Jonas v Fisk: Diverging Views on Bhutto's Death

Did you know that Musharraf's declaration of martial law saved Bhutto's life and that the rounding up of lawyers and human rights activists was the right thing to do? That's what the National Post's George Jonas thinks.

The White House has clout, so Bhutto returned in a triumphal procession to Karachi in November. As anyone could have predicted, Islamist extremists pounced almost immediately, raining fire on Bhutto’s parade, killing and maiming hundreds. They were getting ready to kill and maim thousands more, when Musharraf imposed a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, deployed troops and locked up hordes of lawyers and journalists, claiming it was necessary to prevent a takeover by the militants of Islam.

Locking up journalists and lawyers comes naturally to strongman, but Musharraf’s concern about militants wasn’t unwarranted. At present, a democratic Pakistan is likely to be a brief prelude to the long, dark night of a Taliban-style tyranny. Bhutto, as it turned out, lived only as long as Musharraf’s emergency measures lasted. When he lifted them under renewed American pressure, she died.

The Independent's Robert Fisk commented today on the "childish coverage" of Bhutto's death and Jonas' simplistic screed is a prime example of that reality.

Not only does Jonas let Mush off the hook, he then goes on to blame liberals for this push towards democracy in other countries. I guess he's never read the neocon PNAC credo.

Pressuring Pakistan to act out America’s fascination with democracy is minimally naïve. So is forcing Musharraf, who perches precariously at the edge of a precipice, to audition for a speaking part in a psychodrama called “elections” that Western liberals believe is therapeutically efficacious against every conceivable malady in the body politic.

I didn't know George W Bush, the mouthpiece for the west's democracy crusade was a "Western liberal". Did you?

Jonas seems convinced that countries over there just aren't suited to a democratic style of government - that they're 'allergic' to it, as his metaphor goes. He's right only up to a point: democracy isn't a system that should be forced on any country, which you'd think the American empire would have learned by know. It does not then logically follow that countries that are currently undemocratic can't ever find a way to make the system work for them. "Childish coverage", indeed.

Stick to Fisk if you want a realistic view of what's going on in the world and in Pakistan at this moment. When it comes to who's really responsible for Bhutto's death, no matter which theory is used to explain it, Fisk nails it:

So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.

You see the problem? Yesterday, our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a "murderer" were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her.

According to Jonas, if only Musharraf had kept Bhutto under house arrest in a state of martial law, she'd still be alive today. Only a fool would make Musharraf out to be a hero in this situation.