Pakistan

Less than two weeks after Pervez Musharraf resigned as the president of Pakistan, there’s a rift within the Parliament. The Pakistan Muslim League led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif withdrew its support from the coalition government led by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), formerly led by the murdered Benazir Bhutto. Sharif broke with the PPP after the ruling party refused to reinstate the judges dismissed by Musharraf after imposing martial law last year. It seems the PPP’s new leader and presidential hopeful, Asif Ali Zardari, is afraid the judges might overturn an amnesty granted by Musharraf that cleared him of corruption charges.

(The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

With insurgent violence increasing in Afghanistan, the Bush administration’s top military official made a surprise visit to Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pressed Pakistani leaders to crack down on the Islamic militants moving freely about the country’s tribal areas. These militants are crossing unimpeded into Afghanistan to carry out terrorist attacks and destabilizing both countries. Mullen said,

“That border is more porous than it was a year ago.” [and] “It’s very important that action be taken to respond to that.”

Admiral Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials are placing the blame for these attacks squarely on the shoulders of the Pakistani government.

(and rightfully so!)

Of course Pakistani officials rebuffed these assertions. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claims that,

“We are pursuing a policy of political engagement, but that does not mean that we will capitulate in front of terrorists.” [and that it was an] “exaggeration to just pass the buck to Pakistan.”

Mr. Foreign Minister, a “policy of political engagement” is just another way of saying you’re trying to solve this problem through diplomacy. Considering your efforts have resulted in increasing terrorist activity, the militants aren’t listening. Obviously, the terrorists aren’t concerned about the consequences of continued activity because your words don’t carry any bite. I’m afraid that your “policy of political engagement” has failed and is tantamount to capitulation in front of these terrorists.

(are you listening Obama?)

Pakistan held their parliamentary elections and the people have spoken–they’re not happy the Musharraf government. With the vote-counting nearly complete, the two main opposition parties have secured 154 of the 268 contested seats with Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party leading with 86; the pro-Musharraf party trails with only 39 seats. It’ll be interesting to see if Musharraf resigns as he said would if he lost the support of the Pakistani people.

(doubtful)

Since no one party attained the two-thirds majority necessary to take action against the sitting president, the opposition groups led by the PPP will likely form a partnership force Musharraf to step down or face impeachment.

The election also dealt a serious blow to the pro-Taliban Jamiat-e-Ulema party who won only three seats. Also, a coalition of Islamist religious parties, the United Action Forum, are projected to lose control of the North West Frontier Province, winning only 9 of 96 contested seats.

MORE: Hot Air

Pakistan President Pervez Musharaf on the first leg of his “European Tour” and speaking to an international assembly in Brussels decried the West’s “obsession” with democracy and pleaded for more time to allow his country to achieve higher standards of human rights and civil liberties. Musharaf said,

“While we believe in democracy and human rights and civil liberties please allow us time to reach what you have reached. And you have taken centuries to reach it.”

(what have you achieved in the last eight years, Mr. President?)

Musharraf explained that the “feudal, tribal environment [i.e. culture] in some…provinces” is a significant obstacle to democracy. This requires Pakistan to take a different approach to achieving it. Musharraf explains,

“Therefore in accordance with our environment we have to adapt democracy, human rights and civil liberties.”

Okay. Although there are various forms of democracy, the basic premise is that citizens participate in the governing of the nation; human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled; and civil liberties impose limits on government control over personal lives.

I’ll be interested to see how Pakistan “adapts” democracy, human rights and civil liberties to their feudal, tribal culture. Personally, I don’t think Musharraf’s heart is in it, and I wonder how long the West is willing to put up with his fence-straddling approach to leadership?

Scotland Yard has completed their investigation of the Bhutto murder and have come to the conclusion that al-Qaeda was responsible for her death. They also concluded there was no government cover-up, simply poor police work.

Still, they can’t say exactly who is responsible for the killing. Scotland Yard disputes the Pakistani government claim that Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader from the Afghan border area of southern Waziristan, was the master-planner. It appears Musharraf pointed the finger at Mehsud out of political expediency due to the militant’s link to al-Qaeda.

Scotland Yard has insisted their job wasn’t to determine who killed Bhutto, but just exactly how she died. How can they do that when they can’t examine the body, and the crime scene and Bhutto’s vehicle were sanitized within hours of her death? If “evidence” points toward al-Qaeda, where was this evidence obtained?

(the Pakistani government, of course.)

As expected, Pakistan’s President Musharraf is postponing national parliamentary elections for six weeks. Formerly scheduled for January 8th, the election of a new Prime Minister will not take place before February 18. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party and Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (N) have denounced the decision and are calling for elections to take place as previously scheduled. Mr. Sharif, who recently reversed a decision for his party to “boycott” the election, warned of serious repercussions if the elections are delayed and accused Musharraf of “trying to wriggle out of elections sensing defeat of his allies.”

Political analysts also agree that pushing-back the election date could renew the civil unrest that has subsided in recent days. So why the delay? The government’s says the reason for the postponement is due, at least in part, to the destruction of electoral facilities. Per Kanwar Dilshad of the Election Commission:

“Our offices in 10 districts of Sindh have been burned, the electoral rolls have been burned, the polling schemes, the nomination papers have been burned.”

Perhaps this is true, but elections should only be delayed if all parties agree. There are 124 districts in Pakistan and damage to offices in 10 of those districts shouldn’t be a show-stopper. I believe the government has a responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure elections take place on schedule.

MORE: In a related article, Spree at Wake up America discusses Hillary Clinton and her ignorance of the situation in Pakistan.

The principle professor of surgery at Rawalpindi General Hospital, Dr. Muhammad Mussadiq Khan, said on the night of her death that Bhutto had died of a bullet wound. This, according to hospital board member Athar Minallah, who released the medical report written by Khan and six other doctors together with an open letter supporting the doctors in their call for an autopsy.

Minallah’s open letter was distributed to the Pakistani news media and to The New York Times. In the letter he suggested the doctors felt they were being pressured by the government to back the theory that Ms Bhutto had died by hitting her head on the car’s sunroof lever. The doctors argued that “without an autopsy it is not at all possible to determine as to what had caused the injury.” Still, Aziz Saud, Rawalpini Chief of Police, “did not agree” to the doctor’s autopsy request.

The absence of a gunshot wound was crucial for the government’s vindication, because had there been one, it meant the security they provided Ms Bhutto was grossly inadequate. Bruce Riedel, an expert on Pakistan at the Brookings Institution in Washington, explained, “If there is a gunshot wound the security was abysmal,” and the government didn’t want to be exposed to this level of carelessness.

Makes sense, but I don’t think it’s that simple. Analysts are suggesting the use of a handgun in addition to explosives is a departure for militant groups in Pakistan. Security analyst Nasim Zehra explains, “This is not by any means a signature killing by Al Qaeda” … “A targeted shooting, even in combination with a familiar suicide bombing, makes it look more like a political killing than one by some militant group.”

If it looks like a duck…

In a curious turn-of-events, pro al Qaeda militant leader, Baitullah Mehsud, denied involvement in the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. However, Pakistan is still insisting the terrorist organization is responsible for Bhutto’s murder, citing “irrefutable evidence that al-Qaida [sic], its networks, and cohorts are trying to destabilize Pakistan…” But, the government has yet to actually present this evidence and the citizens aren’t buying it:

The government’s “official” report of the incident has a gunman firing three shots at Bhutto and missing, then blowing himself up. Ms Bhutto died when the force of the blast caused her to hit her head against the lever of the sunroof of her car.

But that doesn’t jive with eyewitness accounts…

According to Shery Rehman, Ms. Bhutto’s close aide and secretary of information for her Pakistan People’s Party, the government’s claim is “ridiculous”:

“What the government is saying is completely ridiculous, in fact it’s dangerous nonsense that she knocked her head against the lever of the sunroof or some such thing, as if that would attack her. But frankly, it’s very clear, it’s running on all the Pakistan TV channels, the footage of an assassin who took clear aim at her with his gun and fired the shot that went through the back of her head and came out the other. I have seen the bullet wound myself, I was part of the bathing ritual party and she bled to death from that wound.”

Now, al Qaeda denies any involvement in the crime (after initially taking credit?). Why? The Pakistan government says al Qaeda killed Ms Bhutto to destabilize the country because Pakistan is “in the forefront of the war against terrorism.” Perhaps al Qaeda did have something to do with it and are taking advantage of the tumultuous situation to blacken the eye of Musharraf’s administration.

Still, Musharraf was, at least, an al Qaeda enabler, giving them a sanctuary in the mountains of Pakistan. Perhaps al Qaeda is unhappy with Musharraf and are attempting to set the stage for a new leader, one whose even more sympathetic to their cause…like the new Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

The WSJ is reporting that “The [Pakistan] government blamed al Qaeda and the Taliban for the assassination of the opposition leader, [Benazir Bhutto]…” She was buried alongside her father.

Yesterday, Musharraf blamed unnamed Islamic militants, but according to Pakistan Interior Minister, Hamid Nawaz, they now possess “evidence that al Qaeda and the Taliban were behind the suicide attack…” Interestingly enough, they’ve resolved the “whole mystery” behind the opposition leader’s killing and plan to provide details at a press conference later today.

(wow. I can’t wait to hear this!)

As violence erupts all over Pakistan, Musharraf insists the January elections will take place as planned. With Bhutto’s party in disarray and rival party leader, Nawaz Sharif, planning to boycott the elections, things certainly seem to be falling into place for President Musharraf (who probably isn’t really interested in any “power-sharing” agreement).

UPDATE 12/28/07: Pakistan’s Interior Ministry spokesman, Javed Iqbal Cheema, cited a communication intercept implicating al Qaeda in the Bhutto murder: “We have intelligence intercepts indicating that al Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination.” Supposedly, according to the communique, Mehsud had congratulated his people for the attack on Ms Bhutto. However, no solid evidence was presented.

It’s no surprise that the government’s “official” explanation was quickly dismissed by Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) who believe President Musharraf’s embattled administration was only trying to cover up its failure to protect her. A spokesman for the PPP said, “The government is nervous,” and “They are trying to cover up their failure” to provide adequate security.

(I agree)

Cheema also claimed that Bhutto had not been shot, as doctors and eyewitnesses had previously reported, but had died from a skull fracture: “No bullets…were found in her body.”

Of course, Bhutto aides balked at the notion.

(cover-up!)

UPDATE 1/1/08: Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz apologized for the report that the sunroof lever killed Bhutto and said it was a “mistake”. Conducting damage control, Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan, asked the media and people to “forgive and ignore” comments previously made by his ministry’s spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema.

(Indeed!)