Bhutto tragedy probe

THE tragic death of the ‘daughter of the East’ leaves behind an indelible legacy, a pall of gloom and grief, a wave of anger and anxiety and many unanswered questions, not only as to who killed her and why but also on the very future of Pakistan.

In her last speech at the Liaquat Bagh rally on Dec 27, Benazir Bhutto told her supporters: “I put my life in danger and came here because I feel this country is in danger. People are worried. We will bring the country out of this crisis.” She also alluded to the dangers she faced, as she had been doing ever since she returned to Pakistan in October after a long self-imposed exile.

Within minutes after she left the rally, she was killed under most tragic and bewildering circumstances. According to the extensive media coverage, including some telltale electronic images, she had just stood up briefly through the sunroof of her vehicle to wave to the cheering crowd when a gunman apparently stalking her undeterred managed to get close enough to target her with a gun. She abruptly disappeared from the scene.

The crime scene was quickly washed with water. Once again, the government failed to acquit itself honourably with its constitutional, legal and moral obligations. Instead of letting an enquiry take place before any judgment on the grisly incident, the interior ministry spokesman hurriedly called a press briefing and tried to play blind poker with the nation while presenting an alibi of a cover-up.

He made himself look ridiculous by suggesting, “It is not important how she died. She would have lived if only she had stayed inside her car.” He incredibly claimed that Ms Bhutto was fatally wounded by a lever in the sunroof when she ducked back into the car after the firing of a few bullets by the assassin. What an argument. He also read a transcript implicating militants. Nobody was convinced.

One thing is clear. Ms Bhutto would have lived had some of the bulletproof vehicles and security mobiles now being illegally used by the outgoing ‘Queue’ League’s alien prime minister, ministers and chief ministers been spared for use by this former prime minister who also happened to be the Muslim world’s first woman head of government.

The government story lacked credibility and consistency, and did not inspire confidence in its ability to hold a fair investigation. No wonder the PPP leaders have rejected the government’s version as a “pack of lies” and “skewed stories”, and the party’s central executive committee called for an international commission to probe into the assassination of its leader. Even a US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, has demanded an international investigation.

This whole sordid tale is further compounded by a story CNN’s Wolf Blitzer hoped he would never have to report — an email sent to him by Benazir Bhutto through an intermediary eight days after her narrow escape from the first close call on her life on Oct 18 in Karachi. She wrote that if anything happened to her “I would hold Musharraf responsible,” and that because of inadequate security “I have been made to feel insecure by his minions.”

In accordance with her wishes, this email was made public only after her death. However, those of her well-wishers who were privy to its contents and the hazards to which she was exposed did convey their concerns to the Musharraf regime asking for improving her security and more vigorous measures to avert dangers to her life.

Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a leading presidential candidate, has now released a letter that he and two of his Senate colleagues wrote to President Musharraf at Bhutto’s request soon after the Oct 18 attack, urging him to give her “the full level of security support afforded to any former prime minister”, including bomb-proof vehicles and jamming equipment.

In a television interview after the Dec 27 tragedy, Senator Biden deplored that their appeal failed to evoke a response and that the Pakistan government was “indirectly complicit” in the assassination because it failed to provide adequate security to her. “I’m not saying had she had the protection she would have lived but it sure bothers me that she did not have the kind of protection she needed,” Biden said.

Benazir Bhutto had herself been publicly voicing apprehensions about the inadequacy of her security. She addressed a letter to President Musharraf before her return to Pakistan in October in which she had even named individuals whom she suspected to be plotting to kill her.

According to the PPP, Mohtarma had addressed another letter to Pakistan’s interior secretary on Oct 26, the same day she sent her email to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer highlighting her security concerns and seeking foolproof security arrangements. A copy of this letter was sent to President Musharraf, Chief Justice of Pakistan, Chief Justice of Sindh High Court and the United Nations.

The worst that everyone feared has since happened. No one knows who killed her or why. But everyone knows that the ultimate responsibility for lack of adequate security in this case rests solely with the government, especially since she had time and again implored the government for proper protective arrangements. Her security-related apprehensions and concerns were not entirely unfounded.Ironically, no security cordon was seen around her vehicle at the fateful moment. Anyone could see that the security was weak, which allowed the gunman to come so close to Benazir Bhutto and to be able to open fire at her from a short range. The tragedy that took her life as also those of 23 other persons could have been averted had Bhutto’s vehicle been properly escorted through the crowd.

In view of the government’s serious credibility and trust deficit, it is only fair to demand an independent investigation commission. But one must be cautious in calling for an international enquiry and drawing parallels with the highly controversial Hariri Commission established by the UN Security Council in 2005. It had an entirely different context because of an alleged foreign hand in Rafik Hariri’s assassination.

Benazir Bhutto’s assassination could certainly be taken up in the UN Security Council only if it was found to have a ‘terrorist’ dimension. It would then be a case of the state’s failure in its obligation of “denying terrorists access to their target.”

If Brigadier Cheema continues to assert his government’s “nothing but facts” fiction of Baitullah Mehsud’s involvement in the Bhutto murder, he would surely be a star witness in the Security Council which incidentally, like our Supreme Court, also has suo motu powers under Resolution 1373 (2001).

The best course will be to have an independent commission comprising non-governmental and non-partisan persons of repute and stature with legal and investigative backgrounds. They could be chosen from among the former judges of the superior courts, human rights campaigners and nominees of the Pakistan Medical Association. The commission should be free to co-opt any foreign investigative or forensic experts to assist them. No delays, no cover-ups will work this time.

Crude lessons

What does oil hitting $100 a barrel tell us? Three things: that speculation is still responsible for many of the price fluctuations; that the West has less and less influence on the world economy; and that all the talk about moving beyond a petroleum economy has yet to translate into action.

First, the froth, of which there is a lot in the energy market. That $100 barrier was finally hurdled this week thanks to rumours of trouble at Chinese oil refineries and worries over conflicts in Nigeria and Algeria. Which just goes to show that whether or not markets are irrational, lots of the people who trade in them are certainly daft.

Throughout the decade-long rise in oil prices there has been a lot of what analysts call “noise”: factors which have less to do with supply and demand and more to do with rumour and anxiety. Five years ago, around 10 million barrels of oil went spare every day. Today, that margin is down to two million barrels. It would take only a minor disruption — another drop in the dollar, making dollar-denominated oil appear a bargain to those holding other currencies; or a spot of bother in one of those big oil-producers prone to bother, like Nigeria or Venezuela — and the gap would be closed entirely.

This means that crude prices will swing about like laundry in a gale: crude will sink well below $100 — and shoot far above that level too.

The alternative, of course, would be for oil producers in the Opec to increase supplies. Opec countries worry that if they pump too much oil just as the world economy goes into sharp slowdown the price of crude will plummet and so will their revenues.

This simply underlines the second big thing that $100 oil tells us: that western influence on the world economy is on the wane.—The Guardian, London

Mullah, military & Musharraf

BENAZIR Bhutto died among her people. She would probably not have it any other way. Just a couple of months ago in an article titled ‘A fair investigation’ I had written in respect of the first attempt on her life in Karachi:

“Clearly, a fair investigation may lead to sacrosanct spaces and figures. The burning question is: will Musharraf permit such an investigation? If he does not, he runs the risk of arousing suspicions regarding his own commitment amongst his allies in enlightened moderation. If he does, his own power base may be under threat.”

Benazir Bhutto, writing from her Blackberry, responded to the article and in her inimitable manner of making even an armchair contributor feel important asked for an assessment on the prospects of a fair investigation and the mechanics of the proposal contained in the latter part of the article regarding a purge of the intelligence agencies.

My suggestion for a conditional engagement with the government to take the investigation further as a first step was turned down with the correct judgment: “no association [with the government] until international assistance is available”.

She rightly wanted to test Musharraf’s commitment to the process of change. She knew that if he agreed to international assistance he would move towards a break from the unaccountable manner in which the intelligence agencies in the country have been used. She was perhaps looking for hope where there was none.

Much as she expected, Musharraf chose to protect his own murky power base. In the process he effectively signed her death warrant. She had counted on the fact that Musharraf would realise where his long-term interests lay. She did not realise the web of deceit and incompetence in which the man and his generals are trapped.

Musharraf by being cavalier with her security has undermined Pakistan’s federation. He has also tremendously damaged the United States’ credibility in the war on terror.

The United States has for some time been propagating the new mantra that they will move from their age-old methodology of supporting ruthless dictators to one of supporting democracy. As a godsend they had in Benazir Bhutto a genuinely popular moderate partner for Pakistan to practise this doctrine.

She saw the extremist threat to her country for what it was — a recipe for civil war — and was willing to confront it. Consequently, at great risk to herself, she agreed to work with all forces against extremism in society including the United States.

Her so-called allies were supposed to provide the physical safety and she the rallying call. Instead they entrusted her security to another ally called Musharraf. He was either incompetent, complicit or regarded her as a threat. She lost her life and the United States is now a laughing stock of a superpower around the world.

Should the Americans not have known their ally Musharraf? Musharraf’s history, which everyone but his allies can see, is one of incompetence (Kargil), contempt for the Constitution and his oath (the coup), greed for power (the emergency) and plain arrogance (inability to grasp the lifeline provided by Benazir Bhutto).

Pakistan is as a result blessed with a president who cannot now walk, unescorted, across any busy street of his own country for fear of being lynched. Not by the Islamists (as he might want his superpower friends to believe) but the ordinary people of Pakistan.

The United States and Britain may find it difficult to digest but their latest tinpot in Pakistan is now associated with Benazir Bhutto’s murder and as a result has now almost pegged their last tinpot dictator, Ziaul Haq, as the most reviled man in Pakistan’s history. If they are not careful they may soon find themselves tainted and unacceptable to the same forces they are trying to rally.

The destruction of jails, banks, police stations and schools across the country in response to Benazir Bhutto’s murder was a revolt of the common man against the mullah, the military and the militancy they have together created in Pakistan. If a civilian had been in charge of such a mess, the military would have probably hanged him for being a threat to the federation. Instead, Musharraf does not accept any responsibility. He is shameless enough to not even offer to resign. Even Yahya Khan had more decency.

It was ironic indeed when the United States asked Musharraf for an investigation which would satisfy the people of Pakistan. I am sure if the United States had consulted anyone aware of what the people of Pakistan are thinking at the moment the word ‘unlikely’ would have figured in any conversation regarding confidence in a fair investigation or in Musharraf.

And now for the investigation itself. For most people today, rightly or wrongly, Baitullah Mehsud and the intelligence agencies are two faces of the same coin but let us not as a result of this relationship fall into the trap of Al Qaeda’s reported denial of involvement.

Al Qaeda are known liars and are simply scared of the wrath of the people of Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is known to have financed earlier plots to kill Benazir Bhutto and has had connections with circles in Pakistan’s intelligence set up in this regard.

Al Qaeda’s religious politics is all about exercising power through killing other Muslims. They have no tradition of chivalry where women or children are concerned. Al Qaeda will in one form or the other be involved but it is not clear who they are working with.

The people of Pakistan can best avenge Benazir Bhutto’s murder by forcing the political parties in Pakistan to unite to deal with Al Qaeda and force the military out of politics.

Practically, the only way we the people of Pakistan can cast the first stone is to vote in the next election for Nawaz Sharif, the Awami National Party or the Pakistan People’s Party. Let us clearly tell the military and its collaborators (the PML-Q and the maulvis) that they are not welcome to politics in this country any more. A reduction of religion in politics will automatically emerge.Benazir Bhutto’s death will not be in vain if it brings down the system imposed on this country. If it does not do so because our people and politicians remain blind to reality then at least she will have done what a leader is supposed to do: expose things for as they stand.

The writer is a corporate lawyer and political analyst.

lawgroup.q3@gmail.com

Election and reconciliation

AUGUST 2006: Nawab Akbar Bugti killed in an operation by Pakistani troops. The action came after the Nawab went into hiding in the mountains following the breakdown of a dialogue between him and the Musharraf government.

The two sides had been engaged in talks for some time, and at one juncture in 2005 it was reported that a Balochistan package addressing some of the crucial issues facing the province had been reached. The official mediators — Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Mushahid Hussain — had then told the media that the two sides had agreed on around 30 issues and only a couple of points remained to be settled. These two points were to be cleared by the president.

July 2007: Abdur Rashid Ghazi, the Red Mosque cleric involved in a stand-off with the government was killed when an official force led by the Pakistan Army stormed the mosque. Ghazi for long held firm against the siege of the mosque, vowing that he was prepared to die as a ‘martyr’ committed to his cause. However, in the hours immediately preceding the official operation, he showed a willingness to end the occupation of the mosque in return for safe passage for him and his mother to their village in southern Punjab. The official negotiators told him that the decision about whether or not he could be provided safe passage lay with the president. The storming came soon afterwards.

December 2007: Ms Benazir Bhutto, the chairperson of the Pakistan People’s Party, assassinated in Rawalpindi after surviving an attempt on her life in Karachi on Oct 18, 2007. The official security cover she was provided with was blown to shreds as the assailant hit her from close range. Ms Bhutto had returned to the country as a result of many rounds of talks between her and emissaries of President Pervez Musharraf. She said she had returned to Pakistan to promote national reconciliation. The National Reconciliation Ordinance was issued and Ms Bhutto held that it would also help others like Mian Nawaz Sharif. The initial amicableness between the PPP leader and the president gradually gave way to a period of mounting tension in which each of them pointed the finger at the other.

Given what each one of them had stood for, Akbar Bugti, Abdur Rashid Ghazi and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto had little in common. Yet, in the period just before they were killed, all three of them had been advanced the offer of reconciliation with the authority they had been pitted against. All three showed an inclination of giving it a shot and in all three cases the term reconciliation was wrongly applied: there can be no reconciliation without the authority first confessing excesses. Bugti, Ghazi and Mohtarma are no more but the respective groups of people that they represented and continue to represent in death will never be able to reconcile with the past and move towards the future until and unless this serious flaw is removed.

The word reconciliation in its current connotations is borrowed from countries such as South Africa and Argentina and Chile, which are all seeking to make a new beginning after living in the shadow of dictatorship for long. We are applying the term in a hurry without first meeting the preconditions.

According to Commissioner Wynand Malan of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission it means: “the acknowledgment of the dignity of victims for long ignored. It restores the individual’s capacity to take hold of herself and to manage the future and herself in that future. It restores the capacity to live with or alongside the other. It allows us, while remembering, to bring closure to a chapter in our past. It enables us to live in the present, making our life as a nation and our lives as individuals in a shared future. It always remains a never-ending process.”

The violence must end but before we can have an atmosphere as described in the above definition, there is a certain prerequisite that has to be met. In an article titled ‘Truth commissions and national reconciliation: Some reflections on theory and practice’, Charles O. Lerche III says: “When oppressors publicly acknowledge what they have done, knowledge becomes, in a sense, truth, and victims are (to some extent) assured that the past will not repeat itself. This in itself contributes to victims’ healing and, thereby, facilitates dialogue.”

That admission is nowhere in sight. There is no feeling of remorse and those in power continue to rule arbitrarily. A general election can restore the balance in favour of other major players in the political arena of Pakistan and as such can provide the starting point for an understanding putting us on the path of some kind of reconciliation in future. The arbitrary manner in which the polls have been put off for 40 days till Feb 18 in the face of opposition from major political forces such as the PPP and PML-N severely jeopardises hope for a genuine involvement of all parties in the search for a dialogue out of the current turmoil.