Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Pakistan's 2007 Crises Come to a Crescendo;
Benazir Assassinated
Implications for US Security


Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, has been assassinated at a rally held Thursday evening near Islamabad. She appears to have been shot by the assassin, who was wearing a suicide bomb belt, which he then detonated to make sure he had finished the job. The Bhuttos are sort of the Kennedys of Pakistan, marked by wealth, power and tragedy, and central to the country's politics for the past four decades.

The Pakistani authorities are blaming Muslim militants for the assassination. That is possible, but everyone in Pakistan remembers that it was the military intelligence, or Inter-Services Intelligence, that promoted Muslim militancy in the two decades before September 11 as a wedge against India in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) faithful will almost certainly blame Pervez Musharraf, and sentiment here is more important than reality, whatever the reality may be. The PPP is one of two very large, long-standing grassroots political parties in Pakistan, and if its followers are radicalized by this event, it could lead to severe turmoil. Just a day before her assassination Benazir had pledged that the PPP would not allow the military to rig the upcoming January 8 parliamentary elections.

Pakistan is important to US security. It is a nuclear power. Its military fostered, then partially turned on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which have bases in the lawless tribal areas of the northern part of the country. And Pakistan is key to the future of its neighbor, Afghanistan. Pakistan is also a key transit route for any energy pipelines built between Iran or Central Asia and India, and so central to the energy security of the United States.

The military government of Pervez Musharraf was shaken by two big crises in 2007, one urban and one rural. The urban crisis was his interference in the rule of law and his dismissal of the supreme court chief justice. The Pakistani middle class has greatly expanded in the last seven years, as others have noted, and educated white collar people need a rule of law to conduct their business. Last June 50,000 protesters came out to defend the supreme court, even though the military had banned rallies. The rural crisis was the attempt of a Neo-Deobandi cult made up of Pushtuns and Baluch from the north to establish themselves in the heart of the capital, Islamabad, at the Red Mosque seminary. They then attempted to impose rural, puritan values on the cosmopolitan city dwellers. When they kidnapped Chinese acupuncturists, accusing them of prostitution, they went too far. Pakistan depends deeply on its alliance with China, and the Islamabad middle classes despise Talibanism. Musharraf ham-fistedly had the military mount a frontal assault on the Red Mosque and its seminary, leaving many dead and his legitimacy in shreds. Most Pakistanis did not rally in favor of the Neo-Deobandi cultists, but to see a military invasion of a mosque was not pleasant (the militants inside turned out to be heavily armed and quite sinister).

The NYT reported that US Secretary of State Condi Rice tried to fix Musharraf's subsequent dwindling legitimacy by arranging for Benazir to return to Pakistan to run for prime minister, with Musharraf agreeing to resign from the military and become a civilian president. When the supreme court seemed likely to interfere with his remaining president, he arrested the justices, dismissed them, and replaced them with more pliant jurists. This move threatened to scuttle the Rice Plan, since Benazir now faced the prospect of serving a dictator as his grand vizier, rather than being a proper prime minister.

With Benazir's assassination, the Rice Plan is in tatters and Bush administration policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan is tottering.

Benazir is from a major Pakistani political dynasty. (See the obituary here and the photographs here. Her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was prime minister in the 1970s but was overthrown by a military coup in 1977 and subsequently hanged by military dictator Zia ul-Huq. Benazir helped lead the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy in the 1980s, and was often under house arrest. When Zia died in an airplane accident in 1988, Benazir won the subsequent elections and served as prime minister 1988-1990. Zia had put in place mechanisms to limit popular sovereignty, and the then 'president' removed Benazir from office in 1990. She served again as PM, 1993-1996 but was again deposed, being accused of corruption. After the 1999 military coup of Pervez Musharraf, she was in a state of permanent exile, since he said he would have her arrested if she tried to come back. He relented because of his own collapsing position and because of US pressure, and allowed her to return in October. She was almost assassinated at that time by a huge bomb when she landed in Karachi.

See also the comments of Manan Ahmad at our Global Affairs blog, where there are several recent important entries.

24 Comments:

At 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Direct info from Pakistan Metro blogs:

http://lahore.metblogs.com/

http://islamabad.metblogs.com/

http://karachi.metblogs.com/

 
At 12:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JC says:
"Pakistan is also a key transit route for any energy pipelines built between Iran or Central Asia and India, and so central to the energy security of the United States."

Why? I thought the pipeline was central to Dutch energy security?

You also forgot to mention that it wasn't Pakistan alone who build the Taliban. The CIA provided the weapons and the Saudis payed and provided feet on the ground.

Indeed the wrong claim of "central to US energy security" and avoiding to take some "credit" for the results, seems like a simple excuse for imperial mangling.

 
At 1:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

إنا لله و إنا له راجعون، إلى جنات الخلد بناظير بوتو

 
At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Cole, what you leave out of your analysis are the sentiments on Musharraf's existing democratic facade: the PML (Q). Also, while you are right that ISI has supported militancy, you overlook the crucial fact that the Taliban movement was established by Benazir's Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar to upstage the ISI whose protege, Gulbuddin Hikmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami was performing poorly in Afghanistan.
Finally, the 'accupuncturists' you describe were actually masseuses who performed sexual favours for tips. Missing as well is the crucial economic analysis of the much celebrated 'growth' under musharraf which has seen the emergence of an extravagantly affluent (and gaudily conspicuous)elite while the rest of the country languishes under rising costs of living.

 
At 4:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Senator Obama were someone else, he would have started his statement today by: "I told you so" but he is presidential and statesman like. Let me remind you that Senator Obama was the first person to question President Musharf's inability to control Pakistan? He did not stand on the fence then and he won't do so in the future. This is the kind of judgement we need to have in our President. Thank you Senator Obama for being thoughtful, careful and knowledgeable.



Obama Reaction to Bhutto Assassination
Posted by Dean Reynolds

(CBS)From CBS News National Correspondent Dean Reynolds, who spoke to Barack Obama this morning:

DES MOINES, IOWA -- Barack Obama reacted to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benizir Bhutto this morning.

"It’s a tragic situation. My heart goes out to the families. But it’s an indication that we are in a dangerous world right now that we have to apply good judgment in our foreign policy," said Obama.

"We’ve been distracted by Iraq. We have not been paying attention to Pakistan for several years and as a consequence we have had a subversion of democracy at the same time we have ignored or at least not dealt with the growing threat of Islamic militants in Pakistan. If anything, Iraq has helped to spur some of the militancy in Pakistan. Now moving forward we have to send a message that we stand strong with the Pakistani people in moving the democratic process forward but we have to continue to press, to deal with this on going chaotic situation with the militants in Pakistan."

When asked how he would react to this situation if he were president today, Obama said, "I think it's too early for us to know exactly what the situation is. Obviously we have to figure out who will take responsibility for the assassination."

"I think one of the things that I would immediately do is to contact not only Musharraf but those in the military to determine how the security and the safety of nuclear weapons are being dealt with. That is something that obviously has to be the number one priority during a period where there may be instability and we have to make sure that that is being dealt with."

 
At 5:07 PM, Blogger Sporty said...

Everyday there seems like there are more and more of our elected government officials (including our democrats) which are in cahoots with Bush, Cheney and their policies to control the running of the world and stealing whatever resources they wish, while finding and using slave labor for the profits of Global Corporations.

 
At 5:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another massive foreign policy blunder for the Bush team.

We must not let them muddy the waters by their non-stop talk of al-queda or Bin Ladin. The talk should be focused on American foreign policy and how it all went so wrong.

Keep you eye on the target. Don't let them distract you.

 
At 5:44 PM, Blogger Blacks4Barack ! said...

Obama Was Right....Hillary Wrong Re: PAKISTAN

With todays terrible announcement of Benazir Bhutto's assasination in Pakistan, one can't help but be reminded of a recent Democratic debate in which Hillary Clinton literally laughed at Barack Obama's statement that the United States should concentrate on the unrest in Pakistan even if it meant sending U.S. troops to the Afghan/Pakistan border where the Taliban, al-queda and other terrorists are camped. Hillary did her pompous, smirky laugh stating that Obama wants to 'talk to our enemies (Iran) and attack our allies' (Pakistan border). But as events unfold in the region we are learning more and more of just how disasterously wrong she and our foreign policy have been. We are supporting a crazy dictator (Musharraf) who we have given millions of dollars to....who has point blank told us that he will not go to the Pakistan border to address the true terrorists because they 'made a deal'. It doesn't matter that crazy Mu has weapons of mass destruction and is probably hiding Bin Laden in the border region. And to Hillary.....this is all just fine. Is this the great 'experience' that she boasts having ? Now, as we watch the turmoil increase in the Pakistan region Hillary will surely state that we need her 'experience' to handle the situation when in fact, it is this very mindset or experience that is leading America and the entire world toward catastrophe. Face it Hillary.....You are wrong...Obama was right. Oh.....and need I mention that the recent findings show that our 'enemy' hasn't had a weapons program for years ? But Hillary voted to basically crush Iran........wrong again Hill. And to top things off....you'll probably stay supportive of Crazy Mu along with the other Bushites and regime controlled media 'experts' ! With 'experience' like yours.....who needs enemies ?

Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

 
At 6:03 PM, Blogger blank said...

An excellent post Juan -- thank you for jumping on this promptly as so much really screwy logic has been being said about these things.

 
At 7:11 PM, Blogger Vierotchka said...

On November 2, 2007, during an interview by Sir David Frost, Benazir Bhutto stated that Osama bin Laden had been assassinated by Omar Sheikh. Now, Omar Sheikh was sentenced to death in July 2002 for the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl. If this is indeed true, it puts a lie to all the bin Laden videos with which we were regaled over the past five years - all of which have been declared to be fakes by a great many people. Imagine that Benazir Bhutto had not been assassinated and would have been elected Prime Minister, if she had accurate knowledge about Omar Sheikh and had access to incontrovertible evidence, this would have put the Bush administration in a very embarrassing corner - so one could conceivably add this to the motives for Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.

See Benazir make this claim about six minutes and ten or so seconds into the video, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

 
At 7:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just heard Wolfe Blitzer on CNN say that Benazir sent a letter weeks ago saying if she was killed, Bush's best friend was responsible. Musharraf, or Busharraf as they call him in Pakistan, has blood dripping down his fingers and onto the floor. He better watch that he does not slip and fall on Benazir's blood.

When, and who, will make the connection back to the Bush administration's massive foreign policy blunders and how American intervention is rapidly fueling "terrorism" throughout the world.

 
At 7:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and it wasn't just the attempt on her return, either.

yesterday, apparently at the same rally you mention, a man was arrested trying to enter with dynamite strapped to his body.

PESHAWAR, Dec 26: A young man, allegedly carrying dynamite, was arrested here on Wednesday from outside the Arbab Niaz Stadium where Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto addressed a public meeting.

Reliable sources said the 19-year-old suspect, who identified himself as Raham Islam of Matani...


http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/27/top8.htm

sounds like a very similar MO to today's assassin, so this was clearly a well-organized effort by someone.

 
At 7:51 PM, Blogger AmericanGoy said...

With all the hullaballo about Benazir Bhutto being shot 3 times and then blown up by a suicide assassin/bomber, what is lost is that today ANOTHER former Pakistani Prime Minister was supposed to die also.

Not to worry, I am sure Pakistani secret service ISI and his goons will rectify the mistake. The snipers missed... this time.

See
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/27/content_7324893.htm

 
At 7:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A comment to blogazine world.

Obama went from talking to our enemies to bombing our allies was a comment by Mitt ROMNEY not Hillary. Hillary said that she would not have openly said that while Chris Dodd was the one who chided Obama for answering like that to an ally.

I am an Indian now in the US for a while. One thing about Benazir Bhutto as well as Nawaz Sharif. They are/were not champions of democracy when they were PMs. Both had enough clout in case of BB it was familial while for NS it was business (largest Steel factory in Pakistan ) and they came to power to expand their influence. Both of them were corrupt and won alternate terms each bcos the public got fed up of the other after each term. Mr A.Zardari(BB's hubby) was called Mr 10% reflecting the 10% he charged for getting things done for doin business with the government.

During their terms as PM, ISI was doing all things to encourage terrorism in India, meddling in Afghanistan and so on and both were either powerless or uninterested in
bringing ISI and military under their control. And that was when both had sky high popularity and as a society Pakistan was less islamic than today. The one thng she was very good at was putting the Pak-US relationship in very good terms and I can tell u with the young good looking,crisp female ambassador Maleeha Lodi she esspecially appointed to the US who
exactly knew what to do to get favourable treatment from the US and socializing with Congress and so on. ML was perfect for the US, a social moving, assertive, young female who is crisp and clear in her words (very important in US) compared to our Indian ambassador at that time who was old, boring and was not able to play our cards.

 
At 8:03 PM, Blogger honkeydorey said...

where is condi?

 
At 8:46 PM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

I fear the following:

That Pervez Musharraf was behind the assassination and his involvement will be proven.

That he was able to proceed with the pre-emptive coup because Bush's foreign policy is inept.

That Pakistan will become the new home base for Al Qaeda.

That puppet master Dick "I shoot my friends in the face" Cheney will use the new worldwide lack of security as the excuse for declaring martial law here in the U.S.

 
At 12:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so Nawaz Shareef said something along the lines of "I will fight your war now" to Bhutto supporters outside the hospital Bhutto died in...

does this mean that everybody's now gonna unite around Shareef?

my question: if not rigged, who will win this election. Will it be Nawaz Shareef? ex-cricket star Imraan Khan?

 
At 1:17 AM, Blogger daryoush said...

Professor Cole,

We know Taliban, whom at one point were nothing more than rag tag group, came to power with aid of Pakistan during Ms Buttho's rule. Now with her death, the press seems to want to paint her as hero and promoter or promoter of democracy. Can you speak to your view of her legacy?

 
At 2:50 AM, Blogger Juan Cole said...

Before the military allowed Benazir to become prime minister in fall of 1988, they extracted from her a pledge not to interfere in Afghanistan policy. I therefore don't believe that she was actively involved with creating the Taliban. That was initially a project of the Northwest Frontier Province constabulary, later taken over by the Inter-Services Intelligence. She was probably not allowed to come near it. Most of the Taliban's conquests and outrages occurred after Benazir was ousted, in any case. Benazir had her flaws, may she rest in peace, but she was not as involved in the Taliban issue as her detractors claim.

 
At 4:51 AM, Blogger larkrise said...

Of course, Condoleeza Rice was behind bringing Benazir Buttho back to the tinderbox of Pakistan. It was an inept, foolish, unrealistic idea that has backfired and martyred Benazir Buttho in the eyes of her supporters, and much of the world.The woman showed great courage. It is a tragedy. It will cost countless other lives, as well. When there is an incredible show of incompetence, you can just bet the farm that Condi is somewhere nearby. In an earlier
posting on this blog, I had wondered who the Neo-Con idiot was that brought Buttho back to Pakistan. It was inevitable that it would cause all manner of problems. Now I know. The one, the only Condoleeza Rice.Why didnt I know that instinctually before?! Common sense is not her forte'. Competence is not in her repetoire. Pakistan is a turbulent country in the best of times. With Al Quaeda on the loose, and Islamic Fundamentalism a major force in the region, adding to the mix any person who is sympathetic to American agendas of any kind, is not a wise move. If European countries view us with dismay, just imagine how Moslem countries view us since the destruction of Iraq. This country needs an epidemic of empathy. Bush and his flunkies are like elephants in a china shop. Everywhere they go, they cause destruction. They refuse to view situations and events through the eyes of other peoples and cultures. And in so doing, they commit one blunder after another. Lives are lost, suffering escalates on a huge scale, and still Bush and Rice learn nothing, nada, zilch.When the day comes that Bush/Cheney and their cowboy diplomacy go off into the sunset(I wish a prison cell for each was over the hill, as well), perhaps this planet can heave a sigh of relief and know that one more rogue regime has ended.

 
At 6:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Make no mistake; Pakistan faces a grave threat from the creeping chaos, a by-product of the most shameful demonstration of power politics. There are many threats confronting our society. The threat of extremism is just one which is essentially a consequence of policies that serve foreign interests at the cost of the fundamental rights of our citizens. On 9/11, yes, we should have stood with the US when it was attacked by terrorists. But our cooperation should have been within the ambit of our constitution and law. No civilized society will ever allow its own army, raised and armed at a great cost to society, to be used so mercilessly against its own citizens and expect business as usual. In a society where the majority is without fundamental rights, without education, without economic opportunities, without healthcare, the use of sheer force will only expand the extremist fringe and contract the majority moderate.Our military rulers are incapable of understanding that the real owners of the country are its people who must have the right as, political sovereigns, to decide without fear and coercion who should rule them. In India the only qualification for Lalo Prasad or his domestic housewife Rabri Devi to rule Bihar was the mandate of the people. Can we imagine our ruling elite ever accepting a similar peoples verdict. This fundamental question of ‘Who Owns Pakistan’ must be decided once and for all.

In the absence of democracy and rule of law, extremism and religious fundamentalism will continue to grow at a frightening pace. The more the present regime bows to Washington’s desire to “do more” and the more innocent Pakistani blood is shed under the garb of fighting the war on terror or curbing extremism, the more Pakistan moves towards becoming a “failed state”, and the more people would resort to picking up arms against the security forces.

Have we ever thought why for almost 30 years out of 60 years of our existence, we have been a ‘frontline state’? Was it to protect our interests or to serve foreign policy interests of a super power in return for support to military regimes that otherwise lacked any moral or legal authority rule.

To save the country from impending disaster the first and the most crucial step has to be a government that is established through free and fair elections…a government that is brought to power through the vote of the people of Pakistan and which is perceived to be politically sovereign. The moment a leader is perceived to be an American stooge, he or she will be like a red rag to a raging bull - and the situation would be further exacerbated. Such a government will be suspected of pushing an anti-Islamic U.S. agenda. All its actions (like reform of Madrassas that are badly needed as indeed of our entire unjust educational system) right or wrong will be viewed with great suspicion.

Free and fair elections under General Musharraf wielding unlimited powers under the PCO are impossible. So the first step has to be a political consensus on forcing General Musharraf to resign followed by lifting of Martial Law albeit under the garb of emergency, reinstatement of the judiciary prior to November 3, 2007, removing all restriction on the media, and holding of an empowered APC to decide on the federal and provincial caretaker setups and an independent election commission.

A government that is formed through free and fair elections will not only be politically sovereign but it will also have the credibility to initiate national reconciliation which demands a comprehensive review of policies since 9/11 and building of national consensus on policies that can save Pakistan and not on building unholy alliances between individuals for sharing of power. The U.S. should stay away from a free electoral process as any US interference or backing of any political party will be the kiss of death as far as its effectiveness in dealing with terrorism. So the US can help itself and Pakistan by keeping out of our electoral process. To bring peace in the tribal areas we need to learn from the British experience who developed a highly effective system of negotiations through Jirgas while rewarding the tribes through subsidies to keep peace. Since Quaid-i-Azam signed a treaty in 1948 with the people of the tribal areas and withdrew Pakistani troops, they have remained the most peaceful and trouble free part of Pakistan.

Even a cursory knowledge of Pushtun history shows that for reasons of religious, cultural, and social affinity, the Pushtuns on both sides of the Durand line cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of their brethren on either side. For them, the Durand line is imaginary and for all practical purposes does not exist. The Pushtuns have a history they take pride in of resisting every invader from Alexander downwards, the Persians, Moguls, British and the Russians (all super powers of their times) who were all bogged down in the Pushtun quagmire. So, no government, Pakistani or foreign will ever be able to stop Pushtuns crossing over the fifteen hundred kilometer border to support their brethren in distress on either side even it means fighting the modern day super power in Afghanistan.

A sovereign Pakistani government will need to impress upon the U.S. administration that there is not going to be a military solution in Afghanistan. The more Aerial bombings kill innocent Pushtuns, the more recruits for Taliban and even Al-Qaeda - revenge being an integral part of the Pushtun character. Most crucially the Americans need to understand that in order to capture or kill two or three thousand Al-Qaeda, they are in danger of turning the entire one million male Pushtuns, armed and natural guerilla fighters, in the tribal areas of Pakistan against them.

So like in Iraq the US should give a time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan and replace NATO forces with OIC troops during the interim period. The Pushtuns then should be involved in a dialogue where they should be given a stake in peace. The crucial lesson the US needs to learn is that you can only win against terrorists if the people from within whom the terrorists are operating from also consider them terrorists. Once they become freedom fighters and heroes amongst their people then history tells us that the battle is lost.

The other form of militancy that is growing in Swat and Dir has stemmed from an issue of governance. Dr. Tirmizi has done excellent research on Dir once it became a part of Pakistan in 1974. Before ‘74 both Swat and Dir according to him had complete rule of law and democracy. The village Jury (Jirga) system gave everyone total access to justice as well as a say in the running of their affairs. Commenting on the success of the tribal system Olaf Caroe, the British governor of NWFP in 30’s, stated that there was more crime in a week in Peshawar then in a year of whole of the tribal areas. After Dir and Swat became part of Pakistan both democracy and justice disappeared under Pakistan’s corrupt governance system. The more the governance system crumbled in Pakistan, the more the nostalgia grew for the old system based on Shariat. Hence when the movement for Shariat started, it was quickly adopted by the poorer section of the population. A new democratic government would need to constitute an empowered ‘Grand Jirga’ comprising all stakeholders to develop consensus on measures to bring peace and forge reconciliation in the tribal areas and Swat. A similar process would be required in Balochistan commencing with the release of all the political prisoners.

Another form of militancy is also potentially extremely dangerous for Pakistan. This is the growing fundamentalism out of fear of their culture and religion being threatened by Musharraf’s “enlightened moderation”. Tehran’s westernized elite under the Shah in the 70’s imposed similar pseudo westernization. The Iranian masses especially the Tehran Bazaris reacted to the perceived threat to their cultural and religious values violently. Like the fundamentalists of the Lal Masjid, the Iranian masses’ anger was focused on what they perceived to be western vulgarity. So strong was the reaction to vulgarity that eventually Iran forced their women into veils - and that in a society that was considered the most sophisticated in the Muslim world.

To deal with this type of fundamentalism, a genuine democratic government will have to be sensitive to the cultural and religious norms of the masses. After the uprising of 1857 the British realized that one of the main causes of the rebellion against them was due to their insensitivity to the religious and cultural sentiments of both Hindus and Muslims.

But before we achieve our goal of building a free democratic society, the first and foremost challenge is to force general Musharraf to resign. General Musharraf recent statements are proof that he is in a denial mode. The time is ripe for change, for a fresh beginning. The present regime is under siege and we must never allow this opportunity to fritter away. I appeal to all Pakistanis particularly the students, workers, civil society members, and political workers to join the peaceful protest led by the lawyers for the restoration of democracy.

The treatment meted out to me at the Punjab University campus by the agents of agencies is no different to what has been meted out to other democracy activists. My loyalties are with the people of Pakistan and I am determined to continue the fight for Pakistan being waged today in the streets and bazaars of my country.

The writer is Chairman Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

US threats of overt intervention have been a significant part of the destabilization of Pakistan.

The US is now apparently doing what it should have been doing since long ago: training Pakistanis in counterinsurgency. Depending on how expertly that is done, it offers a ray of hope for shutting down some terrorism. The rest will have to be dealt with by resolving problems of injustice, corruption, and decline that have plagued Pakistan for a very long time.

 
At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is indeed a black day in the History of Pakistan. At the moment I am in Karachi and living alone. The things are really very bad out here. The lack of supplies, the chaos, the sense of insecurity are particularly frustrating. I have kept observing the things around and have posted the updates on my blog including an interview of Benazir that defines the commitment of her to democracy. Well I would say one thing, the situation is volatile and situation is telling nothing about the future

 
At 12:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Benazir was realy benazir it is urdu words which means there is no example.As she proved during struggling forsake of real decoracy and fighting agisnt establishment/army and millitent extermist in pakistan.She gave her death for the peoples and forthe countery. Her life is full of struggle for decocracy and fighting aginst antidemocatic forces in pakistan.She was realy a greatest leader and paksitan now become empty vessal withouther.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home