Bush regime has provided more than $10 billion in aid to Musharraf to keep him in power. Much of this aid has been military assistance. In November when Musharraf declared a state of emergency and virtually imposed martial law, the Bush regime continued to back the Musharraf regime. While Supreme Court judges were dismissed and arrested; while thousands were detained; while the media was suppressed; the Bush regime still supported Musharraf. Occasionally Bush and others in his regime would mention the word “democracy,” but it has been apparent that the real goal has been to maintain U.S. interests in Pakistan, and this has meant supporting a dictator.
Bhutto was the leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). After receiving a phone call from U.S. Secretary of State Rice urging her return to Pakistan, Bhutto returned from an eight-year exile in October 2007 to contest the parliamentary elections in the hope that she and her followers could take power in Pakistan. Shortly after her return, she barely escaped assassination in a bomb blast which killed scores of supporters. Bhutto accused “rogue elements within the government” in that assassination attempt. The Bush regime had been pressuring Bhutto to cut a deal that would have allowed her and Musharraf to share power. (He as president, and she as prime minister.) This deal would allegedly provide the façade of a functioning democracy. Apparently she had rebuffed such a power sharing agreement in November and was hoping that the elections would make her Prime Minister without a deal, giving her more leverage in cutting a better deal with Musharraf then or maybe even allowing her to shove him aside altogether.
The negotiations about power sharing were rocky, but U.S. diplomats actively pushed such a deal. In an apparent carrot to reach a power sharing accord, Musharraf’s government in a U.S. brokered deal, dropped all pending corruption and money laundering charges against Bhutto lingering from the time when she was prime minister and granted her immunity from prosecution for her past misdeeds. Musharraf created the “National Reconciliation Ordinance” in order to make the deal legal. But then Musharraf had also placed her under house arrest twice when she tried to lead demonstrations against him.
Benazir Bhutto, who was no more of a democratic leader than Musharraf, had previously served two terms as prime minister. While claiming to be a reformer she served the interests of the ruling class of Pakistan and international imperialism. She was close to the U.S. In her campaign to be elected Prime Minister, she stated that she was willing to consider U.S. military strikes inside Pakistan to eliminate al-Qaeda, something that even Musharraf has not supported. She had previously supported the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While she was previously prime minister, millions of Pakistanis continued to live in semi-feudal conditions and she did nothing to change that. Her rule was marked by corruption and human rights violations. She headed the PPP and declared that she was its ruler for life. The PPP was a family-led enterprise. Her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, has succeeded her in leadership of the PPP. Zardari is known as “Mr. 10%” due to the percentage he raked off the top of government awarded contracts. But despite her record, the U.S. supported her as a possible “democratic” leader who could share power with that other outstanding “democratic” leader, President Musharraf.
When Bhutto was assassinated, both the Bush and Musharraf regimes immediately blamed Islamic extremists and declared that those outraged by the assassination should support them in their global war on terrorism. Those who killed Bhutto were branded as forces opposed to democracy, as if Bush and Musharraf were the leaders of a new democratic movement. But while it is true that Islamic reactionaries are opposed to any form of democracy, it does not follow that Bush, Musharraf, and their henchmen are any better. They are merely two sides of the same coin. The people of the world have no interest in choosing heads or tails.
The partnership of George W. Bush and Pervez Musharraf has not brought democracy to the people of Pakistan. Instead it has increased the repression and divisions within that nation. The Pakistani people have seen through the lies of the Bush regime about its alleged support of democracy in their country and the Bush regime is deeply hated by people there for its support of Musharraf. Last month, Musharraf took off his military uniform at the request of Bush and stepped down as the Chief of the army. But the military is still the most powerful institution in Pakistan and Musharraf still controls it even without his uniform. Islamic extremists still exist in large numbers in the country as well and continue to be an excuse for the Bush regime’s support of President Musharraf. The Bush administration will continue to support Musharraf as long as they see him as a viable means to control Pakistani actions. On January 3, 2008, Bush stated, “I’ve always been a supporter of President Musharraf….I believe he is strong in the war on terror. He understands clearly the risks of dealing with extremists and terrorists. After all, they’ve tried to kill him.”
But in the wake of the assassination, it is not a sure bet that Musharraf will remain viable. The postponement of the elections, while giving him some breathing room, does not lesson the crisis for Musharraf and his backers in Washington. The major opposition parties denounced the delay but also said they would participate in the postponed elections.
Opponents have called for an international investigation of Bhutto’s assassination with many holding Musharraf’s government responsible either by being directly involved in the killing or failing to provide adequate security to halt it. The government has announced that Scotland Yard will assist it. Bush has offered the assistance of U.S. government investigators as well, but it is not likely the assistance of London or Washington will have much credibility with the Pakistani people.
Musharraf’s immediate response to Bhutto’s death was to order a destruction of the forensic evidence on the scene, and to prohibit doctors from conducting an autopsy, despite the fact that one is mandated by Pakistani law in such incidents. Within an hour of Bhutto’s death, the scene was cordoned off, and fire trucks brought in to hose down the area, sweeping away blood stains, bullet shells, and other crucial evidence for any serious investigation.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration praised the Musharraf for agreeing to accept outside assistance in the investigation. Musharraf stated, “Here’s a situation where maybe we need to go beyond ourselves to prove to the world and our people here, who are emotionally charged, that we don’t mind going to any extent, as nobody is involved from the government side or the agencies…We needed more experience, maybe more forensic and technical experience that our people don’t have. Therefore, I thought Scotland Yard may be more helpful.”
Musharraf’s regime may or may not have had a hand in the assassination, but it is clear that the Bush regime is not deterred in its determination to keep Musharraf in power as long as he is useful. Should he become a liability, he may be jettisoned by the Bush administration in favor of someone else. But as events unfold in Pakistan, the Bush regime may not have the decisive say. The 160 million people of that country may decide that Musharraf’s collaboration with U.S. imperialism is no longer acceptable and jettison his entire regime. Here in the U.S. we also need to get rid of our dictatorial regime. Mass action in both countries is needed to accomplish these tasks.