Friday, January 4, 2008

Weighing in on the Bhutto Assassination

While I was away the incredibly brave Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Robert Fisk made the most succinct observation on those who are most likely culpable for her death. It has been widely quoted on the nets and so I won't repeat it, but the link is here.

I saw Benazir Bhutto in person when she visited the United Nations in the fall of 1989. I was working for the Bangladeshi mission at the time as an intern. One of the Bangladeshis, regarding her as she walked past us in the basement coffee lounge, said he felt a little sorry for her. There was a mixture of pathos and admiration in his tone. He tried to explain that for a woman in a muslim culture, power can be very isolating. He thought she was probably a little lonely.

I thought of that when I saw the pictures of her addressing the crowd in her white headscarf. And the pictures of anguished men trying to grasp the immediate violence of her death. It seems she wasn't alone at all.

I no longer wade through the swamps of rightwing internet vitriology, but I suppose they are placing the blame with al Qaeda. Yes, Bhutto was a woman and the islamic fundamentalists are anti-woman. But trumping that, they are anti-west. Bhutto's campaign promise was to return Pakistan to the Pakistani people. Musharraf is in the pocket of the west and al Qaeda has allowed him to live. Why?

I am currently reading the second of two "Economic Hitmen" books written by John Perkins. This may be causing me to see a US based conspiracy under every rock, but let me reprint here an excerpt from the book concerning the death of Jaime Roldos, president of Ecuador from August 1979 to May 1981. Some of the events surrounding Bhutto's death bring to mind Roldos' death.

What do you think?


According to a friend of President Roldos:


"Jaime flew to a secret meeting with oil company executives in Houston in May 1981. Several top government officials joined him. He thought one of them would be especially helpful because he previously had worked for the oil companies. Jaime figured he'd make a good ally...How mistaken he was. In any case, that was it--just the Ecuadorians and the oil men, who insisted on secrecy. No press, no announcements. The Americans presented the Ecuadorians with their offer. They knew that Jaime had promised to rein them in during his campaign, but they demanded the same sort of deal they had received previously in Ecuador and were getting in other countries. Their companies would conduct initial explorations and Ecuador would pay in dollars or crude.

"Jaime assured them that he did not mind paying a reasonable price for services rendered in dollars, but would not consider doing so in crude. 'I intend to build petrochemical complexes in my country, so my people can benefit from the value added,' he said. 'We want to retain all our crude.' This infuriated the executives. It was not the deal they had enjoyed with previous administrations and was contrary to their global policies. Discussions grew heated. According to what Jaime told me later, the meeting turned ugly. Finally, he'd had enough. he got up and walked out, expecting the other Ecuadorians to join him. They did not.

"Our president, my friend Jaime, flew back to Quito and called a meeting with his closest advisors. They told him they felt he was in a very precarious situation, that his life was in danger. But it didn't deter him. He continued to speak out. He went on TV and said he would nationalize foreign companies unless they implemented plans to help Ecuador's people. He gave a speech at Atahualpa Olympic Stadium, where he talked extensivelyabout the sovereign rights of a nation to take care of its people, expecially the poor. Not long after that, he and his wife boarded their small plane and headed for another destination. They never made it. They both died in that crash on May 24, 1981, less than a month after the secret Houston meeting. There is absolutely no question that Jaime Roldos was assassinated.

..."In our country our police were kept away from the crash site where our president died. U.S. authorities were allowed in, but not Ecuadorian police investigators. Figure that one out."

7 comments:

Distributorcap said...

i have no doubt that the Bhutto assassination was some sort of inside job.......like JFK we will never know the truth NEVER.....

whether Musharraf was directly involved - again we wont know, but ISI had to be involved someway

Dr. Monkey Von Monkerstein said...

Wow, you worked at the UN? How cool is that? I won a UN related essay contest in high school and I got to go there for a week one summer it was awesome.

And yes, I believe Bush and Musharaf are responsible for her death.


Oh, and I answered your question today.

Dr. Zaius said...

Sounds like business as usual for the CIA.

I'm with Monkerstein - Wow, you worked at the UN? You should post about that someday! I want to hear about it. What's a "Bangladeshi mission?"

Randal Graves said...

I'm with the doctors - future post! And there might not be a US conspiracy under every rock. Just a good majority of them.

FranIAm said...

I read the first Perkins book. A lot of really bad shit happens in the world, with our government pushing the buttons.

dguzman said...

I'm glad you mentioned the Perkins book; I finished it over the holidays. When Bhutto was killed, I immediately thought "CIA." Especially when they whisked her into the ground sans autopsy, then "hired" Scotland Yard a few weeks later, when they'd had time to disappear all evidence/witnesses. Very convenient.

I worry about Barack Obama for the same reasons.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.