Bhutto's Death Significant
by
Suzanne Hadley
on Dec 29, 2007 at 5:42 PM
I rarely tackle anything of a political nature on this blog, but when Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday, the event felt significant. As my family watched the news reports, I told my dad, "This seems like a news report you'd see in a movie about the end times." And indeed, I wonder if we'll look back on this particular event as a catalyst to what follows in world events.
A controversial figure, Bhutto had been living in London in a self-imposed exile since 1996 but returned to Pakistan in October to run for prime minister in the January 8 elections. She had served in the position twice before: from 1988 to 1990 and 1993 to 1996.
In a Christianity Today article, Jay Smith, who debated Bhutto at the Oxford Union several years ago and knew her as a "a great woman and honest friend," says:
Thursday's tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan who returned to her country two months ago, is a staggering loss. Worldwide, Christians who are passionate about reaching Muslims should mourn her murder.
In a Parade interview with Bhutto that is set to appear as the magazine's January 6 cover story, she explained why she was a target for Al Qaeda.
“I am what the terrorists most fear,” she tells me, “a female political leader fighting to bring modernity to Pakistan. Now they’re trying to kill me."
Unfortunately, they succeeded -- although there is controversy surrounding the details of Bhutto's death and whether Al Qaeda or the Pakistani government is responsible. Prior to Bhutto's death, the Parade article considered the implications of her political success or failure:
Why should this election matter so much to America? That answer is simple. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Also, the most dangerous place in the world is Pakistan’s lawless border with Afghanistan. It is a Ho Chi Minh Trail of terrorism where Osama bin Laden is believed to enjoy sanctuary.
Despite controversy surrounding Bhutto's personal integrity (the Pakistani government claims she and her husband stole 1.5 billion dollars during the years she was in power), her political views offered hope for keeping the "extremist Islamic tide" at bay in Pakistan.
Best-selling end times writer Joel Rosenberg suggests Benazir's death matters because, "Pakistan is just one coup d'etat away from Osama bin Laden or one of his fanatical, murderous allies suddenly gaining control."
Bhutto hoped to give Pakistan another chance at democracy. A chance, sadly, she will not be able to deliver. Still, it's yet to be seen what the ultimate impact of her life and death will be. We can only hope her bravery will inspire others to stand up against terrorism.
1. Gene had the following to say on Dec 29 at 6:38 PM:
A few thoughts. First, the pre-tribulational rapture of the church, to which I think you're referring, is a fairly recent doctrine, being barely 150 years old. Any "new" teaching that arises 1,800 years after the founding of the church should be seriously examined.
Next, Pakistan has a very large Westernized middle class. Should Osama bin Laden attempt to seize power, there would an uprising way beyond what we're presently seeing. The Islamic radicals might be loud, but they definitely are a small portion of the overall Pakistani population.
Finally, India would never stand for an radical Islamist coup in Pakistan. You'd see an immediate land war that would overwhelm whatever portions of the Pakistani military that would be willing to fight.
I'm not saying we should be complacent, but we should also keep things in perspective.
2. John had the following to say on Dec 29 at 6:41 PM:
First, it is sad that the terrorists succeeded. This is the last kind of "politics" anyone should practice, but sadly why we have to carry a big stick.
Second, democracy is a terrible form of government and should never be tried by any people group, especially a tribal Muslim people group that only listens to bullets zipping by their heads.
Lastly, this is exactly why we should be supporting Musharraf and quit this "democracy" nonsense talk.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/11/14/musharraf_the_tolstoy_of_the_zulus
3. mindlab had the following to say on Dec 29 at 7:18 PM:
Well, while I think it's an overreaction to starting ringing in the end times, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto will probably be at least as significant in Pakistan as was Lincoln's assassination in the US. I think she stood a good chance of actually effecting positive change there. It will be interesting to see what happens now.
Additionally, I predict that no matter what Musharraf says, Bhutto's in-country supporters will hold him responsible for her death.
Thank God most of us live in the relatively peaceful West.
4. Mac had the following to say on Dec 29 at 7:40 PM:
Last days or not, our response as Christians should be the same. Pray for peace, comfort those who mourn, and let our lights shine.
5. Suzanne had the following to say on Dec 29 at 11:49 PM:
To clarify, I was only speaking of my own mental associations regarding the end times (and Gene, I was not referring to a pre-trib rapture, only Revelation events in general), not predicting that Bhutto's death will ring them in. I realize Joel Rosenberg's camp is somewhat extreme in this area, but I wanted to pull in some different perspectives on the event. Bhutto's death will certainly make an impact, but not necessarily as an escatalogical event.
6. jo had the following to say on Dec 30 at 1:54 AM:
i thank you for posting this. i too have been having a hard time processing and understanding all that's going on. my heart is heavy so i've been asking the Lord to ease the pain. my finite mind cannot comprehend all the evil and violence. so we're encouraged to pray for mercy and reconciliation between nations, people and God. thanks for sharing.
7. Tami had the following to say on Dec 30 at 2:31 PM:
Suzanne, I had the same sort of ominous feeling you had when I first heard this news.
Like you said -- not that I think her death is *specifically* a sign of the end as prophesied in Scripture. But definitely indicative of the times we are living in.
8. farmer Tom had the following to say on Dec 30 at 8:04 PM:
Gotta disagree with John on this,
Lastly, this is exactly why we should be supporting Musharraf and quit this "democracy" nonsense talk.
What we really ought to do is keep our nose out of the internal affairs in other countries. I'm sorry that the lady was killed, but suggesting that we should help Musharraf is part of the problem. He's a slimebag just like all of the other two-bit tin horn dictators that use force to control their people.
You want to fix the problem in the middle east, convert them all to Christianity. Trying to do that from the barrel of a gun is not going to work.
9. Samuel PG had the following to say on Dec 31 at 1:02 AM:
John, I cannot tell whether or not your post was intended to be ironic. Hopefully it was, but I suppose I must treat it as if it was not. Could you explain why you believe that democracy is such a terrible form of government? It sounds like you must have more to that statement.
You might also want to be careful about classifying the Pakistani people as "a people group that only listens to bullets zipping by their heads."
10. Katie P. had the following to say on Dec 31 at 7:19 AM:
Benazir Bhutto has long been a propentent of democracy in Pakistan. Her death is a tragedy, and I pray for her family and friends durig this time.
That being said, by most accounts, this was not a woman of God. The "controversy" surrounding her personal integrity is not very controversial in Pakistan or the surrounding countries. She is seen as a crook who was stealing from her own already impoverished nation. She had few real supporters in Pakistan, and her recent return was only tolerated by most of the Pakistani people when put in contrast with Musharraf's terrors.
11. John had the following to say on Dec 31 at 2:46 PM:
Our country is obviously not going to stop involvement with the internal affairs of other countries. To think otherwise is naive. Therefore, we should support the leaders that are going to be most successful with keeping the nukes from the bad guys. That would be exactly what Musharraf is doing.
Our country gives millions of dollars to help Russia and the Palestinian government (a terrorist organization) We have to be realistic about our foreign policy.
Samuel PG you might want to be careful when you read and not make statements to other posters about being careful to not do something they didn't do.
Now, that being said, would you like to show where in my post I characterized the Pakistani people the way you say?
I will give you hint: It's not there, because I didn't.
12. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Dec 31 at 5:34 PM:
I not only lament the assassination, but the reality that in general Americans are not interested in international news. If you look at many other foreign news networks (most notably in Europe and Asia) there is a lot of coverage of countries which are not their own. In fact the only American news show really to put an appropriate amount of time into international news is PBS' "News Hour with Jim Lehrer".
A lot of Americans also are ignorant of how much foreign aid we give to other countries and why, and what the State department is doing.
Finally, there are no "democratic" governments in the world. There never has been since ancient Greece. What we do have are Republics (i.e. representative governments).
And I have come to the notion that we ought not to spend too much time wondering if X or Y event is an "end-time" catalyst. Christians have been looking at signs ever since Christ ascended into heaven. From the destruction of Jerusalem, to the Crusades, to WWII, to the Cold War, to Desert Storm. It's nothing new. The only one which would really garner my interest is the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem on the hill which currently a Muslim mosque resides.
13. John had the following to say on Jan 1 at 7:26 AM:
What I wish I could say so well:
As Burke reminded us, "It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Some people just don't know how to handle freedom and democracy, being so evil, would only advance faster the mass's passions.
While the best course of action would be not to interfere with another countries internal affairs, if we are going to, we should support the one with the will to keep control.
14. John had the following to say on Jan 1 at 7:31 AM:
It is a little ridiculous to think that two countries with nukes, who are neighbors, would have an all out land war.
15. Adam T. had the following to say on Jan 1 at 11:50 AM:
And I have come to the notion that we ought not to spend too much time wondering if X or Y event is an "end-time" catalyst.
Yeah. Especially since most of Revelation has already happened.
16. Jethro had the following to say on Jan 1 at 2:52 PM:
John,
If America can spend its time meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, don't they have the same right to meddle in American internal affairs? Somehow I don't think you'd like that so much. Oh, and for what it's worth, non-intervention in the internal (or external) affairs of another country is actually one of the fundamental tenets of the UN Charter and international law. Which means the US is acting illegally when they do these things.
Farmer Tom,
I almost fainted when I read your comment because I actually agreed with you. Until I got to the last sentence. I don't think converting the Middle East to Christianity will solve the problem. Can you explain why you think it will and on what basis you believe this?
17. John had the following to say on Jan 1 at 5:32 PM:
Unless the US national government does something that violates the US CONSTITUTION, then it is not doing anything illegal.
The UN has no jurisdiction over us. Some people are just too dense to get that, especially liberally indoctrinated 18-24 year olds.
I agree we should not involve ourselves in others internal affairs. The problem is, what should be and is are two different things. We should not support democracy, we should support security. Bush's Wilsonian crusades and those like it will only cause us more problems.
But, alas, the world is doomed. Thanks be to God, though, the elect will rejoice in glory!
18. Andrew (tlw) had the following to say on Jan 1 at 5:40 PM:
Bhutto was a millionaire socialist adept at influencing perceptions through careful use of the mainstream media. Michael Backman put it like this:
“That one shouldn't speak ill of the dead is conventional wisdom but conventional wisdom usually turns out to be an oxymoron. And so the dead Benazir Bhutto is now the "former prime minister of Pakistan" rather than "the fugitive facing corruption investigations in Spain, Britain and Switzerland" that she was a fortnight ago.
“Corruption aside, Bhutto showed a remarkably cavalier disregard for the lives of even her own supporters. Guns of any make, either genuine or cheap local rip-offs, are freely available in Pakistan. The use of bombs has also become more widespread.
“So when Bhutto arrived back in Pakistan in October, rather than being whisked by helicopter amid tight security from the airport to wherever she needed to be, she had her party organisers bus in 200,000 people to the route from the airport so the world's television cameras could record her glorious return. The route was lengthened to heighten the drama of the procession.
“It all served to give those with murderous intent greater opportunity. Bhutto was safe inside her bombproof vehicle. But outside, almost 140 of her supporters were blown to bits by two bombs and another 450 injured. Bhutto directed the blame to anyone but herself.
“This recklessness extended to herself last week when, having been provided with a bulletproof car, she stood up through its sunroof on leaving a political rally - with predictable results. But martyrdom is a wonderful way to launder one's reputation. If saintliness is what you're after, then it's certainly a good career move - you can emerge a saviour unhindered by the practicalities of having to deliver, leaving your supporters to wistfully imagine what might have been.
“Except that Bhutto was twice put to the test. Twice she was prime minister of Pakistan, twice she was shown to be a poor administrator and twice her government was removed for corruption.
“Bhutto did have her plusses. She was a democrat. But politics in most of Asia is about power: getting it and keeping it. Rarely is it about policy. Bhutto liked democracy because it was the only means by which she could get into power. Her family was not a military family so a coup was out of the question.
“And although from the province of Sindh, she clearly sought to represent and govern all Pakistan - her interest was in transcending ethnic and regional divides. She was a Pakistani above all, something few politicians in Pakistan actually are, or are seen to be.
“The trouble is, she was most probably corrupt and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, definitely was. Bhutto made him a minister during her second term as prime minister. But once she was out of office, he was arrested on charges of organising the murder of Bhutto's brother, Murtaza, blackmail, the murder of a judge and his son, and corruption, for which he was jailed. He has always maintained that the charges were politically motivated, which undoubtedly they were. But the motivations of one's accusers do not change the facts of one's crimes.
“A 1998 New York Times report claimed that Pakistani investigators had evidence that Zardari offered a contract to Dassault, a French aircraft maker, to replace the Pakistani Air Force's fighter jets, in exchange for a 5% commission to be paid to a Swiss corporation he controlled.
“The same report also said Zardari had organised for a Dubai company to have the exclusive licence to import gold into Pakistan, for which he received more than $10 million in "fees". Other allegations relate to the purchase of 7000 tractors from a Polish company, for which the Bhuttos were allegedly paid a commission.
“In 2003, a Swiss magistrate convicted Zardari and Bhutto, in their absence, of money laundering. They had accepted $US15 million in bribes from Swiss companies SGS and Cotecna to do customs inspections on goods imported into Pakistan. The couple had the Swiss companies pay 6% of the value of their contracts into Bomer Finance Inc and Nassam Overseas, two British Virgin Islands-registered companies with which they were linked. The two were sentenced to six months in prison and ordered to return almost $US12 million to the Government of Pakistan.
“Bhutto appealed against the conviction on the basis that she had no knowledge of the payments despite having been shown to be a beneficiary of at least one of the BVI companies. The case is still under appeal. But why did Bhutto imagine she could be prime minister of a country of 160 million people if she could not even manage her husband? Either she was corrupt or incompetent, but probably both.
“In 2004, Zardari admitted owning a £4.35 million estate in Surrey, England - that included a 20-room mansion - that the Pakistani authorities allege was probably bought with the proceeds of corruption in 1995. A British judge concurred.
“In 2005, the Independent Inquiry Commission, led by former US Federal Reserve head Paul Volcker, named Petroline FZC among the companies to have breached UN sanctions by making illegal payments to Saddam Hussein's regime so it could trade in Iraqi oil. Documents suggest that Bhutto chaired the company. They might be fake but the company is connected to her associates. Spanish authorities are investigating the affairs of the company, which received $US2 million in illegal payments.
“Anti-corruption officials with Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau claimed to have identified $US1.5 billion in the names of Zardari and Bhutto's mother - who has Alzheimer's disease - in Swiss bank accounts. And so, in 2006, Interpol issued a request for the arrest of Bhutto and her husband on corruption charges, on behalf of the Pakistani Government.
“Did Pakistan really need a third Bhutto-Zardari prime ministership? Undoubtedly there will now be the movie and perhaps an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical (Don't Cry for me Pakistan). But at the end of the day, a thief in lipstick is still a thief.
www.michaelbackman.com
19. BDB had the following to say on Jan 1 at 11:35 PM:
All governments must balance legitimacy and control. The more legitimate a government, the more willing people are to submit to control. Part of what creates legitimacy is when a government takes care of the needs of it's citizens - prevents famine, etc. Corrupt governments tend to focus on rewarding their supporters and letting everyone else rot. The thing that makes American democracy so resilient is that there are more than 89,000 elected offices in the country - each of which has a little piece of soveriegnty. If the elected dog catcher picks up the governor's dog running loose, the governor has to pay the dog's license fee like everyone else. It is only with the the reasonable assurance of peaceful change that people at large won't tolerate political violence.
20. John had the following to say on Jan 2 at 7:01 AM:
America is NOT a democracy!