In the wake of the assassination of Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto, stability seems to be the key goal among top rivals in secular political leadership. The PPP has announced that in keeping with Ms. Bhutto's wishes, her son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a 19-year-old student at Christ Church College, Oxford, will take the helm of the party, with her husband, Bilawal's father, managing day-to-day affairs until Bilawal finishes his studies.
The Bhutto family has run the PPP since its founding, by Benazir's father, and the move appears to be an attempt to assure supporters that the movement will have continuity of personality and of vision. Asif Ali Zardari, Bilawal's father, has called for the United Nations to launch a special investigatory commission to uncover the plotters behind the assassination, as several opposition leaders and foreign officials say the Musharraf government lacks the credibility to carry out the probe.
The risk of severe destabilization across Pakistan has been evidenced by ongoing violence, bloodshed and arson, in what many have called a collective "outpouring of grief and anger" on the part of Bhutto supporters and those who blame rival factions for the plot. Pres. Musharraf has said he will not tolerate further violence, but a crackdown has not come, and he has reportedly told UK PM Gordon Brown he will consider international help in probing the killing.
Aides close to Bhutto and to opposition rival, fmr. PM Nawaz Sharif, have said they believe the plot may have originated inside the government itself, and for this reason, the government should not be permitted to lead the investigation. In response to calls from the PPP leadership to drop its boycott of the scheduled January elections, Sharif's party has reversed its position and said it will participate in the campaign, which many are still saying should be postponed to ensure a "free and fair" election.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Bhutto Assassination Signals Deep-running Political Rift that Could Destabilize Pakistan
Fmr. Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto, whose father was executed in the process of a military coup in the 1970s, and who has said she remained "broken" by what had happened to her during 5 years in military prison, was assassinated Thursday, while campaigning to restore free elections to her country. She had been the first woman elected PM in a Muslim country and had sworn she would combat radical fundamentalism and end the cycle of military takeovers.
Since her return to Pakistan in October, she has faced an attempt on her life that killed over 100 supporters, multiple incidents of house arrest, the suspension of the Constitution, martial law and the arbitrary replacement of several supreme court justices by then military leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf. While Pres. Musharraf himself claimed he had surrounded her home with more than 4,000 police and concrete barricades "for her own safety", Bhutto had accused several high-ranking members of Musharraf's security apparatus of ties to fundamentalist militia in the Northwest of the country.
Bhutto has said repeatedly that she returned to Pakistan knowing it would put her life at risk, but that she could not live comfortably in exile while she watched a major threat to her nation gather force and potentially destroy hopes for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law. She was considered the favorite to win the premiership in January elections, slated to be held after much wrangling, international pressure, Musharraf's resigning as military chief and the subsequent lifting of martial law.
Now, the entire global community must face the harsh reality that Benazir Bhutto's assassination poses a very serious threat to regional stability, and could plunge Pakistan into a confused multi-faceted power-struggle in which democracy is likely to lose out to authoritarian measures, which will be justified as an attempt to secuure Pakistan's nuclear weapons against radical Islamist militia groups.
In the US, condemnation of the assassination is near universal, and political and security analysts are warning of the dangers that could emerge either from "ignoring the threat" posed by radical groups that may have been responsible and by the Musharraf government's duplicity in both countering and collaborating with these insurgent elements, or by taking too aggressive a stance against any element internal to Pakistan's domestic political struggles.
Concern is widespread among governments that have backed Gen. Musharraf's regime that his transition to democracy has been slow and clumsy, or even halting and contrary, while his dealmaking with radical militia groups has contributed to their taking root and being emboldened across the poorly policed northwest border region.
In responsible political and diplomatic circles, pressure will be heavy on Pres. Musharraf to find and to subject to serious, open criminal prosecution those responsible, even should they be members of his top-level security establishment, as some Bhutto supporters allege.
That group is often viewed with suspicion both by democrats and by those radical insurgents most opposed to an open democratic state in Pakistan, and demonstrating the will to counter such elements could give the government the credibility it needs to work with opposition leaders and to effectively stabilize the remote border regions. Though at present, many fear the Musharraf government is too heavily reliant on the strong-arm support of rogue elements in the security establishment.
Since her return to Pakistan in October, she has faced an attempt on her life that killed over 100 supporters, multiple incidents of house arrest, the suspension of the Constitution, martial law and the arbitrary replacement of several supreme court justices by then military leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf. While Pres. Musharraf himself claimed he had surrounded her home with more than 4,000 police and concrete barricades "for her own safety", Bhutto had accused several high-ranking members of Musharraf's security apparatus of ties to fundamentalist militia in the Northwest of the country.
Bhutto has said repeatedly that she returned to Pakistan knowing it would put her life at risk, but that she could not live comfortably in exile while she watched a major threat to her nation gather force and potentially destroy hopes for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law. She was considered the favorite to win the premiership in January elections, slated to be held after much wrangling, international pressure, Musharraf's resigning as military chief and the subsequent lifting of martial law.
Now, the entire global community must face the harsh reality that Benazir Bhutto's assassination poses a very serious threat to regional stability, and could plunge Pakistan into a confused multi-faceted power-struggle in which democracy is likely to lose out to authoritarian measures, which will be justified as an attempt to secuure Pakistan's nuclear weapons against radical Islamist militia groups.
In the US, condemnation of the assassination is near universal, and political and security analysts are warning of the dangers that could emerge either from "ignoring the threat" posed by radical groups that may have been responsible and by the Musharraf government's duplicity in both countering and collaborating with these insurgent elements, or by taking too aggressive a stance against any element internal to Pakistan's domestic political struggles.
Concern is widespread among governments that have backed Gen. Musharraf's regime that his transition to democracy has been slow and clumsy, or even halting and contrary, while his dealmaking with radical militia groups has contributed to their taking root and being emboldened across the poorly policed northwest border region.
In responsible political and diplomatic circles, pressure will be heavy on Pres. Musharraf to find and to subject to serious, open criminal prosecution those responsible, even should they be members of his top-level security establishment, as some Bhutto supporters allege.
That group is often viewed with suspicion both by democrats and by those radical insurgents most opposed to an open democratic state in Pakistan, and demonstrating the will to counter such elements could give the government the credibility it needs to work with opposition leaders and to effectively stabilize the remote border regions. Though at present, many fear the Musharraf government is too heavily reliant on the strong-arm support of rogue elements in the security establishment.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Overcoming Acrimony, Bali Conference Brings Concessions, Start of a 'Roadmap'
The UN climate change policy conference on the Indonesian island of Bali has ended in dramatic fashion, as EU and US delegates found themselves in a war of words over differences in how to reach long-term reductions in "heat-trapping gases" emitted by human societies, essentially: carbon emissions.
The International Herald Tribune reports on the confrontations and final dealmaking as follows:
A significant part of the hostility involved in the negotiations has to do with mounting evidence that climate change is not only accelerating, but that it will adversely affect certain poorer countries more than the wealthy industrialized nations or fast-growing developing nations (like India or China) blamed for the lion's share of the greenhouse-effect-related emissions.
The current US position, which differs from what Democratic leaders in Congress have suggested might be an alternative policy in coming administrations, is in part based on the economic analysis that aggressive efforts to enforce emissions reductions would slow or even reverse economic growth in coming years. Part of this analysis is a lack of planning for a broad industrial reorganization, which would imply millions of new jobs, increasingly dynamic new economic structures, and the ability to meet ever-more-costly energy needs afffordably for the average consumer.
Over the long term, it will benefit wealthy economies to lead not only in emissions regulations but also in the shift to incentivized clean energy technologies. Cooperating with the plans for a global emissions regime and working strict standards into the policy guidelines will help ensure that developing nations are not able to fall back on high-contamination production methods to achieve unsustainable levels of short-term growth.
An integrated policy direction among developed and developing nations will help ensure that 'seepage' of policy direction toward apparently cheap but economically adverse polluting production methods not undermine the capacity for international regulations to reduce the risk of damaging climate change. This will benefit all parties economically over the long-term, though short-term considerations continue to drive much of the policy of major players.
The International Herald Tribune reports on the confrontations and final dealmaking as follows:
In a tumultuous final session at international climate talks in which the U.S. delegates were booed and hissed, delegates from nearly 190 nations committed Saturday to negotiating a new accord by 2009 that, in theory, would set the world on a course toward halving emissions of heat-trapping gases by 2050.
The dramatic finish to the negotiations came after a last-minute standoff during a day of see-saw emotions, with the co-organizer of the conference, Yvo de Boer, fleeing the podium at one point as he held back tears and the representative from Papua New Guinea telling the U.S. delegation to lead, follow or "please get out of the way."
The standoff started when developing countries demanded that the United States agree that the eventual pact not only measure poorer countries' steps, but also the effectiveness of financial aid and technological assistance from wealthier ones.
The United States did capitulate in that open session, which many observers and delegates said included more public acrimony and emotion than any of the treaty conferences since 1992, when countries drafted the original United Nations climate pact, the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
A significant part of the hostility involved in the negotiations has to do with mounting evidence that climate change is not only accelerating, but that it will adversely affect certain poorer countries more than the wealthy industrialized nations or fast-growing developing nations (like India or China) blamed for the lion's share of the greenhouse-effect-related emissions.
The current US position, which differs from what Democratic leaders in Congress have suggested might be an alternative policy in coming administrations, is in part based on the economic analysis that aggressive efforts to enforce emissions reductions would slow or even reverse economic growth in coming years. Part of this analysis is a lack of planning for a broad industrial reorganization, which would imply millions of new jobs, increasingly dynamic new economic structures, and the ability to meet ever-more-costly energy needs afffordably for the average consumer.
Over the long term, it will benefit wealthy economies to lead not only in emissions regulations but also in the shift to incentivized clean energy technologies. Cooperating with the plans for a global emissions regime and working strict standards into the policy guidelines will help ensure that developing nations are not able to fall back on high-contamination production methods to achieve unsustainable levels of short-term growth.
An integrated policy direction among developed and developing nations will help ensure that 'seepage' of policy direction toward apparently cheap but economically adverse polluting production methods not undermine the capacity for international regulations to reduce the risk of damaging climate change. This will benefit all parties economically over the long-term, though short-term considerations continue to drive much of the policy of major players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)