Extremism and Terrorism in Pakistan 2007 and the USA in 1794
By Mary Mostert (12/30/07)
Violence has been part of the political process for the Bhutto family in
Pakistan for decades. Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's first female Prime Minister
was the daughter of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who was hung for
conspiring to murder a political opponent in 1979. Six years later her
brother Shahnawaz died of poisoning in France and in 1996 her brother Mir
Murtaza, who was accused of being involved in terrorism, was shot dead in
Karachi by the police.
The Bhutto family has been involved in Pakistan politics for nearly 40
years, yet managed somehow during that period of time to become
billionaires. What exactly was their side business that brought them such
wealth while being, apparently, full time politicians? That is not easy to
trace.
However, what led to Benazir Bhutto being removed as Prime Minister were
charges of corruption - involving money. In fact, her husband, Asif Ali
Zardari, spent eight years in prison on corruption charges and there are
still pending French, Polish, Spanish and Swiss charges of corruption and
money laundering through Swiss Banks charges against her. In 1998 The New
York Times reported that Bhutto's husband was given exclusive rights by a
French aircraft manufacturer, Dassault, to replace the air force's fighter
jets in exchange for a 5% commission to be paid for to one of the family
corporations.
Benazir was, when assassinated, the head of the Pakistan People's Party
which has been the family's political base throughout the past 40 years in
Pakistan. While the "People's Party" is a nice name for a political party,
there were actually never any elections in the People's Party to decide who
would BE its leader. It automatically went to the next available Bhutto
family member. That is something to bear in mind as we try to determine just
exactly what is going on in Pakistan and who it is that wants more democracy
in the country.
She came back from France after a self-imposed exile of 8 years to run
against President Pervez Musharraf, after he had over-whelmingly won another
term as President on October 6, 2007. That election was challenged by
Bhutto's party by claiming he was not eligible to run for president as long
as he was head of the army. Of course, the president of the United States is
actually the head of the army, as commander in chief. In fact, during George
Washington's term in office, as Commander in Chief he personally, on
horseback, led the American Army into Western Pennsylvania to put down the
insurrection of farmers who basically were rioting against the new federal
tax on whiskey that they brewed. Constitutionally, as Commander in Chief,
George W. Bush also could take an active role in leading the army.
Washington was not opposing freedom of speech. The farmers could complain
all they wanted to. However, when they ignored the law of the land and the
civil protestors tarred and feathered a tax collector, stole his horse and
started shooting, Washington took action, not as president, but as commander
in chief of America's armed forces.
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan appears, to me, to be facing a situation very
similar to the Whiskey Rebellion in our history. And, he actually seems to
be quite similar to George Washington in his thinking. Two years ago in an
almost totally unreported story Perez Musharraf who heads a Muslim nuclear
nation which has sided with American efforts to stop terrorism, gave a
speech to the American Jewish Congress
that everyone
concerned about what is happening in Pakistan needs to read. Musharraf seems
to have a better grasp of the difference between democratic principles and
anarchy than perhaps those outside forces that have ignored the corruption
and the violence perpetrated by the Bhuttos and others in Pakistan.
Insurrection was not approved in the USA under the new American Constitution
in 1794 and the current Pakistani Constitution also does not permit
insurrection, in the guise of "democracy." I pointed this out in an article
published in November entitled In Pakistan, Should we Choose Musharraf's
Strong Hand or Bhutto's Anarchy?
In fact,
Pakistan's Constitution states that "Every citizen shall have the right to
assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions
imposed by law in the interest of public order."
In his speech to the American Jewish Congress Musarraf said: "First of all,
I feel we need to clearly understand that terrorism and extremism are two
different phenomena. Each requires a different strategy. Lumping terrorism
and extremism together, or behaving as if they are synonymous, is a fallacy.
Terrorism has to be met head on with all the force required to suppress and
eradicate it. In the case of extremism, the battle has to be won in the
hearts and minds of people. It cannot be achieved through the use of force.
We must adopt separate short term and long-term strategies to address
terrorism and extremism. Such immediate and long-term strategies have to be
implemented at three tiers: the global level, the Muslim world level and the
national level in the concerned countries."
The Bhuttos and their Pakistan People's Party have not separated terrorism
and extremism. They became billionaires while vying for or holding office.
Yet, the Western nations, including our own government, has tried to ignore
the difference in terrorist actions and extremist views.
The difference is a fundamental difference in thinking. America has survived
because it was founded on a principle of law rather than a king or other
strong person, i.e. dictator. Musharraf's actions in Pakistan have been
efforts to follow the Constitution and the law of the land. To a very large
degree, the Bhutto's ignored the law of the land and used the politics of
personal power. It was not a good idea for the Bush Administration to ignore
the past behavior and even the laws of other nations to get Benazir Bhutto
back into Pakistan. Musharraf was basically advised to adopt the "political
correctness" of the West that seems to think all controversy, even good and
evil, can be negotiated and compromise. That is a fallacy.
George Washington didn't think that would work in the Whiskey Rebellion in
1794 and Perez Musharraf doesn't think it will work in Pakistan in 2007.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Mary Mostert
