The plot to bring back Benazir

[kuzadd]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffa...2130101,00.html

I thought for a while now something has been not right between the UA and it's best ally.

I first noticed it, when western media was referring to Mushareff in negative terms as opposed to positive, approx 4-6 mos ago.

I remember thinking what's up with that? Gone was Bush's best friend and ally, to , him actually being called a military dictator. The winds of change were blowing.

"He's one of my best friends," George Bush declared at a Washington party in 2006, having overseen a 45,000% increase in aid to Pakistan's military, which now totals more than $4bn.

All that has changed. A chill has descended over "Mush and Bush", as the Pakistan press dubbed the US-Pakistan axis.

"Behind the back-slaps and bonhomie, a plot is afoot to remove the current military leaders and revive an old Pakistani dynasty: regime change minus the shock and awe (and especially without the loss of thousands of lives). The aim - unchanged by the events at the mosque - is to restore democracy to Pakistan and reinstall Benazir Bhutto, the exiled scion of the country's most famous ruling family.

It all began three years ago, on June 20 2004, at a low-profile dinner in Blackburn where Bhutto, then 51, was meeting old political friends. Many of the Lancashire town's 7,000-strong Pakistani population were historically Bhutto supporters, but the mood was glum, as she recalls. Pakistan had recently been readmitted to the Commonwealth after being suspended when Musharraf seized control. And, four days earlier, President Bush had named the Islamic republic as a major non-Nato ally, making Bhutto's hopes of returning slimmer than ever."

"In early 2005, Bhutto was invited back to the Foreign Office. "The talk was of a post-Musharraf world," one of Bhutto's inner-circle says. "What London feared was chaos," a Foreign Office spokeswoman says. "What everyone wanted was a smooth transition, from Musharraf to something sustainable, preferably democratic. Bhutto had a chance of winning an election if that day came."

"By now the Americans were on track and Musharraf at last agreed to hold a poll. It was to be staged after November 2007, when the National Assembly's term ran out. But he insisted that Bhutto and Sharif should not to be allowed to return until after the election. Prospective PPP parliamentary candidates began finding envelopes containing bullets left in their cars or on their desks - similar intimidatory tactics had been used in the previous election."

"As direct contact was established between the US and Bhutto, the newly appointed US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, Richard Boucher, urged her not to encourage PPP supporters to take to the streets in protest, as they had done on previous occasions. The PPP agreed. Over a series of meetings, Boucher made clear that the US would not be dealing with Sharif, whom they blamed for putting Pakistan at risk of nuclear war with India in a conflagration over Kashmir that flared up just a few months after both countries tested nuclear weapons."

[kuzadd]

interestingly?!

in 2006

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/...utto/index.html

Wanted notice for Benazir Bhutto

CNN) -- Interpol issued international wanted persons notices Thursday for Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's former prime minister, and her husband.

The international police agency said it issued red notices for Bhutto -- prime minister in the late 1980s and early 1990s -- and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, at the request of Pakistan, where the two are wanted on corruption charges.

"Basically, there is a case going on in Geneva, a case of money laundering, it's in that connection, and there are several other cases pending in the Pakistani courts, so that is why."

A red notice "is notification that a bona fide arrest warrant exists for an individual suspected of committing a crime, or convicted by a court, in any of Interpol's 184 member countries," according to Interpol.

[Higgly]

I love it! Kuzadd, you are da dude. And the Merry-go-Round goes round and round...

[kuzadd]

I love it! Kuzadd, you are da dude. And the Merry-go-Round goes round and round...

Thanks Higgly!

I thought it was quite interesting given what is going on at this time, wrt pakistan, but hey, apparently I am one of a few who are REALLY paying attention to the merry-go round, spinning and wondering when and where this is going to stop?

[ScottSA]

I love it! Kuzadd, you are da dude. And the Merry-go-Round goes round and round...

Thanks Higgly!

I thought it was quite interesting given what is going on at this time, wrt pakistan, but hey, apparently I am one of a few who are REALLY paying attention to the merry-go round, spinning and wondering when and where this is going to stop?

Yes Kuzzad. You're so clever I'm thinking of making you my sole source of world news. Btw, did you know that Bhutto has a new warrant issued for her arrest in Pakistan every few weeks? She's well supplied with toilet paper if nothing else...

[kimmy]

A very interesting article.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffa...2130101,00.html

I thought for a while now something has been not right between the UA and it's best ally.

I first noticed it, when western media was referring to Mushareff in negative terms as opposed to positive, approx 4-6 mos ago.

I remember thinking what's up with that? Gone was Bush's best friend and ally, to , him actually being called a military dictator. The winds of change were blowing.

I think everybody recognizes that Musharaff has been an ally of convenience. Surely nobody has been naive enough to think that Western "friendship" with Musharaff has been for any reason other than needing his support to make military operations in the area viable.

And I don't think one needs to be a political analyst to see that Musharaff's usefulness as an ally has been dropping dramatically. For some time it has seemed that Pakistan has been providing no help at all with regard to Taliban fighters crossing the border into Afghanistan, creating essentially a safe haven. And as the article mentions, the Pakistan army's storming of the Red Mosque earlier this summer can only help boost the cause of religious fanatics.

The question is not why Bush and friends are turning against their "best friend", but rather why they would continue to kiss his ass when he's becoming less useful and more of an obstacle.

While the tone of this thread makes this sound like a sinister "regime change" plot, it is the opposite:

Bhutto is committed to returning to Pakistan in September, and informal polls have shown that, despite the rampant extremism in the country, she is likely to dominate the elections.

And while Musharaff denies any political involvement in the arrest warrant, it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Bhutto's political enemies have been attempting to discredit her for a very long time.

-k

[kuzadd]

[

Yes Kuzzad. You're so clever I'm thinking of making you my sole source of world news. Btw, did you know that Bhutto has a new warrant issued for her arrest in Pakistan every few weeks? She's well supplied with toilet paper if nothing else...

Maybe that means they are criminals?

Edited July 28, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

While the tone of this thread makes this sound like a sinister "regime change" plot, it is the opposite:

Bhutto is committed to returning to Pakistan in September, and informal polls have shown that, despite the rampant extremism in the country, she is likely to dominate the elections.

Yes, the backing of a politicians opposition, would have nothing to do with enabling regime change to the backers benefit?

Like that has never happened before?

[kuzadd]

http://www.icssa.org/article_detail_parse....d=1151&rel=1119

a compilation article

The Real Face of Benazir Bhutto

Swiss Government

On July 23, 1998, the Swiss Government handed over documents to the government of Pakistan which relate to corruption allegations against Pakistan's opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari. The documents include a formal charge of money laundering and an indictment by the Swiss authorities against Mr Zardari. T

Poland

The Polish Government has given Pakistan 500 pages of documentation relating to corruption allegations against Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari nickname of “Mr 10%”.[ii] These relate to concerns in the purchase of 8,000 tractors in the 1997 tractor purchase deal.[iii]

According to Pakistani officials, the Polish papers contain details of illegal commissions paid by the tractor company in return for agreeing to their contract.[iv] It is said that the arrangement was initiated and "skimmed" Rs 103 mn rupees ($ 2.0 mn) in kickbacks from a scheme to make available inexpensive Polish tractors, in a bid to boost farming output, not to the farmers benefit ."

The documentary evidence received from Poland confirms the scheme of kickbacks laid out by Asif Zardari and Benazir Bhutto in the name of (the) launching of Awami tractor scheme," APP said. Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari received 7.15 per cent commission on purchase of tractors through their front men, Jens Schlegelmilch and Didier Plantin of Dargal S.A., who received about $1.969 million for supplying 5,900 Ursus Tractors.

France

Potentially the most lucrative deal uncovered by the documents involved the effort by Dassault Aviation, the French military contractor, to sell Pakistan 32 Mirage 2000-5 fighter planes. These were to replace two squadrons of American-made F-16s whose purchase was blocked when the Bush administration determined in 1990 that Pakistan was covertly developing nuclear weapons.

In April 1995, Dassault found itself in arm's-length negotiations with Zardari and Amer Lodhi, a Paris-based lawyer and banker who had lived for years in the United States, working among other things as an executive of the now-defunct Bank of Commerce and Credit International. Lodhi's sister, Maleeha, a former Pakistan newspaper editor, became Bhutto's ambassador to the United States in 1994.

Schlegelmilch, the Geneva lawyer, wrote a memo for his files describing his talks at Dassault's headquarters on the Champs-Elysees in Paris. According to the memo, the company's executives offered a "remuneration" of 5 percent to Marleton Business SA, an offshore company controlled by Zardari. The memo indicated that in addition to Dassault, the payoff would be made by two companies involved in the manufacture of the Mirages: Snecma, an engine manufacturer, and Thomson-CSF, a maker of aviation electronics.

Middle East

In the largest single payment investigators have discovered, a gold bullion dealer in the Middle East was shown to have deposited at least $10 million into one of Zardari's accounts after the Bhutto government gave him a monopoly on gold imports that sustained Pakistan's jewelry industry. The money was deposited into a Citibank account in the United Arab Emirates sheikdom of Dubai, one of several Citibank accounts used by Zardari.

Notes:

THE BHUTTO MILLIONS; A Background Check Far From Ordinary,January 9, 1998, Friday, By JOHN F. BURNS

[ii] Timesonline:£4m Surrey mansion in Bhutto ‘corruption’ row, November 21, 2004, By Sian Griffiths

[iii] EXPRESSindia.com:Poland gives Pak papers on $ 2-mn Bhutto bribe, REUTERS, Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

[iv] World: South Asia Poland linked to Bhutto corruption charge, Friday, May 7, 1999.

[v] DAWN.com:NAB says Swiss order names Benazir:Ursus tractor case, By Our Staff Reporter, 23 July 2004, He claimed that Ms Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari received 7.15 per cent commission on purchase of tractors through their front men, Jens Schlegelmilch and Didier Plantin of Dargal S.A., who received about $1.969 million for supplying 5,900 Ursus Tractors.

interesting couple.

[kimmy]

On the one hand we have a progressive and educated person who stands against barbarism like the Hadood and Zina laws in Pakistan, and is popular amongst the people.

On the other hand you have a guy who seized power in a military coup and whose only "legitimate" claim to maintaining power was rigged elections, and is considered by Pakistanis to be more corrupt than Bhutto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musharraf#Corruption

Yes, the backing of a politicians opposition, would have nothing to do with enabling regime change to the backers benefit?

Like that has never happened before?

If the US and Britain have interfered in Pakistani politics, it's been by supporting Musharraf despite his shortcomings.

I also have to wonder whether you actually comprehended anything in your article past the word "plot".

The extent of American and British "plotting" has been to pressure Musharraf to hold free elections.

Musharraf grudgingly agrees, provided that the two opponents he fears, Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, aren't allowed back to Pakistan until after the elections. (how "free" are elections where one can select his opponents? What would people think if Dubya Bush arbitrarily decided that Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama won't be allowed to participate in the 2008 election?)

In early 2005, Bhutto was invited back to the Foreign Office. "The talk was of a post-Musharraf world," one of Bhutto's inner-circle says. "What London feared was chaos," a Foreign Office spokeswoman says. "What everyone wanted was a smooth transition, from Musharraf to something sustainable, preferably democratic. Bhutto had a chance of winning an election if that day came."

At that stage, the US was still apparently backing the gentleman dictator, although, according to a Bhutto aide, Straw advised her that it was beginning to think about change. Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, was at that very moment in Islamabad pressing Musharraf to allow free elections.

...

Yet only a few months later, in early 2006, he was sending a new message to Bhutto, asking that she list her demands. She wrote: free elections; political prisoners released; an independent election commission formed; Pakistan's constitution [of 1973] restored. The reply came back almost immediately: Musharraf was not ready for this kind of deal.

...

By now the Americans were on track and Musharraf at last agreed to hold a poll. It was to be staged after November 2007, when the National Assembly's term ran out. But he insisted that Bhutto and Sharif should not to be allowed to return until after the election. Prospective PPP parliamentary candidates began finding envelopes containing bullets left in their cars or on their desks - similar intimidatory tactics had been used in the previous election.

This sinister "plotting" and "regime change" amounts to the US and Britain using their influence to try to mediate a political dispute within Pakistan with the goal of achieving a legitimate election.

ooh, sinister. scary, even.

http://www.icssa.org/

What a creepy website. I'll keep it in mind next time somebody asks what's wrong with Islam.

Great example of the kind of people who are afraid of Benazir Bhutto, and example enough of why I hope that she can again be leader of Pakistan.

-k

[scribblet]

Good posts Kimmy, can't add much to them.... Your de gal !

[kuzadd]

Time will tell how this saga plays out.

It will be interesting to follow for sure.

Kimmy: I am of the opinion varying points you made are simply non-credible.

why:

You seem to imply that the US/Britian should be influencing/backing leaders/"elections", deciding who leads another country entirely, interesting, for a person who claims to want to see a democratic/progressive government.

Are there no leaders, WITHIN the country of Pakistan?

Or are there no leaders, the West prefers?

If the west is "courting" Ms. Bhutto isn't it logical that the West will gain, by doing this?

Will the West will not then be the main benefactor of the Influenced/Backed government?

Also, if the West, chooses to back these previous leaders,why?

It leads one to conclude they will be malleable, therefore that is why they are approachable. Certainly Bhutto is not without corruption, thereby indicating she is likely to continue on a pattern of appeasement to the west, corruption, etc.,

BUT will this serve the Pakistani population?

When the West interferes in elections, by "influencing", and we have a long history of this to peruse, we see leaders like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Marcos, etc.,

I can't recall any of these western influenced leaders, benefited there populace.

Murder's yes, purveyors of misery, yes.

So again I really have to question why a believer in democracy, allegedly would support interference, from external influences?

Bhutto's arrest warrant seem to emanate from another Pakistani prime Minister.

She has also recently met with Mushareff, and there was an offer to allow him to stay on.

curiouser and curiouser

I fear, in your zealousness to discredit, it is yourself , you discredit, by taking an odd and anti-democratic stance.

Edited July 29, 2007 by kuzadd

[kimmy]

Time will tell how this saga plays out.

It will be interesting to follow for sure.

Kimmy: I am of the opinion varying points you made are simply non-credible.

why:

You seem to imply that the US/Britian should be influencing/backing leaders/"elections", deciding who leads another country entirely, interesting, for a person who claims to want to see a democratic/progressive government.

The US and Britain are not "deciding who leads another country".

They are pressuring Musharraf to make Pakistan's upcoming elections legitimate rather than a sham.

Was it "undemocratic" when other countries were trying to influence South Africa to reform its elections?

Are there no leaders, WITHIN the country of Pakistan?

Or are there no leaders, the West prefers?

Musharraf has exiled the other leaders in Pakistan. As far as I can tell, Bhutto and Sharif are still the leaders of their political parties.

If the west is "courting" Ms. Bhutto isn't it logical that the West will gain, by doing this?

Will the West will not then be the main benefactor of the Influenced/Backed government?

Also, if the West, chooses to back these previous leaders,why?

It's obvious what the West gains from having a stable Pakistan.

The worry, especially in the aftermath of the Red Mosque events, has been that Musharraf is loosing his grip on the country and that chaos could break out. If Pakistan degenerates into external strife, or especially if extremists take over, it will have disastrous consequences for Afghanistan.

(and, uh, civil unrest wouldn't be very good for the Pakistani people either.)

The hope is that free and fair elections could avert an impending disaster.

Elections are scheduled for later this year. By not allowing opposing leaders to participate, Musharraf is inviting the same problems that resulted after Pakistan's *last* elections, which were seen as rigged, resulted in boycotts, and resulted in political gridlock and standoffs afterwards. Would Pakistanis stand for the same thing again, when their patience with Musharraf is already wearing thin?

It leads one to conclude they will be malleable, therefore that is why they are approachable. Certainly Bhutto is not without corruption, thereby indicating she is likely to continue on a pattern of appeasement to the west, corruption, etc.,

If having somebody who would appease the West was the objective, Musharraf has proven to be pretty handy. (and, as pointed out earlier, he's seen by his people to be more corrupt than his predecessors.)

BUT will this serve the Pakistani population?

That'll be for them to decide.

-k

[Sulaco]

http://www.icssa.org/

What a creepy website. I'll keep it in mind next time somebody asks what's wrong with Islam.

Great example of the kind of people who are afraid of Benazir Bhutto, and example enough of why I hope that she can again be leader of Pakistan.

-k

My impression is that Bhutto did very little to reign in Islamism. Or to modernize the country. Like many others she fed it when she felt she could control the spigot on the resultinbg steam. Am mistaken?

[Higgly]

Bhutto is just another power faction in Pakistan. Her father was once President but was executed in a coup. Both Bhutoo and Mushareff just represent the same old same old. I would not be at all surprised to find that th US is financing Bhutto as a way to put pressure on Mushareff. Neither Bhutto nor Mushareff are ever going to effect real change in Pakistan. Don't expect real democracy, enlightenment or women's rights under Bhutto. She's about as credible as the little runt that is now running the Philippines and who is also a member of the landowner elite. What's her name?

[kuzadd]

Bhutto is just another power faction in Pakistan. Her father was once President but was executed in a coup. Both Bhutoo and Mushareff just represent the same old same old. I would not be at all surprised to find that th US is financing Bhutto as a way to put pressure on Mushareff. Neither Bhutto nor Mushareff are ever going to effect real change in Pakistan. Don't expect real democracy, enlightenment or women's rights under Bhutto. She's about as credible as the little runt that is now running the Philippines and who is also a member of the landowner elite. What's her name?

I could not agree more with that Higgly, from what I have been reading on her, she's no prize.

I would not be at all surprised to find that the US is financing Bhutto as a way to put pressure on Mushareff.

that wouldn't surprise me at all either. Which IMO demonstrates her as corrupt or corruptable.

Don't expect real democracy, enlightenment or women's rights under Bhutto.

going back to what I have read of her, she didn't provide any in her time of rule, what would be expected to change, once she is beholding to the west?

Thanks Higgly, you "get it" !

[Higgly]

Thanks Higgly, you "get it" !

That's right. I do. I've been there. I've been following this for two decades. Thanks for saying.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Higgly