Pakistan is likely to survive the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and the contingent murder of at least 20 other people - pictured left - at least in the short run. Analysts I have spoken to this afternoon are predicting civil unrest, primarily in Karachi, and the probable imposition of a curfew.
But they believe that the regime of Pervez Musharraf - the military dictator praised by Tony Blair for his 'courage and his leadership in taking Pakistan on this journey of change and modernisation' - will hold on to power, at least for now.
Nevertheless, clearly a question mark remains over the very viability of the country. In a state where political, economic and military power is in the hands of a Sunni Muslim Punjabi elite that ruthlessly suppresses Baluchi and Pashtun insurgency, ethnic tension is always a given.
Whether under civilian or military governments, the Punjabis have never been able to accommodate regional dissent. Moreover, the military – supported by the US and Nato, and perhaps the only real embodiment of the unity of the Pakistani state – has always resisted decentralisation to the provincial level.
Additionally, Islamism also has to be factored in the equation. General Zia ul Haq, dictator in the 1970s, deliberately encouraged the emergence of Islamist groups, in order to undermine support for the secular parties that opposed him.
In the following decade, the US offered cash and training to Islamists in the region, in support of the anti-Soviet mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan. These same people are now highly critical of Musharraf, given his backing for the US invasion of the neighbouring country.
Indeed, the US has only heightened the resentment by its conduct of military raids within Pakistan, aimed at killing Afghan insurgents holed up on the other side of the border.
Finally, Islamists in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir use the divided territory as a base for terror attacks elsewhere, most notably India. Musharraf has promised Delhi he will take appropriate action, but so far has not delivered on his words.
The US – and so, of course, Britain – has long courted the dictator as part of the Global War on Terror, pumping $10bn into the country since 9/11. But there have been recent signs of impatience on the part of Washington, which feels that he hasn’t been doing a particularly good job on its behalf.
Accordingly, it tried to broker a deal with Bhutto, on the grounds that she would act as a force for stability and moderation, and maybe even a return to democracy. And it is true that she headed a nominally social democratic party, affiliated like New Labour to the Socialist International.
But there are few good reasons to think that a coalition between a military strongman and a quintessentially bourgeois politician, widely accused of corruption, would have brought about much material progress for Pakistan’s poor.
In any case, as of today, the US project lies in ruins. That won’t come as good news for George W Bush; but the uncertainties that today’s events will generate mean that the rest of us have no cause for celebration either.
Comments (11)
Still, there will be some loons who herald Bhutto's assassination as an anti-imperialist act.
Re US and British designs, clearly their favoured outcome would have been Musharraf governing with support coming from Bhutto's PPP, but I would be surprised if they didn't have some channels open to Sharif's Muslim League (confusingly, not the same Muslim League as Musharraf's party). When the dust has settled a bit, and despite the real animosity between the two, I wouldn't completely rule out some sort of deal.
I was rather heartened to read this after all the 'Saint Benazir' bollocks today in the media - she was a deeply malevolent and corrupt tyrant whose hands drip in blood all the way back to her support for her father's attempted but murderous crushing of what was East Pakistan in the war that set up Bangladesh.
I recall when Musharraf seized power, she welcomed his coup against Sharif (thinking it would give her an opportunity) for about 3 days, until she realised the army chief wouldn't support her.
I see the 'analysts' all point the finger at (Islamic) extremists / terrorists for today's killings (update, now Al Qa'eda did it apparently. Doubtless they will be behind the next earthquake as well).
I would have thought Musharraf would be a more likely candidate to have ordered the killing. Let's hope he and Sharif join her soon.
Anyway whilst they doubtless have high level support (from some of the Army and maybe people outside the country) I think people generally overrate the Islamists there and underestimate the support for Lefts - I don't see any early prospect but I think the sub continent has more potential than most places to turn sharp Left.
It’s furthermore interesting some of the reactions by 'Lefts' elsewhere on this.
Perhaps the most criminal is from that Marxist ‘soothsayer’ and leader of the Pro Chavista ‘Trotskyists’ (sic) Alan Woods – “This was a crime against the workers and peasants of Pakistan, a bloody provocation intended to cancel the elections that the PPP was sure to win and to provide the excuse for a new clampdown and the possible reintroduction of martial law and dictatorship. It is a counterrevolutionary act that must be condemned without reservation.”
What was a crime was the support by Militant for her party when their comrades worked inside the PPP (this was when Woods was one of Militant’s leaders). Tariq Ali took the right attitude when the Bhuttos asked him to join the PPP at its beginning in steering a thousand miles away from this feudalist bunch of right wing opportunists who only ever looked slightly liberal by being compared to the even more rancid parties like the Muslim League.
The rightist ex-playboy and putative politician Imran Khan even managed to outflank Bhutto by correctly pointing out her ruthless courting and then ignoring of the dictator in recent months as she tried to stitch up a deal between her party and him and with not a moment of consideration by either of them for a single one of Woods’ ‘workers and peasants.’
And in a sort of perverse love note, Galloway has said “She was the bravest woman I ever met, bright brave and beautiful. I planned to be with her on the campaign trail from January 2nd. I am broken hearted that I will never see her again.”
It kind of would be interesting to have seem him campaigning for the PPP, whilst in the next street other members of Respect Renewal would be out campaigning for any Islamist parties who would be standing.
It would indeed be ultraleft to see this act as anyway ’anti-imperialist’. The action was doubtless undertaken for reactionary motives but to see it as a counterrevolutionary act is to break every socialist principle and suggest anyone Pakistani should support her slightly secular neo-liberal autocratic party as opposed to the anti-secular ones and when there are also socialist parties (including your own comrades) in play!
No socialist of any description should feel a scintilla of remorse for Bhutto getting what she caused others. Amongst the many crimes undertaken when she was in power was the bloody crushing of some of the Kashmiris fighting against Pakistani as well as Indian occupation.
And I have no doubt that she would have acted as a loyal placeman for the murderous designs of the imperialists - possibly even more so than the dictator - if she had taken power, such as with her recent announcement that she would have allowed hot pursuit into Pakistan of Afghani resistance fighters by the occupying forces. I'd be impossible to imagine, for example, an Indian politician who would argue to allow foreign soldiers to operate inside her borders.
Galloways views on this are irrelevant and tainted by cash.
This is not the first time George Galloway has been linked to allegations of handling money from a controversial foreign power. In 1998 BBC Newsnight reporter Richard Watson investigated the MP's links with the government of Pakistan, uncovering documents that revealed an astonishingly close financial relationship with the administration and calling into serious question Mr Galloway's judgment as an MP. Here, Watson recounts the investigation.
The trail of evidence linking George Galloway to the government of Pakistan began to emerge in the prime minister's private office in Islamabad. It was spring 1998 and Nawaz Sharif had recently come to power. In keeping with the cut and thrust of Pakistani politics, the new prime minister had just created an Accountability Commission to investigate allegations of corruption by the government of his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto.
We were given access to the work of the Accountability Commission as part of our research for a film for the BBC. Over three weeks my researcher Shashi Singh and I pored over thousands of documents.
It soon became clear that Mr Sharif's government was most interested in pursuing corruption allegations against Ms Bhutto's government. Senior officials were suspected of setting up inflated contracts with foreign companies for infrastructure investment programmes worth hundreds of millions of pounds. Details of secret offshore accounts in the Caribbean and Switzerland began to emerge.
But other, far more sensitive documents were also coming out of the vaults. Some described work paid for by the Pakistan Projection Fund - a secret bank account run out of London by the Pakistan High Commission that was set up to back clandestine operations to promote issues of national interest.
These documents would reveal how George Galloway was party to negotiations at the highest level with the government of Pakistan to pay for the operation of a newspaper published in London and to fund lobbying work on the issue of Kashmir. The newspaper was set up to take a pro-Bhutto line.
The first clue to the work of the Pakistan Projection Fund - and Mr Galloway's links to the government - came in the form of an unsigned letter in a file from the Foreign Office. It was marked for the attention of Pakistan's High Commissioner in London and contained details of a secret proposal to launch an English language newspaper in Britain called The Asian Voice. The unnamed author noted that "its political line would be the line of the Pakistan People's Party" (led by Ms Bhutto) and "it would energetically press the prime minister's line". Ms Bhutto initialled her agreement at the bottom of the page.
We do not know who wrote this document - or whether Mr Galloway knew about it. What we can say is that Asian Voice Ltd was a company registered in Britain to publish the weekly pro- Bhutto newspaper. And one of its directors was Mr Galloway, who, according to documents in Pakistan, also controlled a third of the shares.
Mr Galloway declared his interest in Asian Voice Ltd in the House of Commons Register of Members' Interests. But for anyone scrutinising the records the financial link with a foreign power would have remained unseen.
Documents show that the Pakistan government agreed an initial budget for the weekly newspaper of £547,000. According to a memorandum dated Jan 2, 1996 the Pakistan government proposed to "covertly sponsor" the publication, with money allocated to "the Secret Fund of the High Commissioner for Pakistan in the UK as a special grant for the project".
In early 1996 Mr Galloway recruited staff and an office was set up in Tooley Street near Tower Bridge in London. The paper was to be called East and, as agreed, the publisher was Asian Voice Ltd.
But just two weeks before the official launch disaster struck. The government of Ms Bhutto fell and with it went the source of funding. Mr Galloway now had a problem. Thousands of pounds had been sunk in launch costs and debts were running high. The new administration in Islamabad made it clear they wanted to stop the flow of money and the MP realised this could spell disaster.
In a memorandum marked "Secret" and dated Jan 26, 1997 there is an account of a meeting between the newly-appointed foreign secretary of Pakistan, Mr Galloway and Pakistan's former High Commissioner in London, the man who had covertly directed funds for the newspaper project. The memo reports that the foreign secretary made it clear that funding for the paper was to end but reassured Mr Galloway that the new president did not wish to harm the MP's position.
According to the memo, Mr Galloway thanked the president for his concern but outlined serious concerns. The memo states that Mr Galloway said that if East were to close before the general election then "his political enemies would create problems and might also call for journalistic investigation which could easily establish his involvement. Such a situation would not only ruin him politically but would also damage the Labour Party".
These are hardly the sentiments of a man comfortable with the nature of the funding for the paper. Two days after this meeting a cheque for £135,000 drawn in favour of Asian Voice Ltd was handed over to the MP. Newsnight obtained a copy of the cheque, which came with Mr Galloway's signature, apparently acknowledging receipt.
In total the documents in Pakistan suggested that more than £300,000 was paid to Asian Voice Ltd to run East. But this was not enough to stave off financial collapse. Soon Mr Galloway had to turn to Pakistan with his begging bowl. He was so desperate for money that he wrote a series of highly embarrassing begging letters to the new government, which raised serious questions about his judgment as an MP.
On May 8, 1997 Mr Galloway wrote to Mr Sharif talking of Labour's "landslide victory". The preamble over, he got to the point: "Alas I must draw your attention to a critical issue which risks gravely embarrassing Pakistan and Labour just on the threshold of the new era. As you will see from the file I undertook to keep "The East" going until the General Election to avoid the embarrassment of the paper's collapse. The Government of Pakistan - in the shape of the then Foreign Secretary - promised to pay the costs for February, March and April - totalling £150,000. None of these instalments arrived.
"Consequently I now face creditors to the tune of £141,000. Now that Parliament is back, they are literally coming through my door at Westminster demanding money.
"My dear Prime Minister, if these creditors are not paid they will take me to court on a winding-up petition. This level of debts cannot be quietly forgotten. Events thereafter would be disastrous for me - probably your best friend in the new Parliament - and would badly damage the reputation of Pakistan.
"I beg you, Sir, to please instruct the High Commission in London to honour the country's commitments. There are literally only days to spare."
On May 26, Mr Galloway once again wrote to Mr Sharif - this time on House of Commons headed paper. His tone was increasingly desperate.
"I beg you to grant me an audience with you, Sir, so we can resolve the matter," he wrote.
We showed these begging letters to parliamentarians, who expressed shock. We did not reveal who had written them to avoid them being accused of party bias - we merely said they were penned by an MP. Speaking in 1998, Shirley Williams told us: "He or she put themselves under a very strong obligation to a government which has a very clear mandate on how it wished to behave in the UK and how it wanted to be seen in the UK. And that was bound to influence the MP. The [Parliamentary] rules are inadequate to deal with this situation."
Before we broadcast our film in June 1998 we asked Mr Galloway for an interview. He declined. So we wrote to him, asking the simple question of whether Asian Voice Ltd had ever received money from the government of Pakistan. He told us our information was factually wrong but refused to elaborate. In a letter he said: "Asian Voice Ltd had business relations with a variety of companies and governments in countries friendly to, or allied with, Great Britain. Those commercial relations were conducted on the basis of confidentiality and remain confidential."
He added that the suggestion that he had put himself under an obligation to the government of Pakistan was "preposterous".
We are not saying that Mr Galloway retained money connected with the publication of East for his personal benefit. But the documents we found disclosed an astonishingly close financial relationship with a foreign power - and one that had been covert.
But this was not the only financial link the MP had with Pakistan. Other evidence emerged about lobbying activity connected to Kashmir, the region disputed by Pakistan and India.
In 1996 leaflets on behalf of a group called The National Lobby on Kashmir were issued at political rallies in Britain asking for donations to be sent to a PO Box number. We found that the box number was connected with Mr Galloway's London address.
The former editor of East, who knew nothing about her paper's funding links with Pakistan, became suspicious in the run-up to the launch of the paper while she was working from Mr Galloway's house. Speaking in 1998 she said: "I was working closely with George's researcher and I was becoming aware of some of the work he was doing. There were lots of documents, lots of chequebooks, lots of accounts for the lobby work on Kashmir."
When searching through the documents in Islamabad we came across references to the lobbying group in files held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Newsnight obtained a document, signed "George Galloway", acknowledging receipt of a cheque for £50,000 and £10,000 in cash on behalf of The National Lobby on Kashmir. The hand-written receipt stated that money was spent on leaflets, posters, an office, staff and "countless media opportunities".
Back in 1998 we showed these documents to Quentin Davies, MP, a member of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee. He refused to comment on the specific case but said: "When dealing with foreign governments or foreign political organisations, one has to be particularly cautious. This is the British Parliament; our overriding responsibility is to our own electors and we can't become beholden to some foreign government.
"The second thing is that dealing in cash is inherently suspect. Even if they are disbursing that money without receiving any benefit themselves they must keep receipts."
Mr Galloway's work with The National Lobby on Kashmir was not specifically mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests. This was not a breach of the rules. Any disclosure would have been voluntary. But once again fellow MPs would have not known that Mr Galloway was working so closely with a lobby group bankrolled by a foreign power.
There is no suggestion that Mr Galloway retained lobbying money for his own benefit. But before Newsnight broadcast the film we asked Mr Galloway to account for how the £70,000 had been spent; where it had been banked and who had been the trustee. He refused to give an interview but in a letter said: "The National Lobby on Kashmir is supporting a life and death struggle against a brutal enemy . . . it has no obligation to open itself to your inquiries and it will not do so."
``her father's attempted but murderous crushing of what was East Pakistan in the war that set up Bangladesh''
Was it not the Pakistani army that did this? IIRC, there was a military government in Pakistan at the time (March thru' December, 1971). Please correct if I am wrong.
Wow, Tim really knows his shit!
Anyway, I'm glad I'm not alone in finding Galloway's 'Diana moment' embarrassing - may Marx bless him for the good work he's done on getting some truths about US/UK foreign policy across to the proles, but on nearly everything else he is 'problematic'.
Southpawpunch wrote:-
Perhaps the most criminal is from that Marxist ‘soothsayer’ and leader of the Pro Chavista ‘Trotskyists’ (sic) Alan Woods – “This was a crime against the workers and peasants of Pakistan, a bloody provocation intended to cancel the elections that the PPP was sure to win and to provide the excuse for a new clampdown and the possible reintroduction of martial law and dictatorship. It is a counterrevolutionary act that must be condemned without reservation.”
Crikey you're a sectarian aren't you. Ever thought of changing your moniker to "Southpaw Punch, Headbutt and Knee in the Bollocks"?
How exactly does that statement differ from the one issued by the LPP (other than the fact that they conveniently avoid mentioning the fact that the PPP would undoubtedly have won the election on Jan 8th?)
In a joint statement issued here on Friday, LPP spokesperson Farooq Tariq and National Secretary Nisar Shah said:- ` It is not mere a murder
of an individual but murder of democracy and political culture in Pakistan'.
It's a wonder Southpawpunch can take time off training his combat force to comment here. No doubt, too, he is such a threat to the capitalist class that he has to use some very special IT setup to pose so as not to reveal his whereabouts.
Or he could be full of shit.
You decide.
You've all got it wrong and hysterically over-reacted. Ms Bhutto wasn't murdered by anyone. She rather stupidly happened to have poked her head through the open sun-roof of her car, and when a gun was fired and bomb detonated in her vicinity, she flinched and hit her head against the car. Thus, she was the author of her own misfortune. (This is according to the Pakistani Minister of the Interior.).
Can anyone explain to me the meaning of what Ms Salma Yaqoob is quoted as saying in today's Morning Star? And what, exactly the logical connection between the first had second halves of her quoted comments, is?
"In Britain, Birmingham Respect councillor Salma Yaqoob ntold of her shock at Ms Bhutto's death, noting that she had been 'an iconic figure in the context of being a woman who returned from exile to stand for election.'
"Ms Yaqoob pointed out that 'the war on terror has been disastrous for the countery,' saying; 'There is no doubt that it was a contributing factor in what happened today.'"
- Felines - There was a military gov in Pakistan at the time but both Bhuttos played a full part in supporting the war – His party organised volunteers to go and fight.
His party had won a large number of seats from constituencies in West Pakistan a few months before .However, Sheikh Mujib's Awami League won an outright majority from the constituencies located in East Pakistan. Bhutto refused to accept an Awami League government and famously promised to "break the legs" of any elected PPP member who dared to attend the inaugural session of the National Assembly of Pakistan.
Capitalising on West Pakistani fears of East Pakistani separatism, Bhutto demanded that Sheikh Mujib form a coalition with the PPP. While supportive of the army's campaign and working to rally international support, Bhutto distanced himself from the Yahya (military regime) - From Wikipedia (and, yes, accurate this time).
Also “After nearly a year of anarchy and revolt in East Pakistan, which the Pakistan Army had brutally suppressed and which left more than a million Bengalis dead, the Indian Army moved in, and the third Indo-Pakistani war in twenty-three years began. In December, East Pakistan, backed by a victorious India, became the independent nation of Bangladesh. Benazir Bhutto had become a fiery, defensive Pakistani nationalist.
When professors (at her American university) criticized the Pakistan Army’s genocide, she would lecture the lecturer in a vehement, angry voice. When, that December, her father summoned her to join him at the United Nations—where he was fighting a futile battle to forestall Pakistan’s dismemberment.” - http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1993/10/04/1993_10_04_082_TNY_CARDS_000365108?currentPage=all
- Alex, er, it doesn’t. It’s not ‘sectarian’ to disagree with what other purported Trots argue esp. Woods. Buy any copy of Socialist Appeal and let it stew for a few months – and then look back at all the predictions by Chavista Alan that didn’t come true or just laugh at his claims e.g. 3 million people welcomed Benazir Bhutto when she landed. See my website for more.
- LOTB, do you actually have some politics you wish to argue? Or do we take it from your name that you simply follow what Bomber Blair preached?