Mobs Rampage through Pakistani Cities;
Cars, Banks, Gas Stations Torched
Sharif's Party will Boycott Elections
My column, "With Bhutto gone, does Bush have a Plan B?" is online at Salon.com. Excerpt:
' Pakistan's future is now murky, and to the extent that this nation of 160 million buttresses the eastern flank of American security in the greater Middle East, its fate is profoundly intertwined with America's own. The money for the Sept. 11 attacks was wired to Florida from banks in Pakistan, and al-Qaida used the country for transit to Afghanistan. Instability in Pakistan may well spill over into Afghanistan, as well, endangering the some 26,000 U.S. troops and a similar number of NATO troops in that country. And it is not as if Afghanistan were stable to begin with. If Pakistani politics finds its footing, if a successor to Benazir Bhutto is elected in short order by the PPP and the party can remain united, and if elections are held soon, the crisis could pass. If there is substantial and ongoing turmoil, however, Muslim radicals will certainly take advantage of it.
In order to get through this crisis, Bush must insist that the Pakistani Supreme Court, summarily dismissed and placed under house arrest by Musharraf, be reinstated. The PPP must be allowed to elect a successor to Ms. Bhutto without the interference of the military. Early elections must be held, and the country must return to civilian rule. Pakistan's population is, contrary to the impression of many pundits in the United States, mostly moderate and uninterested in the Taliban form of Islam. But if the United States and "democracy" become associated in their minds with military dictatorship, arbitrary dismissal of judges, and political instability, they may turn to other kinds of politics, far less favorable to the United States. Musharraf may hope that the Pakistani military will stand with him even if the vast majority of people turn against him. It is a forlorn hope, and a dangerous one, as the shah of Iran discovered in 1978-79. '
I am appalled by the rightwing US pundits who are taking advantage of Bhutto's assassination to blame "the people of Pakistan" for "extremism." Benazir's party would have won at least a plurality in parliament. The PPP is a moderate, middle class party, and it has done well in unrigged elections during the past 20 years. She was killed by an extremist of some sort. The Muslim fundamentalist parties usually only get 3 percent of the vote in national elections, and they got 11.3 percent of the popular vote in 2002 only because Musharraf interfered with the PPP and Muslim League campaigns.
Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, a lifelong rival of Benazir Bhutto, claimed that he, too, had been targeted for assassination on Thursday, but had escaped it. He said his party would boycott the January 8 elections called by President Pervez Musharraf, to protest Bhutto's death, and he called on other parties to boycott, as well. Sharif intimated that the Pakistani military was behind Ms. Bhutto's assassination.
In what may be a preview of civil unrest, A gun battle broke out between two factions of the Muslim League, leaving 4 persons dead. The Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) group resisted encroachment from the Pakistan Muslim League (Qa'id-i A'zam). The PML-N is loyal to Nawaz Sharif, while PML (Q) is very close to Pervez Musharraf. Four Nawaz supporters were killed in the clash.
David Rohde of the NYT, who has been doing excellent reporting from Pakistan, wonders if President Pervez Musharraf can survive the crisis provoked by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Rohde recently reported on a nation-wide poll in Pakistan that showed that 67% of Pakistanis wanted Musharraf to resign, and 70% did not believe his government deserved reelection.
Likely the PPP will now select another leader. It has declared a 40-day mourning period and my guess is that elections therefore cannot be held until early February. The best chance for everyone getting out of this mess with hide intact is for the the PPP and the Muslim League to contest February elections and for a strong parliament to emerge with genuine grassroots support. If that does not happen, I am afraid of what might. This is a nuclear power we are talking about, in the middle of a very dangerous neighborhood.
The seriousness of the situation in the streets of some of Pakistan's important towns and cities doesn't seem to me to be being reported in the US press and media. In contrast, Pakistani newspapers are giving chilling details of large urban centers turned into ghost towns on Friday morning, with no transport available, hundreds of thousands of persons stranded far from home, shops closed, and banks, gas stations, police stations and automobiles torched. Karachi, Hyderabad, Larkana, Sukkur, Jacobabad and many others in Sindh Province fell victim to the violence (Bhutto was from Larkana in Sindh but had a residence in Karachi). The police seemed to be AWOL for the most part in these cities, allowing the rioting and looting to go on unhindered.
Here is a tally of violence in the major port city of Karachi (population 11 million inside city limits) overnight, resulting from riots to protest the killing of Benazir Bhutto:
Number of vehicles burned: 150
Number of streets where tires were set afire: 26
Number of banks set on fire: 16
Number of gas stations torched: 13
Number of persons shot dead: 10
Number of persons injured: 68
Number of PIA flights coming in: 0
Number of shops and businesses closed: Most
The News adds:
' [Karachi:] one of the posh areas of the city Zamzama was ransacked by unidentified people who looted showrooms, shops and boutiques. Within minutes of the breaking of the news of the death of PPP chairperson, enraged crowds went on the rampage, indiscriminately burning cars, motorcycles, fire tenders and banks, plunging the whole city into a state of lawlessness and anarchy that was seldom seen before . . .
The uncontrolled protestors put the Gulistan-e-Jauhar Police Station on fire. Four Chinese engineers got stranded in Gulshan-e-Iqbal area and sought refuge at the Gulshan-e-Iqbal Police Station. They were later safely evacuated from there.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of employees of various companies, corporate houses and shops were stranded when public transport disappeared from the city’s main arteries. These people were seen walking on roads for hours to reach their homes. On the other hand, thousands of employees were forced to stay back at their offices or took refuge with their friends and relatives. . . '
Throughout the towns and cities of Sindh Province, violence paralyzed urban life and most often transport workers went home, stranding people in mosques and offices. The News reports:
' The office of District Nazim was attacked and some branches of commercial banks and multinational restaurants and hotels were also burnt during the ongoing violence.
The road and train link of Hyderabad with other parts of the province and country was also badly affected after a train was set ablaze. However, no injury was reported.
A large number of people had been stranded in mosques and offices because of non-availability of transport.
Some offices of the electric supply company were also torched and police stations were also attacked while minor scuffles between police and the protesters were also reported.
Our Sukkur correspondent adds: Violence erupted throughout interior Sindh, including Sukkur, Larkana, Rohri, Salehpat, Pano Akil, Ghotki, Daharki, Ubauro, Shikarpur, Khairpur, Jacobabad, Kandhkot, Thull, Tangwani and other cities and towns, on Thursday night following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
In Sukkur, enraged mob set ablaze the Taluka council office, State Life Building, fruit and vegetable market, besides burning tyres on various streets.
In Rohri, the protesting youth attacked the residence of District Nazim Sukkur Syed Nasir Hussain Shah and damaged the house.
In Larkana, four banks, including a private and nationalised bank, were set ablaze and the bank employees were locked inside the bank, but no casualty was reported. The unruly mob also caused damage to government offices and vehicles, while all the main bazaars remained closed.
In Pano Akil, the railway station and the Nadra office were set ablaze, while the unruly people were burning tyres at various places.
In Khairpur, two persons lost their lives in an exchange of fire between police and agitators.
Similar protests were being carried out in other cities and towns of interior Sindh including, Ghotki, Daharki, Ubauro, Shikarpur, Jacobabad, Kashmore, Kandhkot, Thull, etc, where enraged people attacked many government offices and caused damage. The protesters also blocked railway tracks at different places.
Despite large-scale incidents of violence, no police personnel was seen in the cities, while most of the cities and towns plunged into darkness due to unannounced load shedding by Hesco.
Our Thatta correspondent adds: The entire Thatta district was completely closed as soon as the news about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto spread over here.
All shops, business centres, pan cabins and petrol pumps were closed. All the election camps were also closed and streetlights switched off. Scores of people came out on roads and mourned the incident aggressively. They continued to weep and beat their heads and chests. '
In Punjab province, Rawalpindi suffered the most violence from all accounts: "Murree road, the main artery in Rawalpindi suffered the major wrath of the angry mob and PPP activists who burnt tyres, damaged public and private properties, and burnt vehicles."
Folks, I've seen civil wars and riots first hand, and revolutions from not too far away, and this situation looks pretty bad to me.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/28/2007 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
20 Comments:
According to the Times of India, the Pakistani government has ordered a shutdown of pretty much everything :
"All government and private educational institutions, all business and commercial centres and all banks throughout the country shall remain closed for three days with immediate effect," the interior ministry said in a statement.
The real story beneath the story of Pakistan's descent
into turmoil is the Bush Administration's continuing
disintegration of its foreign policy-- beginning with
its failed "war on terror", followed by its quagmire
in Iraq, and continuing entrenchment with the
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, exacerbated by a
Bush-backed Israeli Blitzkrieg invasion of Lebanon,
and now, the utter failure of its back-room brokered
deal to re-install a post-Musharraff
Bhutto-government.
In Afghanistan, Taliban-like tribal armies are back on
the rise. In Iraq, the current sectarian-violence
under occupation may be followed by a post-occupation
outright genocide. In the Palestinian territories,
anti-West Hamas continue to rule amidst an internecine
war. In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Nasrallah has captured
the imagination of fundamentalist-leaning sympathizers
inside and outside Lebanon, in the Muslim world,
further establishing Iran's influence in that sphere.
The NYTimes Editorial hit the nail on the head when it
concluded with the warning against an American foreign
policy with an over-reliance on this or that
personality. Today's friends become tomorrow's
enemies.
Saddam was not the first, nor will be the last. His
mistake was not having been an unwitting tool of
fundamentalist expansion, while he postured himself to
be an "ally" of the West. Saddam further added to his
error by not having developed an "Islamic
Nuclear-bomb" in secret, but gave ample opportunity
for Uncle Sam to wrongly suspect that he was
developing one. Not having had a bomb, Saddam was
unable to commit "nukular proliferation", as the
Neo-Con were hellbent on believing. Saddam, also to
his misfortune, did not have anything to do with
Al-Qaeda, or its establishment of a homebase in his
country's territory while he was still alive. One man
did all of the above, and irony of all ironies, that
man became the Bush government's "best ally" in the
"war on terror". That man is Musharraff.
Bush-Cheney and company promoted the notion that Iraq
was the "most dangerous" country in our time. They
had Colin Powell as Secretary of State mouth those
warnings at the U.N. Assembly. They had Rumsfeld
prepare to launch an invasion of Iraq. Based on utter
lies, deception, and unfathomable incompetence. And
the rest is tragedy as history, of epic proportions.
Bush et al is committing for this century, the same
kind of grievous historic errors (read offenses)the
British committed during the last century, in its
waning days as a world-power. The price of those
"errors" are paid by the blood of third-worlders in
the millions, along with American service men and
women in the thousands. History will show that Bush
and the American Neo-Cons invaded the wrong country.
The "most dangerous" country in the world, as it has
turned out, is NOT Iraq, but rather, Pakistan.
Musharraff alone is not responsible for all that
Pakistan has turned out to be. He is after all, no
more than a "caretaker" figure. Since its inception
as a nation, more than half-a-century ago, Pakistan
has been under the rule of one aristocratic dynasty
after another, enriching themselves while mouthing
egalitarian and democratic principles. Pakistan's
military-establishment has turned out to be the
biggest benefactor of all that ails the country.
Today, it is the largest holder of Pakistan's
industries and economic infrastructure. Through an
unholy alliance of convenience, it is also the biggest
enabler of fundamentalist-extremists. But they were
not the only enablers and self-enrichers. Benazir
Bhutto herself had a hand, as Prime-Minister, in
promoting the expansion of the Taliban. (The reason,
no doubt, was to satisfy the urging of its bourgeois
patron-- the American government under Reagan, at the
time, interested in employing the Mujahedeen to fight
a proxy-war against the Soviet-Union)
There's also no lack of evidence that her government
did more to enrich itself than help the people it
proclaimed it would. Modeling her meteoric
political-career after her father's, she seemed to
have developed a "martyr's complex" of late, taking
unnecessary risks, not just for herself, but for
hundreds of her own admirers who were unnecessarily
slaughtered in the fundamentalist attacks which
consumed her last campaign. She would shrug off such
criticisms of her boldness, bordering on a cavalier
attitude. Meanwhile, the fawning bourgeois press
lauded her actions as that of "courage". Today, it is
not only Benazir Bhutto for whom we should mourn. It
is for Pakistan, which she has dragged down with a
cult of her own personality.
I am fed-up with the Pakistani coverage in the American media. I call these people "news media personalities" because that is all they are. They could not find Pakistan on a map if you paid them, yet they talk as though they are experts. It is a shocking of ignorance.
I have travelled to Pakistan several times and have countless wonderful friends in Pakistan, and I know what they are saying on American TV is simply not true or a very watered-down version of the truth. Also, the word "terror" is used non-stop when reporting this story. "Terror in Pakistan" is a common news flash. I would laugh if it were not so totally tragic.
The Pakistanis will never settle for an American puppet running Pakistan. The surest way for real terror is for the US to send troops into Pakistan or to rig the elections.
Very very very sad and serious dilemma brewing throughout the Middle East and SE Asia and much of it is the result of US/Israel intervention. If the intervention does not stop, I fear all the world will one day be ablaze. Important corners of the world are burning and it will soon spread to the middle. The middle uses the wrong means to put out the blaze. Military intervention, intimidation, and occupation will not put out the fire. These tools only flame the fires.
In order to get through this crisis, Bush must insist that the Pakistani Supreme Court, summarily dismissed and placed under house arrest by Musharraf, be reinstated. The PPP must be allowed to elect a successor to Ms. Bhutto without the interference of the military. Early elections must be held, and the country must return to civilian rule.
Bush must insist... I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
The idea that Bush can "insist" on anything happening anywhere in the world seems to me to be laughable, to fly in the face of his petulant incompetence and impotence, in the face of his inability to do anything other than destroy things and make matters worse wherever and whenever he chooses to involve himself.
The fact that the idea is still held in intelligent circles in this world that it is the "manifest destiny" of the United States of America to "fix" things makes the tears flow.
An excellent roundup, Juan.
Bhutto had appointed herself the chairperson of her party for lifetime, and this meant never establishing a line of succession. For this reason things may get ugly, even if the mostly qualified successor is obvious to most. Aitzaz Ahsan is an eloquent and effective politician, and has a lot of credibility because of his uncompromising stance during the lawyers protests. The expelled Chief Justice isn't much of a public speaker, so it was Ahsan who mostly rallied the crowds. But he will face stiff opposition from the feudal elite.
In the end, the violence in the cities will ultimately be contained ; it is the Western flank whose fate remains in doubt. Because none of the leaders vying for power has said anything about reconciliation. As a matter of fact, most have taken to using the 'war-on-terror' rhetoric with gusto. Recently it became conventional wisdom (repeated ad nauseum by Western commentators) to say that Musharraf is harsh on the civil society while going easy with the militants. Thats bullshit. Unlike the civil society, the militants are not spending odd hours in jail with possibility of bail. Their whole villages are being reduced to mud in Israeli style collective punishment. No 'civil society' was protesting when Amnesty International was reporting the demolition of 500 homes in a collective punishment operation in North Waziristan (beginning 2004), or when the PAF was bombing villages. The Pakistani liberal is usually as gung ho, if not more so, than Ariel Sharon's average supporter.
" the eastern flank of American security in the greater Middle East"
Is Pakistan really key in American security, or we really speaking more accurately about American Imperial security?
Is Idaho more secure with troops in Iraq? Pennsylvania with Pakistan secure? And Alabama with Afghanistan occupied? Or is America as a whole more in danger by neo-imperial practice?
SNAFU or FUBAR?
While things might seem to be all in a tizzy in Pakistan, there will be a period during which everything (and everyone) will shake out. Indeed, the 'conspiracy theorisers' will see all kinds of nefarious doings behind every act but those in power will look beyond the actual causes of the events to what can happen for some good, theirs alone or everyone's or some variation on the theme.
While Benazir (only eight days younger than myself) might have been seen as some heroine, she was also involved - if not embroiled - in some interesting things herself, given that her husband was known as 'Mr 10 Percent' and her extended family had some of their own problems leading to their imprisonments or deaths. For someone with that sort of background to travel around a tense nation without adequate security is suspicious in and of itself, allowing for the forces of Kismet to determine her destiny. The Italians might term it "Quello che sarà, sarà," the French "Ce qui sera, sera," or the Americans' "Whatever!" Benazir had to have understood the risks considering her past and recent presence in her native land.
Of course, opportunities abound whenever some calamity occurs, whether natural disaster, war, or anything else. Those prepared for any eventuality will use this kind of time to improve their positions, financial, political, or otherwise, seeking to undermine their adversaries, gaining strength over their rivals' relatively uncertain positions. Beyond Bhutto's personal issues, that she was undeniably a woman might have contributed to her demise just as much as her legacy as the daughter of the first elected Paki PM and a PM herself. The fundamentalists are in a much better position, whatever the provenance of the assassin, now that they don't have to worry about some brazen hussy dishonouring their positions as the 'men' and 'leaders' in their country. Then, there's the ISI ...
Politics makes strange bedfellows and who can forget the image of Robert Vaughn in "S.O.B." making critical decisions about his studio while bedding a beauty, dressed up in his best lingerie and frillery? While this is remotely related to the current situation in South Asia, still what goes on behind the scenes is not always what one might expect, given the public images and stances of the principals whose principles are themselves not always on the up-and-up nor public. Adding the specific conditions of the locale - that of Pakistan, all sorts of things might be at play, those that might have otherwise been suppressed and unknown.
At this point, one can only guess at the cause of the assassin's need to act, just as one might theorise about Booth or Oswald or any of the others who might have been secretly supporting them, actually or conceptually. We might even consider the case of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who was exiled but was enticed to return to Iraq only to be terminated. Speculation as to the motives of both those luring the formerly ostracised people back into their countries as well as the peoples' apparent gullibility contribute to the increased number of variables that must be considered. Even Nawaz Sharif was recently involved with some political machinations (and perhaps an attempt on his own life) that were government inspired.* The advantage that Musharraf has is that he could be in control of the information (when the ISI isn't or allows) that will prevent much of what might provide answers from ever seeing the dark of print. This assumes that the General is in control of the country overall. To allow one of the opposition parties into office would be tantamount to allowing the Democrats win the White House next year, unburying the various bodies of evidence against Younger George. While Americans are not quite as vicious, they have their own subtle methods of protecting their skulls and bones, keeping them closeted.
So what happens next? Even with the prospect of a fair and open media, what is allowed to be reported will depend largely on what the government needs, everything else remaining unofficial and therefore not sanctioned and open to charges of rumour, propaganda, and other niceties and euphemistic terms for 'lies.' Who influences the government has a strong bearing on the outflow of information and any outcome. While a certain amount of unrest may result due to guesses and various other more rational analyses, the 'truth' might yield even greater catastrophic cataclysmic catalysts. We need only to reflect on the Americans' Jack, Bobby, and John-John and their suspicious demises in order to approximately estimate what might be in the background in a real authoritarian regime, one that is mired in the cornucrappia of South Asia.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaz_Sharif (see 'Return_to_Pakistan')
These riots are one reason why I have a hard time believing Musharraf is behind her assassination. He had to know he'd be blamed and he had to know the country would explode if she were killed. He also had to know that it could very well bring about his downfall.
But then again, maybe he thought he could keep a lid on it. I don't think he can. Your Iran analogy is a good one, because if things get bad enough, the military will turn against him.
Cross your fingers and hope nobody uses this opportunity to provoke India.
Update:
Workers burn to death as riot toll hits 32
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22983826-1702,00.html
John Francis Lee hits the nail on the head. For Bush to insist, indeed, for any American President to insist, is to create the counterforce. American legitimacy can only be recreated by a new foreign policy that doesn't include a hot and indiscriminate war against Muslims. Chances of that? Extremely slim.
Since Musarraf seems to be in bed with the extremists, I see him behind this.
this is, I am sure, going to sound very tinfoily. but Mr. Cole, are you aware of the Bhutto interview with David Frost (on Al Jazeera's "Frost Over The World") in which she refers to Omar Sheikh as "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden"? it occurred on Nov. 2 of this year, and the YouTube can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
I did a piece titled Who was Benazir Bhutto? Neither a fan nor an opponent of hers, I tried to confront some of the stereotyping and caricaturing done in the Western press and show a fuller portrait of the person who has left us.
You say that she was killed by "some extremist," but do you know this?
There are reports of her being shot, expertly, in the chest and neck, much like a professional hitman or a militarily trained gunman would do.
Musharraf has a lot to gain from Bhutto's death. He retains just about all his power and now elections are probably called off. It all just seemed to work out for him.
I’m curious about Bhutto’s frozen assets. If her amnesty deal went through, the Swiss would unlock her money, but now that she is dead who will receive the money? Could this be the reason she was killed? Who would have profited from it? Over a billion dollars is not chump change by any means!
The Asia Times is reporting that Al Quaeda is taking responsibility for assasinating Benazir Bhutto (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL29Df01.html ). She was being "promoted" by the US, and she spoke out against religious fundamentalism.
I am so deeply saddened by her murder, though I'm not sure exactly why my sadness should be profound amidst so much else that is sad in the world today. After reading at Asia Times that she was the only candidate speaking against religious extremism I am further saddened that those taking responsibility for her murder are those very religious extremists.
I don't think the rioting is a reliable indicator of who killed her and why, but rather the expression of a people who live in fear and frustration. Beyond that, maybe it also tells us that most in Pakistan oppose religious extremism, just as Miss Bhutto opposed it.
Plan "B" was Bhutto, if i recall correctly. Plan "C" is Control the nukes, whatever that takes, for god's sake.
Just now I would say the the most dangerous country in the world is the United States of America...
No, the important issue is not elections. The important issue is removing Musharraf.
The constitution says Musharraf is not eligible to be president. Musharraf removed the entire Supreme Court when it sought to apply the clear restrictions of the constitution.
At that point, the US should have said it prefers Islamists who will follow the constitution to a partial puppet who will not. And it should have cut all aid and support for Musharraf's government.
That is a test the United States failed. This scheme to bring in Bhutto and have her lend legitimacy to Musharraf was not only stupid but against what the US claims to be its values.
Today the United States should remove all support for Musharraf and generally adopt a worldwide policy of non-cooperation with political leaders who remove constitutional checks as flagrantly as Musharraf's removal of the court.
What about Pakistani support for terrorism? The United States should allow the Pakistanis to vote for leaders who do not share the US priority of fighting Islamists if that's who the Pakistanis want to vote for.
The United States should attempt to reach the Pakistani people through public relations, charitable acts and open discussions. The battle of hearts and minds should be fought through words. Not through support for dictatorships.
That is the slow way that actually can work, as opposed to the fast way (supporting illegitimate leaders such as Musharraf) that is guaranteed to backfire.
Hopefully with Bhutto out of the way, the people of Pakistan will be able to thwart the plans of the United States and of Musharraf.
Does Bush have plan B ???
heheheeheheheh
That is like asking him to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Post a Comment
<< Home