El Correo Ilustrado

Denuncian ecocidio en Tampico

El 6 de diciembre, integrantes de la otra campaña en el sur de Tamaulipas, junto con jóvenes y ciudadanos de diferentes segmentos sociales, iniciamos un plantón en la Laguna del Carpintero protestando por la decisión del señor Azcárraga López, presidente municipal de Tampico, de realizar la destrucción de manglares en dicha laguna, el pulmón ecológico más importante del puerto.

El ecocidio iniciado en días pasados, forma parte de un plan más amplio en la Laguna del Carpintero, consistente en hacer uso de más de 15 hectáreas para materializar un megaproyecto “turístico” que prevee la construcción de un centro comercial, un acuario y un hotel, que por su naturaleza desarticulan de manera violenta los ecosistemas de la región, además de perfilar la polararización entre los futuros visitantes turísticos y los habitantes de las colonias populares que residen en el entorno.




El terreno mencionado era propiedad de Pemex. En 1992 fue entregado a un fideicomiso pro Laguna del Carpintero del que el edil sólo es una de las partes; sin embargo, de manera discrecional inició la tala de manglares, afectando a diferentes especies animales, entre las que se encuentran mapaches, iguanas, aves migratorias y estacionarias, reptiles y lagartos que configuran un invaluable patrimonio de la ciudad, por lo que comenzamos una consulta para definir “sí o no” al magaproyecto unipersonal, cerrando el viernes pasado con 5 mil 4 votos contra él, contra 20 en favor.

La madrugada del 29 de diciembre el plantón fue desalojado con la brutalidad que caracteriza a la policía metropolitana de la región, con un saldo de 14 privaciones de la libertad durante tres horas y media, destrucción de materiales y urnas, sumado a vejaciones contra los detenidos.

Ante estos hechos, llamamos a la solidaridad de los defensores del medio ambiente y la sustentabilidad verdadera,y responzabilizamos a Fernando Azcárraga López del ecocidio en la zona, de la integridad de los manifestantes, así como de la puesta en marcha de un proyecto en terrenos públicos que sólo beneficia a un grupo empresarial y cierra uno de los espacios de esparcimiento popular más valorados por la comunidad de nuestro puerto.

Karina Macías, Jorge Alcalá, Luis Alexander Gama, Víctor Vargas, Víctor Alcalá, Luis Eduardo Hernández, Elvis Bravo, Ana María Vera, Salvador Herrera, Emanuel Martínez, Eduardo Nava, Zaire Diego, Norberto Sosa y Rey Zepeda

My heart bleeds for Pakistan. It deserves better than this grotesque feudal charade

By Tariq Ali, Pakistan-born writer, broadcaster and commentator
Published: 31 December 2007

Six hours before she was executed, Mary, Queen of Scots wrote to her brother-in-law, Henry III of France: "...As for my son, I commend him to you in so far as he deserves, for I cannot answer for him." The year was 1587.

On 30 December 2007, a conclave of feudal potentates gathered in the home of the slain Benazir Bhutto to hear her last will and testament being read out and its contents subsequently announced to the world media. Where Mary was tentative, her modern-day equivalent left no room for doubt. She could certainly answer for her son.

A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of the most venal and discredited politicians in the country and still facing corruption charges in three European courts) and two ciphers will run the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, comes of age. He will then become chairperson-for-life and, no doubt, pass it on to his children. The fact that this is now official does not make it any less grotesque. The Pakistan People's Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader.

Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval charade.

Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her own life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, even later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election she might still have been alive. Her last gift to the country does not augur well for its future.

How can Western-backed politicians be taken seriously if they treat their party as a fiefdom and their supporters as serfs, while their courtiers abroad mouth sycophantic niceties concerning the young prince and his future.

That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party democracy was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and principled politicians inside the party, but they have been sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the Kennedys, but chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite an addiction to big money, was not the instrument of any one family.

The issue of democracy is enormously important in a country that has been governed by the military for over half of its life. Pakistan is not a "failed state" in the sense of the Congo or Rwanda. It is a dysfunctional state and has been in this situation for almost four decades.

At the heart of this dysfunctionality is the domination by the army and each period of military rule has made things worse. It is this that has prevented political stability and the emergence of stable institutions. Here the US bears direct responsibility, since it has always regarded the military as the only institution it can do business with and, unfortunately, still does so. This is the rock that has focused choppy waters into a headlong torrent.

The military's weaknesses are well known and have been amply documented. But the politicians are not in a position to cast stones. After all, Mr Musharraf did not pioneer the assault on the judiciary so conveniently overlooked by the US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, and the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. The first attack on the Supreme Court was mounted by Nawaz Sharif's goons who physically assaulted judges because they were angered by a decision that ran counter to their master's interests when he was prime minister.

Some of us had hoped that, with her death, the People's Party might start a new chapter. After all, one of its main leaders, Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the Bar Association, played a heroic role in the popular movement against the dismissal of the chief justice. Mr Ahsan was arrested during the emergency and kept in solitary confinement. He is still under house arrest in Lahore. Had Benazir been capable of thinking beyond family and faction she should have appointed him chairperson pending elections within the party. No such luck.

The result almost certainly will be a split in the party sooner rather than later. Mr Zardari was loathed by many activists and held responsible for his wife's downfall. Once emotions have subsided, the horror of the succession will hit the many traditional PPP followers except for its most reactionary segment: bandwagon careerists desperate to make a fortune.

All this could have been avoided, but the deadly angel who guided her when she was alive was, alas, not too concerned with democracy. And now he is in effect leader of the party.

Meanwhile there is a country in crisis. Having succeeded in saving his own political skin by imposing a state of emergency, Mr Musharraf still lacks legitimacy. Even a rigged election is no longer possible on 8 January despite the stern admonitions of President George Bush and his unconvincing Downing Street adjutant. What is clear is that the official consensus on who killed Benazir is breaking down, except on BBC television. It has now been made public that, when Benazir asked the US for a Karzai-style phalanx of privately contracted former US Marine bodyguards, the suggestion was contemptuously rejected by the Pakistan government, which saw it as a breach of sovereignty.

Now both Hillary Clinton and Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are pinning the convict's badge on Mr Musharraf and not al-Qa'ida for the murder, a sure sign that sections of the US establishment are thinking of dumping the President.

Their problem is that, with Benazir dead, the only other alternative for them is General Ashraf Kiyani, head of the army. Nawaz Sharif is seen as a Saudi poodle and hence unreliable, though, given the US-Saudi alliance, poor Mr Sharif is puzzled as to why this should be the case. For his part, he is ready to do Washiongton's bidding but would prefer the Saudi King rather than Mr Musharraf to be the imperial message-boy.

A solution to the crisis is available. This would require Mr Musharraf's replacement by a less contentious figure, an all-party government of unity to prepare the basis for genuine elections within six months, and the reinstatement of the sacked Supreme Court judges to investigate Benazir's murder without fear or favour. It would be a start.

HAVE YOUR SAY on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Is Tariq Ali right to criticise the 'feudal charade' that seen Benazir Bhutto's son installed as her successor? Let us know what you think. Email haveyoursay@ independent.co.uk or go to www.independent.co.uk/haveyoursay

Previous comments

For Bhutto to stand in a stationary, open-topped vehicle basking in the adulation of her supporters, knowing full well that dedicated assassins were all around her, directly invited the inevitable event. To suggest that Musharraf is in any way responsible for these events is ludicrous. Not only did he have a vested political interest in keeping her alive for an election that would have fully legitimised his presidency, but her death seriously impedes his chances of maintaining the stability his regime so desperately needs.

Richard Morley

Bhutto was not perfect, and Bush only praised her because she was prepared to allow American troops across the border into Pakistan. As a Pakistani, I can say that most people think Musharraf had something to do with it. The military run Pakistan. This could not have taken place at the heart of the military without someone knowing about it before hand.

The Guerrilla

Pakistan's government has acquired an "intelligence intercept" that says al-Qa'ida is responsible for the murder ... and yet nothing was intercepted that could have helped prevent this attack.

Viviane from Canada

No one or nothing can protect a person when they choose to expose themselves out of a sun roof is such surroundings, bulletproof car or not.

Midnight's Child

Moving targets keep low-carbon economy on the back burner

Government's scorecard on combating climate change doesn't add up

#
#

* Ashley Seager, economics correspondent
* The Guardian,
* Monday December 31 2007

As we look back on the past year and look forward to the next, there are clearly huge challenges for our economy. The housing market, consumer spending and economic growth look poised on the edge of a pretty steep drop, and there is a growing chance of a recession.

But Gordon Brown - and before him Tony Blair - have stressed that the biggest challenge of our time is the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Professor Nick Stern recommended in his report this year that rich countries start spending at least 1% of their gross domestic product to combat climate change. That's roughly £13bn a year. The United Nations has since gone further and talked of 1.6% of GDP to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases.

The government has committed Britain to a legally binding target to cut carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. This year the EU set a very demanding requirement that countries increase their share of energy produced from renewables such as wind, solar and biomass to 20% by 2020.

Bold targets and grand intentions are one thing - meeting them is quite another. Emissions have risen during the last decade under this Labour government. So it is a question not just of reducing carbon, but of arresting a rising trend. Not only that, but Britain has so far achieved very little. We have one of the lowest shares of renewable energy (about 2%) in the European Union, one tenth of the wind power and 1/250th of the solar power that the German firms have produced.

The government's response was to cut grants it was offering households to install renewable energy systems through its low-carbon buildings programme (LCBP). The result was entirely predictable - take-up of grants collapsed and installations of solar panels and micro-generators slowed right down. Renewables companies - employing about 25,000 - were forced to lay off staff.

In Germany, 25,000 jobs were created in the industry this year. Not a high score for the government here, either.

The Germans have a "feed-in tariff" (Fit) which guarantees generous payments to households that install micro-generation equipment and sell the surplus electricity to the grid. Electricity companies have to buy the power and share the cost among all their customers. The additional cost is not high and the Germans are building a huge new industry on the back of it.

Debacle

Nearly 50 other countries have introduced a Fit but, in spite of a growing campaign here, and a commitment to one from the Conservatives and LibDems, the government shows no sign of listening. It prefers its renewables obligation scheme - where electricity suppliers must source an annually increasing proportion of power from renewable sources - in spite of academic work showing it is more expensive and less efficient than a Fit. The renewables obligation has boosted onshore wind power, but little else. The government plans to alter it to promote other renewables, but only from 2009, so its score this year on that front is low.

After the LCBP debacle, things got worse. In the summer, the Guardian revealed that officials were advising ministers that as the UK had no hope of meeting the 2020 EU target, they should work to undermine the target at EU level. That is a nought out of 10.

Brown, of course, appeared to ride to the rescue last month, being widely reported to have recommitted Britain to the 2020 20% renewables target. Except he didn't. He committed the UK to ensuring the EU met the target as a whole on average. That would still give Britain leeway to under-achieve if other countries, such as Germany, exceed the target. Luckily, the European commission says Britain will have to play its full part, especially as it is one of the EU's richest members.

Over the year, too, we have had the ongoing debate about the Merton rule, named after the London borough of Merton. Introduced in 2003, it requires that developers incorporate renewable energy production equipment on site to deliver at least 10% of a new building's energy. Over 100 councils have since adopted it and the Greater London Authority increased the minimum requirement to 20%. But builders, who don't like the extra costs, have campaigned against it, urging more off-site renewables.

The Department of Communities and Local Government under Hazel Blears released a planning policy statement before Christmas backing the rule again, though councils are seeking clarification. The Merton rule matters because it has been the main driver of renewable energy in Britain while central government has dithered.

Blears has a bold policy requiring that all new homes are zero-carbon by 2016, which deserves a high mark for ambition. But delivery will be a problem. Her department's renewables advisory board warned this month that meeting the 2016 target required a huge step-up in renewables use now. Given the LCBP shambles and lack of a feed-in tariff, Merton is the best hope and gets a high mark too, as long as it is extended and accelerated.

This month business secretary John Hutton announced a grand intention to build 33 gigawatts of offshore wind power capacity by 2020, up from about 1GW now. That was branded hopelessly optimistic by experts who said it was timed to impress ministers gathered at the UN's climate summit in Bali rather than to signal genuine intent.

Finally, Brown said this month that government departments will have to factor a notional price for carbon, starting at £25.50 a tonne, into all decisions governing transport, construction, housing, planning and energy.

This sounds promising, but we will have to wait and see whether road-widening schemes and new airport runways will be curbed, or whether the plan is really a way to allow more nuclear power stations to be built. So, too early to put a score on this.

It is hard to say that Britain has made much progress towards a low-carbon economy this year. Even a kind reading of the government's report card would conclude "must try harder" and its overall mark for achievement would be very low. Let's hope for better in 2008.

4.30pm GMT update

130 killed in Kenyan election violence

Xan Rice in Nairobi and Haroon Siddique
Monday December 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The death toll from violent clashes in Kenya has today risen to more than 130.

Violence erupted after the ruling president, Mwai Kibaki, declared himself victorious in disputed elections and was sworn back into office almost immediately.

Some of the worst clashed took place in Kisumu, the country's third-largest city and a stronghold of the opposition.

A morgue attendant told the AFP news agency that police had brought in 46 bodies, including three women and two children, overnight. He said more than 20 of the dead had multiple bullet wounds.

Reporters were shown seven other bodies in Kisumu's main hospital before they were transferred to the morgue.

Police, who have imposed a 6am to 6pm curfew in Kisumu, admitted opening fire on looters but would not comment on any deaths.

A police official in the capital, Nairobi, told AFP that 40 people had been killed overnight.

Protesters clashed with hundreds of riot police in the city's slums, and witness told reporters that 15 bodies were today scattered in different parts of the Korogocho area.

Three police told the Associated Press they had orders to shoot to kill. They said the orders had split the force, with many officers sympathising with protesters.

The opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, has dismissed the presidential vote as rigged.

Kibaki, who today vowed to "deal decisively" with voters, was sworn in for a second five-year term after the results were announced last night.

He had trailed in all opinion polls and all but the final count yesterday.

The UK Foreign Office advised Britons against all but essential travel to several parts of Kenya, including Nairobi city centre and some districts of Mombasa.

Ten people died in the Rift Valley provincial capital, Nakuru, and clashes between rival supporters in a village near Kapsabet left four dead, police said.

Two people were killed in Molo, and doctors in Kakamega, western Kenya's regional capital, said six had died from gunshot wounds.

The violence also spread to Mombasa, the eastern port which is Kenya's second largest city and had been previously been relatively free of unrest.

Six members of Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe were hacked to death with machetes by members of rival tribes who were looting their businesses, police said.

There were also clashes in Kibera - the capital and Kenya's biggest slum - today.

Police tried to stop Odinga's supporters leaving the area, and the protesters attempted to keep officers out. Thousands of young men on the streets chanted: "No Raila, no peace."

Supporters of Odinga burned cars, barricaded the slum and torched the Poi market, in which most stalls are owned by people from the Kikuyu ethnic group, of which Kibaki is a member.

Police used teargas and fired bullets into the air as Odinga supporters tried to leave the area for a planned parallel swearing-in ceremony at which the opposition leader was to adopt the title of "people's president".

The planned rally was later postponed until Thursday, when the opposition leader predicts that 1 million people will attend. "We are calling for mass action, peaceful mass action," he told reporters.

Kibaki was given 4,584,721 votes to the 4,352,993 tally for Odinga.

Odinga, a fiery former political prisoner, rejected the result, claiming rigging by the government and comparing Kibaki to the notorious Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.

"There is no difference between him and Idi Amin and other military dictators who have seized power through the barrel of the gun," he said.

A joint statement by the British Foreign Office and the Department for International Development cited "real concerns" over irregularities, while international observers refused to declare the election free and fair.

The EU's chief observer, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, said that, in one constituency, his monitors had seen official results for Kibaki that were 25,000 votes lower than the figure subsequently announced by the electoral commission.

"Because of this and other observed irregularities, doubt remains as to the accuracy of the result of the presidential election as announced today," he added.

The US, which cooperates closely with the Kibaki government on anti-terrorism matters, initially congratulated the president on his re-election but today withdrew its acclaim.

"We do have serious concerns, as I know others do, about irregularities in the vote count, and we think it's important that those concerns ... be resolved through constitutional and legal means," the US state department spokesman, Tom Casey, said.

http://mediacenter.corriere.it/MediaCenter/action/player?uuid=ba71b9d6-b6f4-11dc-976f-0003ba99c667&rcsrid=vaschettaMC_corriere_1

Le più importanti notizie del 2007 in Italia

Dalla morte di Raciti al rogo della Thyssen

Entrevista a Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, profesora francesa de derecho constitucional

«Europa es consustancialmente anti-democrática»

por Silvia Cattori*

Los principales dirigentes y responsables políticos de la Unión Europea están dispuestos y se preparan a validar por la fuerza el Tratado de Lisboa, cuando un tratado idéntico a este texto fue rechazado por referéndum en los países miembros de esta misma Unión Europea y en donde una consultación popular fue organizada, como por ejemplo en Francia y Holanda. Por el simple hecho de proceder con métodos oligárquicos, a la Unión Europea no se le podrá considerar como una institución democrática, pero, como lo señala la profesora Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, el aspecto democrático nunca ha estado asegurado ni ha sido una realidad en esta Unión de países europeos.

Silvia Cattori: Durante la reunión del Comité Nacional por el Referéndum [1] que reunió en la tribuna a Jean-Pierre Chevènement y NicolasDupont-Aignan [2], usted pronunció unas palabras duras, unas palabras sorprendentes. Calificó de «alta traición de golpe de Estado» el hecho de que el presidente Sarkozy quiera ratificar el «tratado modificativo» por la vía parlamentaria. ¿Indica esto que Francia se encuentra en una situación de una gravedad excepcional y que no sólo se ven concernidos los ciudadanos franceses sino también los europeos? ¿Significa que se trata de un debate importante que debe dejar de lado las decisiones políticas?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: Desde luego, se trata de un acto muy grave que demuestra claramente que las incesantes referencias de los tratados europeos a los valores democráticos son una hipocresía porque esta Europa tecnocrática y confiscadora sólo se puede hacer en contra la voluntad de los pueblos.

Europa es consustancialmente anti-democrática, nos la quieren imponer por la buenas o por las malas. Nosotros [los franceses] no somos el primer pueblo de cuya voluntad se han mofado, los irlandeses y los daneses también se han visto obligados a volver a votar hasta que han dicho sí.

Pero en nuestro caso el cinismo es mucho peor porque nos niegan incluso el derecho a volver a votar imponiéndonos una ratificación parlamentaria. Toda democracia, sea soberanista o federalista, debería levantarse contra semejante felonía.

Silvia Cattori: El 29 de mayo 2005 el pueblo francés rechazó el proyecto de constitución europea con un 55 % de votos. ¿ Desde entonces el proyecto no ha sido mejorado? ¿No se han suprimido las disposiciones de la Constitución Europea que eran el objeto de protesta?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: Por supuesto que no. Sólo han quitado los términos de constitución y de ley, así como los símbolos (bandera, himno). No es algo anodino porque demuestra que los eurócratas han comprendido la motivación anti-federalista de los ciudadanos franceses, pero todo lo demás del tratado se encuentra en el nuevo texto.

El proceder que consiste en no integrar ya la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales en el propio tratado sino en conferirle un valor apremiante o incluso la sustitución de la referencia expresa a la primacía del derecho europeo por una mención de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal que plantea esta primacía, constituyen otras tantas supercherías destinadas a engañar a los ciudadanos y a burlarse de ellos.

La versión consolidada de los tratados tal como ha sido redactada bajo la dirección de un diputado francés y que consta de 281 páginas, demuestra hasta qué se ha copiado íntegramente punto el Tratado Constitucional. ¡Incluso la ridícula disposición del artículo III-121 del TCE sobre el «bienestar de los animales en tanto que seres sensibles» lo volvemos a encontrar en el artículo 13 del nuevo tratado sobre el funcionamiento de la Unión!

Dado que todas las disposiciones del TCE habían sido criticada a uno u otro título y que el «no» francés se refería a la integridad del texto, no vemos cómo el presidente Sarkozy podía pretender conservar los elementos «no contestados». Se trata de algo completamente arbitrario y dictatorial.

Silvia Cattori: ¿Cuáles son las disposiciones más importantes que por medio de este «mini-tratado» se han impuesto así a los franceses en contra de la voluntad que habían expresado?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: En este tratado todo es muy importante. La designación del presidente de la Unión por dos años, la política extranjera y su ministro disfrazado a partir de ahora de «alto representante», la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales tan alejada del espíritu de la Declaración de los Derechos Humanos y del Ciudadano de 1789 y, sobre todo, la extensión sin precedentes de la regla de la mayoría cualificada que acompaña a la supresión de los «pilares». La transferencia de soberanía es colosal.

Silvia Cattori: ¿Es verdad que se verán reforzados los poderes del Parlamento?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: Es una ventaja muy insignificante en un sistema en el que la iniciativa legislativa es monopolizada por una comisión independiente de los gobiernos y, por consiguiente, de los parlamentos ante los que estos gobiernos son responsables.

El Consejo Constitucional francés no se ha equivocado al afirmar que el Parlamento de Estrasburgo no es «la emanación de la soberanía nacional». Conociendo, además, la composición mediocre y la organización ubuesca del Parlamento Europeo, el reforzamiento de su poder no es muy tranquilizador.

Silvia Cattori: ¿Cómo se explica que esta mayoría de franceses que había votado no a la Constitución [Europea] en 2005 haya votado sí a la elección de Sarkozy sabiendo que éste no tendría en cuenta aquel no al proyecto?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: Por una parte, Sarkozy simplemente anunció un «mini-tratado» que se limitaría a «permitir a la Unión Europea funcionar» de tal modo que se podía imaginar una simple mejora de las reglas de voto en el Consejo; por otra parte, no se puede confundir la respuesta a una pregunta hecha en referendum y la opción de un candidato a una elección.

¿Cómo quiere usted que un elector de derecha, convencido además de que Ségolène Royal es una perfecta incompetente, pueda votarla simplemente porque promete (con la boca chica) un nuevo referendum, cuando ella también apoyó el «sí» a la Constitución Europea? Hace mucho tiempo que los socialistas franceses han hecho de Europa su fondo de comercio y lo menos que se puede decir es que ni Ségolène Royal ni François Bayrou podrían ser una alternativa creíble en este aspecto. Para muchos el voto a Sarkozy ha sido un voto por defecto.

Silvia Cattori: El jueves 13 de diciembre los jefes de Estado y de gobierno de los veintisiete países miembros de la Unión Europea firmaron el tratado. Sarkozy está determinado a hacerlo ratificar por la vía parlamentaria antes de finales de febrero. En su opinión, ¿qué podría hacer fracasar este «golpe de Estado»? ¿Qué medios tiene el pueblo francés de imponer la vía del referendum? ¿De qué modo el derecho constitucional puede todavía reconsiderar todo?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: No tenemos ningún recurso jurídico porque la Constitución francesa no prohíbe, como la californiana, modificar una ley relativa a un referendum por medio de una ley parlamentaria. El Consejo Constitucional Francés tampoco ha hecho suya la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional italiano que impone un nuevo referendum para eludir la voluntad popular. Eventualmente, el Consejo Constitucional podría «constatar» que ambos tratados son prácticamente idénticos y «lamentar» que se ignore la voluntad popular, pero no puede sancionarla.

Por consiguiente, sólo nos queda contar o bien con la movilización popular, o bien con un rechazo parlamentario de la revisión constitucional. En efecto, el proyecto de revisión debe ser adoptado por una mayoría de las tres quintas partes de los sufragios expresados en el Congreso (reunión de la Asamblea Nacional y del Senado en Versailles).

Silvia Cattori: Si después de haberla discutido en la Asamblea Nacional y en el Senado la revisión constitucional es aprobada por las tres quintas partes de los sufragios expresados, ¿nada se podrá oponer ya al establecimiento de este tratado?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: No. 60 diputados o 60 senadores todavía podrán diferir al Consejo Constitucional la ley autorizando la ratificación del tratado, pero no hay ninguna posibilidad de que el recurso tenga éxito.

Silvia Cattori: ¿Qué se ha previsto para salir del impasse en caso de sorpresa, en caso de que Irlanda rechace el tratado?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: Seguramente, ¡hacer votar otra vez a los irlandeses!, ¡así va Europa!

Silvia Cattori: Si finalmente este tratado es impuesto y si, como afirma usted, en la manera de proceder hay «doble golpe de Estado», tanto Sarkozy como los jefes de Estado y de gobierno de los veintisiete países miembro de la Unión Europea ¿no tendrán acaso que explicarse tarde o temprano en relación a su «traición»?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: Por lo que se refiere a Francia, el presidente Sarkozy tendrá que explicar muchas cosas. Pero la sanción electoral solo puede desempañar un papel cuando hay un candidato creíble, lo que todavía no es el caso en Francia. En todo caso, ¡en las elecciones municipales y legislativas sabremos acordarnos de los votos de nuestros parlamentarios!

Silvia Cattori: El 75 % de los ciudadanos europeos son favorables a un Referendum. Por consiguiente, ¿a los partidarios de éste les queda conseguir que el debate se abra y se amplíe cuanto antes a todos los países de la Unión Europea para denunciar esta denegación de la democracia?

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet: La movilización ciudadana me parece indispensable, aunque sólo sea para poner en evidencia a los traidores.

Merrill seeks more funds to avoid crisis

$4.4bn from Singapore's Temasek not enough

* James Doran in New York and Richard Wachman
* The Observer,
* Sunday December 30 2007

John Thain, the new chief executive of Merrill Lynch, is this weekend in talks with Chinese and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds that could lead to the sale of another big stake in the US bank in a desperate bid to raise capital, according to sources in London and New York.

The discussions come just days after Thain was forced on Christmas Eve to sell $4.4bn (£2.2bn) of stock to Singapore investment firm Temasek as part of a wider plan to raise some $7.5bn.

Merrill Lynch has already taken an $8bn hit related to sub-prime investments, but Wall Street fears that the bank's problems could go far deeper. 'Thain is desperately seeking an additional infusion of foreign capital to bolster Merrill's balance sheet,' said one source. 'It could be done by selling shares or other assets to raise cash.'

A US observer said: 'The multi-billion cash injection from Temasek was not enough and Thain is taking calls from a host of other potential saviours, which are understood to include sovereign fund investors from the Gulf and China.'

Analysts believe that Thain needs funds urgently in a bid to thwart future liquidity problems. The bank has already announced plans to lay off 1,600 staff. 'Thain is raising capital in anticipation of a large fourth quarter write-down,' said Sanford Bernstein analyst Brad Hintz.

Sources close to Merrill Lynch say that Thain has cancelled New Year leave among his top lieutenants and that his team is working around the clock on various 'scenarios' that could be employed to save the bank if problems related to the credit crunch continue to worsen.

'It is all hands to the pumps here,' the source said, adding that the possibility of exploring a merger with another banking group had not been ruled out but was considered 'an extreme scenario'. 'Everything is on the table,' he said.

Fears are mounting that Merrill Lynch will be forced to write down between $10bn and $15bn worth of assets related to CDOs - so called collateralised debt obligations - when it reports financial results next month. Stan O'Neal, the bank's former chief executive, was forced to resign when Merrill revealed write-downs in November.

Under strict new accounting rules enforced in 2004 by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wall Street banks are required to have certain levels of liquidity to match their obligations, just like ordinary high street banks. This has prompted the likes of Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and UBS to seek large cash injections from foreign investors amid the worsening credit crunch.

Aside from the $4.4bn share sale, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell its middle-market lending business, Merrill Lynch Capital, to GE Capital, freeing up $1.3bn in equity. The troubled banking group will also sell an additional $1.2bn worth of stock to Davis Selected Advisers.

Analysts have so far predicted that the bank will be forced to write down between $10bn and $11.5bn, but the value of the assets affected by the credit crunch is falling in value by the day as the market continues to seek a way out of one of the worst liquidity crises in history.

... LOUDER, I CAN'T hear you!!!

Los agentes trasladaban a tres sicarios para entregarlos a autoridades federales

Atrae la PGR caso de los siete policías de Zacatecas ejecutados por Los Zetas

García Medina exige mayor coordinación para contrarrestar acción de grupos criminales

Gustavo Castillo y Gerardo Flores (Reportero y corresponsal)

La Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) investigará la ejecución de los siete policías de Zacatecas, perpetrada la tarde del viernes frente al Hospital de Especialidades del municipio de Jerez por integrantes del grupo de sicarios conocido como Los Zetas, al tiempo que la gobernadora de la entidad, Amalia García Medina, demandó a las autoridades federales mayor coordinación para contrarrestar las acciones delictivas de los grupos criminales.

Funcionarios del gobierno federal revelaron que los siete uniformados fueron emboscados cuando trasladaban a Alejandro Gallegos López, Nicolás Pérez Alvarado y Jorge Hernández Pineda a la capital zacatecana, luego de que habían sido detenidos en el momento en que llevaban a un secuestrado.

En ese contexto, la versión obtenida por La Jornada es que los tres integrantes de Los Zetas permanecieron detenidos en instalaciones policiacas de Tlaltenango, y que se organizó su traslado a la capital zacatecana para su posterior entrega a autoridades federales.

Según los funcionarios entrevistados, el operativo policial estuvo integrado por alrededor de 50 elementos, dividido en tres células, para evitar cualquier intento de rescate de los tres delincuentes. Sin embargo, el convoy en que viajaba Jorge Hernández Pineda y sus dos secuaces fue interceptado por alrededor de 12 camionetas en las que viajaban más de 60 hombres fuertemente armados. El convoy policial sostuvo entonces un enfrentamiento con los sicarios del cártel del Golfo, que dejó un saldo de siete policías muertos.

La historia de los hechos empezó el pasado jueves, cuando Los Zetas secuestraron a una persona y fueron detectados por agentes de Tlaltenango.

En un primer choque, los integrantes del cártel del Golfo trataron de evitar ser capturados pero, al final, el secuestrado fue rescatado con vida, uno de los plagiarios resultó muerto y los otros tres delincuentes fueron trasladados a instalaciones policiacas de Tlaltenango. Según la información obtenida, la policía local planeó entregar a los tres sicarios a funcionarios federales ante la presunción de que estaban relacionados con la delincuencia organizada, pero falló el operativo de traslado.

Integrantes del cártel del Golfo que viajaban a bordo de las 12 camionetas, abatieron a tiros a siete uniformados y rescataron a dos de los tres detenidos, quedando en manos de los agentes únicamente Jorge Hernández Pineda.

Según reportes oficiales, desde 2005 grupos de sicarios al servicio del cártel del Golfo extendieron sus áreas de influencia de Tamaulipas y Nuevo León hacia Zacatecas, y ahora tienen redes de distribución de drogas, traslado de indocumentados y casas de seguridad (para casos de secuestro) en las zonas limítrofes con Jalisco, San Luis Potosí, Durango, Coahuila y Aguascalientes.

Respecto a lo sucedido en Jerez, la PGR informó que la Subprocuraduría de Investigación Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada (SIEDO) será la encargada de las investigaciones, y a petición del gobierno de Zacatecas ejerció la facultad de atracción.

La PGR empezó una averiguación previa, en la que se acumularon los delitos de homicidio, secuestro y violación a la Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos.

Jorge Hernández Pineda quedó a disposición de la SIEDO y rinde su declaración ministerial en la ciudad de México.

Por otra parte, García Medina condenó los hechos delictivos en los que perdieron la vida los siete agentes y exigió a las autoridades federales mayor coordinación para contrarrestar las acciones delictivas de los grupos criminales que operan en esa entidad.

“Reitero la necesitad de la coordinación total y absoluta para que México pueda ser un país seguro en el que se viva con tranquilidad”, dijo la mandataria estatal durante el homenaje de cuerpo presente a los elementos caídos, el cual se realizó en la sede de la Policía Ministerial.

Frente a elementos de la diversas corporaciones del estado, así como de familiares y amigos de los policías que perdieron la vida el pasado viernes 28, García Medina mencionó que su compromiso es “no parar un solo día para que no haya impunidad y que se aplique la ley a la delincuencia, de manera estricta y total”.

... Zeta-tecas.

Mediocracia contra democracia

El presidente de Ecuador, Rafael Correa, afirmó ayer que “los medios de comunicación de la derecha” intentan desestabilizar su gobierno, mediante una campaña de desprestigio que incluye las recientes denuncias por el presunto incumplimiento en el pago a los asistentes a un mitin de Alianza País, la fuerza política gobernante en esa nación sudamericana.

De manera significativa, esas acusaciones de los medios se dan en un contexto de disgusto creciente por parte de diversos sectores de la iniciativa privada en ese país, ante diversas medidas gubernamentales que trastocan sus intereses: ayer mismo, la Asamblea Constituyente de Ecuador aprobó una reforma tributaria que tiene como propósito reducir los altos niveles de evasión fiscal y retribuirá al erario aproximadamente 300 millones de dólares al año, pero que enfrenta el rechazo de los dueños de grandes compañías que ya no contarán con los mecanismos existentes para evitar el pago de impuestos; en el mismo sentido, el jefe del Ejecutivo ecuatoriano ha anunciado medidas para controlar los precios y frenar la especulación, así como un plan gubernamental para reducir las elevadas tasas de interés que se aplican a los créditos bancarios.

Con ese telón de fondo, las denuncias de los medios de comunicación ecuatorianos parecen obedecer, más que a un espíritu de denuncia ante las “prácticas de la partidocracia” –como definió el propio Correa al acarreo político–, a una lógica de defensa del empresariado consistente en la configuración de campañas mediáticas en contra de gobiernos nacionales que, como los de Venezuela, Bolivia y ahora Ecuador, no se han plegado a los designios del llamado Consenso de Washington o simplemente no suscriben a pie juntillas la doctrina del libre mercado. En los hechos, tales campañas constituyen embestidas descaradas de intereses privados –políticos y económicos– en contra de gobiernos democráticamente electos, pero son apuntaladas por una supuesta exaltación de valores democráticos y una pretendida defensa de las libertades y el bien común. De tal forma, los medios de comunicación, en su mayoría propiedad de grandes consorcios, tergiversan, desinforman, mienten abiertamente, para después escudarse en el derecho a la libertad de expresión, cuyos principales sensores, por lo general, son ellos mismos, al coartar la libertad de periodistas e informadores profesionales e imponerles líneas editoriales manipuladoras o bien el silencio.

Por su parte, México no ha estado ajeno a esta situación. Baste con recordar el cerco informativo que la mayoría de los medios de comunicación establecieron durante el conflicto poselectoral ante el movimiento social encabezado por el ex aspirante presidencial Andrés Manuel López Obrador y, más recientemente, la campaña de presiones, chantajes y mentiras emprendida por la Cámara de la Industria de la Radio y la Televisión, con las dos principales empresas televisivas del país a la cabeza, para impedir que el Congreso apruebe la supresión de la libre contratación de publicidad electoral en los medios electrónicos, contemplada dentro del marco de la reforma electoral. Pareciera que los dueños de los consorcios mediáticos, tanto en México como en Ecuador, han olvidado que son simples concesionarios de un bien público –el espectro radioeléctrico, extensión del territorio nacional– y que, por tanto, no deben hacen uso de él para ejercer un poder fáctico ilegítimo y antidemocrático.

En suma, a la vista del conflicto con los medios que parece avecinarse con las declaraciones del presidente Rafael Correa, viene a confirmarse una realidad exasperante y cada vez más recurrente en América Latina: que cualquiera que no acepte acatar los intereses de la iniciativa privada será juzgado por la mediocracia.

Guillermo Almeyra

El año de las fieras heridas

Termina el año con George Bush El Asiático empantanado irremediablemente en Irak y con otro desastre creciente en Afganistán, donde grupos tribales y feudales puestos en el poder por Washington aportan hoy 95 por ciento del opio que consumen los países que dicen estar en guerra contra el terrorismo y el narcotráfico.

En Asia, además, crecen hoy exponencialmente las economías india y china (que ignoraron las recetas del Fondo Monetario Internacional y del Banco Mundial). China se ha convertido en el primer exportador mundial, principal sostén del dólar –en total crisis– y polo de atracción de todas las economías del sudeste asiático. Por si fuera poco, China y Rusia han firmado un pacto militar (Washington siempre quiso separarlas y oponerlas), al cual se han unido India, Kazajstán, Azerbaiyán y Uzbekistán (que Estados Unidos quiso convertir en semicolonias al invadir Afganistán para controlar el petróleo del mar Caspio y la provisión de combustible al semicontinente indopaquistaní). Por otro lado, la invasión a Afganistán, en vez de ayudar a controlar el enorme territorio euroasiático y aislar a Rusia, en un extremo, China, en el otro, e Irán, en el sur, juntó a esos tres países y encerró por todos lados a Afganistán, con el resultado secundario –pero importante– de que el gobierno militar paquistaní se tambalea y difícilmente pueda ser sustituido por un gobierno civil proestadunidense, no sólo por el asesinato de Benazir Bhutto, que era el recambio, sino también porque los paquistaníes odian a Musharraf, pero odian más al imperialismo que apoyó la dictadura y además es antislámico. Por otra parte, el intento de acorralar a Rusia, también en Europa, promoviendo gobiernos proestadunidenses en Georgia, Moldavia, Ucrania y países bálticos, tuvo como resultado despertar la resistencia rusa, que se vio favorecida por los altos precios del gas, el petróleo y el oro, como consecuencia de las aventuras yanquis en el Golfo.

Pero donde peor le ha ido a Estados Unidos es en el campo de su economía, altamente dependiente del comercio mundial, del costo de los combustibles y de la competitividad china, ya que la nación, aunque continúa siendo el primer mercado mundial y gran potencia militar, dejó de ser autosuficiente y omnipotente hace rato, y debe destinar constantemente billones de dólares a sostener su sistema financiero entrampado en la crisis de la especulación inmobiliaria. Estados Unidos está hoy a merced de una posible decisión monetaria china o de los grandes países petroleros, que podrían abandonar el dólar en sus reservas (como hace décadas hicieron con la libra esterlina) convirtiéndolas ahora en euros. Además, su llamado patio trasero es inseguro. El gobierno de México, ilegal e ilegítimo, se sostiene, por ejemplo, apoyándose en el gran capital y en la represión, pero enfrenta una creciente oposición y su principal “fuerza” consiste en que ésta está dispersa y la protesta indígena no coincide con la campesina ni ésta con la obrera y popular (como la oaxaqueña), ni tiene una propuesta alternativa ni un cauce político creíble, lo cual permite que Calderón desgaste a los ilusos que esperan un futuro cambio constitucional y electoral y golpee, aislándolos, a los antinstitucionales, que no supieron ni saben construir alianzas democráticas ni siquiera para defenderse de los golpes que vienen. Pero un ataque, por ejemplo contra las zonas zapatistas, serviría por sí mismo para superar diferencias y resquemores, y como en el caso de la APPO, pero a escala nacional, uniría a los simpatizantes de la otra campaña con sectores mucho más vastos, provenientes de otros sectores políticos y sociales, porque sería, como fueron los hechos en Oaxaca o en Atenco, un ataque contra todos. Centroamérica, al mismo tiempo, dejó de ser el paraíso que esperaba crear Washington tras el ataque a Panamá y la derrota de la revolución sandinista, y no porque Daniel Ortega sea un paladín antimperialista, sino porque Washington no tiene qué ofrecer a la región y Calderón es para los emigrantes centroamericanos lo que Bush es para los mexicanos que quieren ir a Estados Unidos. Por si fuera poco, el Caribe, ese lago interno de Estados Unidos desde principios del siglo anterior, empieza a entrar en la órbita de Venezuela, mientras la figura de Uribe –sobre todo ahora, con el caso de los rehenes– se esfuma como el gato de Alicia en el País de las Maravillas y la de Chávez, en cambio, se fortalece a pesar de sus recientes errores y traspiés. La situación sudamericana es tal, que dos gobiernos conservadores –los de Brasil y Argentina– no pueden llevar a cabo las recetas neoliberales y aprovechan la crisis de la hegemonía estadunidense para abrir espacios a sus respectivas burguesías, mientras gobiernos lacayos –el de Uruguay y el de Chile–, bajo la presión social, se ven obligados a la prudencia, y la revolución avanza –o al menos no retrocede– en Bolivia, Ecuador y en el movimiento social venezolano.

El 2008 agravará esta situación para las clases dominantes de Estados Unidos, entre otras cosas porque la crisis mundial coincidirá con la política en ese país y con las elecciones presidenciales de noviembre de ese año. La fiera herida es particularmente peligrosa, y si las cosas corriesen el riesgo de no ser ya controladas, Bush podría lanzar una nueva aventura en el Golfo aplicando los planes de ataque atómico contra Irán que tiene preparados desde hace más de tres años. Por eso es necesario unirse tras objetivos democráticos comunes y golpear antes contra sus aliados y sus intereses de modo de debilitarlo.

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/12/29/index.php?section=opinion&article=022a1mun

Robert Fisk
No culpan a Al Qaeda, culpan a Musharraf

Qué raro, ¿verdad? La forma en que rápidamente nos presentan la narración. Benazir Bhutto, la valerosa lideresa del Partido Popular de Pakistán (PPP), es asesinada en Rawalpindi, lugar pegado a la capital, Islamabad, donde vive el ex general Pervez Musharraf, y George W. Bush nos dice que sus asesinos eran “extremistas” y “terroristas”. Bueno, eso sí que no se puede refutar.

Pero la implicación del comentario de Bush era que islamitas están detrás del asesinato. Fueron nuevamente los locos talibanes, esa araña de Al Qaeda que atacó a esta mujer, sola y valiente, quien se atrevió a pedir democracia para su país.

Desde luego, dada la pueril cobertura de esta tragedia atroz, e independientemente de lo corrupta que pudo haber sido la señora Bhutto, no nos hagamos ilusiones de que esta valiente dama es ciertamente una verdadera mártir. No es sorpresa que el viejo caballito de batalla de “el bien contra el mal” sea expuesto de nuevo para explicar la carnicería en Rawalpindi.

A juzgar por lo que informaron el jueves la BBC y CNN, quién se hubiera imaginado que los dos hermanos de la ex primera ministra, Murtaza y Shahawaz, secuestraron un avión comercial paquistaní en 1981 y lo llevaron hasta Kabul, donde Murtaza exigió la excarcelación de prisioneros políticos de Pakistán. En el episodio, un oficial militar a bordo de la nave fue asesinado. Había estadunidenses entre los pasajeros, lo cual probablemente explica por qué todos los prisioneros fueron liberados.

Hace sólo unos días, en uno de los más notables pronunciamientos del año (y que, como es típico, fue ignorado), Tariq Ali publicó una brillante disección de la corrupción en Pakistán (incluyendo el gobierno de Bhutto) en la revista London Review of Books. Hizo énfasis en Benazir y la llamó en el encabezado “La hija de Occidente”. De hecho, el artículo estaba en mi escritorio, listo para ser fotocopiado, cuando su protagonista era asesinada en Rawalpindi.

Hacia el final de este análisis, Tariq Ali se dedicó largamente a detallar el asesinato de Murtaza Bhutto a manos de la policía, cerca de su domicilio, cuando Benazir era primera ministra y estaba furiosa con Murtaza porque éste exigía regresar a los valores tradicionales del PPP y la criticaba por haber nombrado a su propio marido como ministro de Industria, un puesto altamente lucrativo.

En un pasaje del análisis que sigue siendo vigente aún después del asesinato y sus consecuencias se afirma: “La bala fatal fue disparada a corta distancia. La trampa fue tendida, como se acostumbra en Pakistán, con una operación burda, reportes falsos en las bitácoras policiales, evidencias perdidas, testigos que fueron arrestados e intimidados, un policía asesinado porque se temía que hablara. Todo esto evidencia el hecho de que ejecutar al hermano de la primera ministra fue una decisión tomada a muy alto nivel”.

Cuando Fátima, la hija de 14 años de Murtaza, llamó por teléfono a su tía para preguntarle por qué estaban arrestando a testigos y no a los asesinos de su padre, ella afirma que Benazir le explicó: “Mira, eres demasiado joven. No entiendes las cosas”, o al menos eso nos dice Tariq Ali en su exposición.

Sobre todo esto, sin embargo, se cierne el asombroso poder de los Interservicios Secretos de Pakistán (ISI). Esta vasta, corrupta y brutal institución trabaja para Musharraf.

Pero también trabajó y aún trabaja para el talibán. También trabaja para Estados Unidos. De hecho, trabaja para todo el mundo. Pero es la llave que Musharraf puede utilizar para abrir conversaciones con los enemigos de Washington cuando él se siente amenazado o quiere presionar a Afganistán, o bien, aplacar a los “extremistas” y “terroristas” que tienen al presidente Bush tan consternado.

Recordemos, dicho sea de paso, que Daniel Pearl, el reportero del Wall Street Journal decapitado por sus captores islamitas en Karachi, concertó su cita fatal con sus futuros asesinos en la oficina del comandante de los ISI.

El libro Talibán, de Ahmed Rashid, contiene pruebas fascinantes de la red de corrupción y violencia de los ISI. Léanlo, y verán que todo lo que he dicho tiene mucho más sentido.

Pero volviendo a la narrativa oficial, George W. Bush anunció el jueves anterior que “esperaba” hablar con su viejo amigo Musharraf. Desde luego, hablarán de Benazir. Seguramente no charlarán sobre el hecho de que Musharraf sigue protegiendo a su viejo conocido, un cierto señor Khan, quien proporcionó secretos nucleares paquistaníes a Libia e Irán. No, pero es mejor que no traigamos a colación el asuntito ese del “eje del mal”.

Desde luego, se nos pidió una vez más concentrarnos en esos “extremistas” y “terroristas”, y alejarnos de la lógica de cuestionar lo que muchos paquistaníes sintieron tras el asesinato de Benazir.

No hace falta ser un experto para comprender que las odiadas elecciones legislativas que ensombrecían a Musharraf se pospondrían indefinidamente si su principal opositor político era liquidado antes del día de los comicios.

Analicemos esta lógica como lo haría el inspector Ian Blair, en su cuaderno, antes de convertirse en el más importante policía de Londres.

Pregunta: ¿Quién obligó a Benazir Bhutto a permanecer en Londres y quiso evitar su regreso a Pakistán? Respuesta: El general Musharraf. Pregunta: ¿Quién ordenó este mes el arresto de cientos de simpatizantes de Bhutto? Respuesta: el general Musharraf. Pregunta: ¿Quién le impuso a Benazir un arresto domiciliario temporal este mes? Respuesta: el general Musharraf. Pregunta: ¿Quién declaró el estado de emergencia este mes? Respuesta: el general Musharraf.

Pregunta: ¿Quién mató a Benazir Bhutto? Eh, sí. Bueno, sí…

¿Ven cuál es el problema? Ayer nuestros guerreros televisivos nos informaron que los miembros del PPP gritaban que Musharraf era un “asesino”, quejándose de que no dio suficiente protección a Benazir. Error. Gritaban esto porque creen que él fue quien la mató.

© The Independent

Traducción: Gabriela Fonseca

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3291600.ece

Robert Fisk: They don't blame al-Qa'ida. They blame Musharraf
Published: 29 December 2007

Weird, isn't it, how swiftly the narrative is laid down for us. Benazir Bhutto, the courageous leader of the Pakistan People's Party, is assassinated in Rawalpindi – attached to the very capital of Islamabad wherein ex-General Pervez Musharraf lives – and we are told by George Bush that her murderers were "extremists" and "terrorists". Well, you can't dispute that.

But the implication of the Bush comment was that Islamists were behind the assassination. It was the Taliban madmen again, the al-Qa'ida spider who struck at this lone and brave woman who had dared to call for democracy in her country.

Of course, given the childish coverage of this appalling tragedy – and however corrupt Ms Bhutto may have been, let us be under no illusions that this brave lady is indeed a true martyr – it's not surprising that the "good-versus-evil" donkey can be trotted out to explain the carnage in Rawalpindi.

Who would have imagined, watching the BBC or CNN on Thursday, that her two brothers, Murtaza and Shahnawaz, hijacked a Pakistani airliner in 1981 and flew it to Kabul where Murtaza demanded the release of political prisoners in Pakistan. Here, a military officer on the plane was murdered. There were Americans aboard the flight – which is probably why the prisoners were indeed released.

Only a few days ago – in one of the most remarkable (but typically unrecognised) scoops of the year – Tariq Ali published a brilliant dissection of Pakistan (and Bhutto) corruption in the London Review of Books, focusing on Benazir and headlined: "Daughter of the West". In fact, the article was on my desk to photocopy as its subject was being murdered in Rawalpindi.

Towards the end of this report, Tariq Ali dwelt at length on the subsequent murder of Murtaza Bhutto by police close to his home at a time when Benazir was prime minister – and at a time when Benazir was enraged at Murtaza for demanding a return to PPP values and for condemning Benazir's appointment of her own husband as minister for industry, a highly lucrative post.

In a passage which may yet be applied to the aftermath of Benazir's murder, the report continues: "The fatal bullet had been fired at close range. The trap had been carefully laid, but, as is the way in Pakistan, the crudeness of the operation – false entries in police log-books, lost evidence, witnesses arrested and intimidated – a policeman killed who they feared might talk – made it obvious that the decision to execute the prime minister's brother had been taken at a very high level."

When Murtaza's 14-year-old daughter, Fatima, rang her aunt Benazir to ask why witnesses were being arrested – rather than her father's killers – she says Benazir told her: "Look, you're very young. You don't understand things." Or so Tariq Ali's exposé would have us believe. Over all this, however, looms the shocking power of Pakistan's ISI, the Inter Services Intelligence.

This vast institution – corrupt, venal and brutal – works for Musharraf.

But it also worked – and still works – for the Taliban. It also works for the Americans. In fact, it works for everybody. But it is the key which Musharraf can use to open talks with America's enemies when he feels threatened or wants to put pressure on Afghanistan or wants to appease the " extremists" and "terrorists" who so oppress George Bush. And let us remember, by the way, that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter beheaded by his Islamist captors in Karachi, actually made his fatal appointment with his future murderers from an ISI commander's office. Ahmed Rashid's book Taliban provides riveting proof of the ISI's web of corruption and violence. Read it, and all of the above makes more sense.

But back to the official narrative. George Bush announced on Thursday he was "looking forward" to talking to his old friend Musharraf. Of course, they would talk about Benazir. They certainly would not talk about the fact that Musharraf continues to protect his old acquaintance – a certain Mr Khan – who supplied all Pakistan's nuclear secrets to Libya and Iran. No, let's not bring that bit of the "axis of evil" into this.

So, of course, we were asked to concentrate once more on all those " extremists" and "terrorists", not on the logic of questioning which many Pakistanis were feeling their way through in the aftermath of Benazir's assassination.

It doesn't, after all, take much to comprehend that the hated elections looming over Musharraf would probably be postponed indefinitely if his principal political opponent happened to be liquidated before polling day.

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.


http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/12/29/index.php?section=opinion&article=016a1pol



Tariq Ali*
Benazir Bhutto

Aun aquellos que tajantemente criticamos el comportamiento y las políticas de Benazir Bhutto mientras ocupó el cargo de primera ministra y también en épocas recientes, estamos pasmados y furiosos por su muerte. La indignación y el miedo merodean de nuevo el país. Es esta extraña coexistencia de despotismo militar y caos lo que provocó las condiciones que condujeron a su asesinato en Rawalpindi el día de ayer. En el pasado, el régimen militar fue diseñado para preservar el orden, y lo hizo por algunos años, pero ya no. Hoy crea desorden y promueve el menosprecio de las leyes. ¿Puede alguien explicar el despido del magistrado en jefe y otros ocho jueces de la Suprema Corte por intentar que los aparatos de inteligencia del país y la policía rindieran cuentas ante la Corte? Su remplazo carece de estructura para hacer algo, ya no digamos conducir una averiguación apropiada sobre las malas acciones de las agencias que pudiera descubrir la verdad que subyace tras el cuidadosamente organizado asesinato de una líder política importante. ¿Cómo puede Pakistán ser otra cosa que una conflagración de desesperaciones? Se asume que los asesinos eran fanáticos de la jihad. Esto puede ser cierto, pero ¿actuaron por cuenta propia?

Benazir, según su gente cercana, había estado tentada de boicotear las falaces elecciones, pero carecía de la valentía política para desafiar a Washington. Tenía, eso sí, mucho coraje físico y no se dejaba intimidar por las amenazas de sus oponentes locales. En un mitin electoral en Liaquat Bagh, se dirigió al público. Es éste un espacio popular que tomó su nombre del primer ministro Liaquat Ali Khan, primero en asumir el cargo, quien fuera ultimado en 1953 por Said Akbar, un asesino solitario, al que mataron de inmediato a balazos por órdenes del oficial de policía implicado en la confabulación. No lejos de ahí, se alzó alguna vez lo que fuera una estructura colonial donde eran encarcelados los nacionalistas: la cárcel de Rawalpindi. Ahí, fue ahorcado en abril de 1979 el padre de Benazir, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. El tirano militar responsable de su crimen judicial se aseguró de que el sitio de la tragedia fuera destruido también. La muerte de Bhutto envenenó las relaciones entre su partido (el Partido Popular de Pakistán) y el ejército, por lo que los activistas, particularmente en la provincia de Sind, fueron brutalmente torturados y humillados. En ocasiones llegaron a desaparecerlos o asesinarlos.

La turbulenta historia de Pakistán, resultado de un dominio militar continuo y de alianzas globales antipopulares, hoy confronta a la élite dominante ante serias disyuntivas. No parece haber, para nada, propósitos positivos. La abrumadora mayoría de la población desaprueba la política exterior del gobierno. Está furiosa por la falta de una política interna seria, porque la actual únicamente enriquece a una élite voraz y enquistada que incluye a los inflados y parásitos militares. Hoy esta mayoría mira indefensa cómo asesinan a los políticos frente a ella.

Ayer, Benazir había sobrevivido al bombazo, pero cayó muerta por las balas que llovieron sobre su automóvil. Los asesinos, sabedores de su fracaso en Karachi el mes pasado, buscaron asegurarse esta vez. La querían muerta. Ahora es imposible que una elección, inclusive fraudulenta, se lleve a cabo. Tendrá que posponerse y, sin duda, el alto mando contempla la posibilidad de aplicar otra dosis de régimen militar si la situación empeora, lo cual puede ocurrir muy fácilmente.

Lo que ha pasado es una tragedia de muchas capas. Es una tragedia para un país que se encamina a muchos más desastres. Torrentes y cataratas espumosas nos esperan más adelante. Es, además, una tragedia personal. La casa de la familia Bhutto ha perdido a otra de sus integrantes. El padre, dos hijos y ahora una hija, han fallecido de muertes no naturales.

Conocí a Benazir en la casa de su padre en Karachi cuando apenas era una adolescente ávida de diversiones, y después volví a tratarla cuando fue a Oxford. No era una política natural; siempre quiso ser diplomática de carrera, pero la historia y la tragedia personal la empujaron en otra dirección. La muerte de su padre la transformó. Se volvió otra persona, decidida a enfrentar al dictador militar de entonces. Vivía en un pequeño apartamento en Londres, donde discutía interminablemente sobre el futuro del país. Estaba de acuerdo en que la reforma agraria, los programas de educación masiva, los servicios de salud y una política exterior independiente eran fines positivos, constructivos y cruciales si queríamos salvar al país de los buitres con y sin uniforme. Su base electoral era pobre y eso la enorgullecía.

Cambió de nuevo al convertirse en primera ministra. En los primeros tiempos solíamos discutir y en respuesta a mis numerosas quejas ella decía que el mundo era lo que había cambiado. No quería estar del “lado equivocado de la historia”. Y así, como muchos otros, hizo la paz con Washington. Fue esto lo que finalmente condujo al arreglo con Musharraf y a su retorno a casa tras 10 años de exilio. En algunas ocasiones en el pasado me dijo que no tenía miedo a la muerte. Era esto uno de los peligros de jugar a la política en Pakistán.

Es difícil imaginar que algo bueno surja de esta tragedia, pero hay una posibilidad. Pakistán necesita desesperadamente un partido político que pueda hablar en favor de las necesidades sociales del grueso de la población. El Partido Popular fundado por Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto fue obra de los militantes del único movimiento popular de masas que el país haya conocido: estudiantes, campesinos y obreros que lucharon durante tres meses entre 1968 y 1969 por derrocar al primer dictador militar. Que el pueblo lo vea como su partido y la emoción de esas luchas persiste en algunas partes del país hasta hoy, a pesar de todo.

La horrenda muerte de Benazir debería darle a sus colegas la pausa necesaria para reflexionar. Depender de una persona o una familia puede ser necesario en ocasiones, pero es una debilidad estructural para la organización política, no una fuerza. El Partido Popular necesita una refundación que lo convierta en una organización moderna y democrática, abierta al debate honesto y a la discusión, que defienda los derechos sociales y humanos, y que una a los muchos y dispersos grupos e individuos que hoy desesperan en Pakistán por una alternativa decente y compartida que además proponga soluciones concretas que estabilicen el Afganistán devastado por la guerra. Esto se puede y debe hacerse. No se le debe pedir a la familia Bhutto mayores sacrificios.

Traducción: Ramón Vera Herrera

*Tariq Ali, historiador, escritor y director de cine paquistaní. Su próximo libro The Duel: Pakistan on the Flightpath of American Power (El duelo: Pakistán en el derrotero aéreo del poder estadunidense) será publicado por Scribner en 2008

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3293975.ece

Land of the damned: Election in jeopardy as search starts for Benazir's heir
Charismatic leader's death has left her country in flames, the region under threat and the world in danger. By Raymond Whitaker, Saeed Shah in Larkana and Omar Waraich in Karachi
Published: 30 December 2007

In a dramatic development which shows the depth of the crisis in Pakistan over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the government yesterday called for her body to be exhumed to settle the question of how she died.

The charismatic political leader was buried in a sealed coffin on Friday, less than 24 hours after she died in an attack by a suicide bomber at a rally in Rawalpindi. The caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mohammad Mian Soomro, told the Cabinet that Ms Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, had insisted on no autopsy, a statement he has not contested. But conflicting accounts of how she died, and disputes over who bore responsibility, have fuelled rioting that by yesterday had claimed more than 40 lives and caused tens of millions of dollars of damage.

Suspicions over the complicity of Pervez Musharraf's government in the killing were fuelled by its failure to order a post-mortem, regardless of Mr Zardari's wishes, and the fact that the scene of the bombing was washed down with a high-pressure hose within an hour, removing potential forensic evidence. Under the criminal law of Pakistan, an autopsy should have been mandatory, according to a leading lawyer, Athar Minallah. "It is absurd because without autopsy it is not possible to investigate," he said. "Is the state not interested in reaching the perpetrators of this heinous crime, or was there a cover-up?"

Yesterday an Interior Ministry spokesman said an offer had been made to Ms Bhutto's family and her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) to exhume her remains for scientific examination. There was no immediate response. But in her ancestral village of Naudero in rural Sindh province, where she was buried beside her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and where her husband was receiving a stream of mourners offering condolences – among them his wife's former bitter political rival, Nawaz Sharif – supporters continued to accuse the government of responsibility for her death.

Ms Bhutto died as she was leaving the rally on Thursday evening. The car in which she was travelling was bullet- and blast-proof, but she had stood up through the open roof to wave to her supporters when the attackers approached. Two or three shots were heard seconds before the explosion.

Doctors at the hospital where she was taken initially said she had been shot twice, but some of them later said the cause of death was shrapnel from the explosion. On Friday, however, the Interior Ministry said Ms Bhutto had suffered no bullet or serious shrapnel wounds, and the car's other occupants had been unharmed by the bomb explosion, which killed at least 20 other people. Instead a new explanation was put forward: the charismatic political leader had fractured her skull as the blast from the bomb slammed her into the handle which opened the car's roof.

The claim that her death was accidental, and the announcement that intercepted phone calls showed al-Qa'ida carried out the bombing, were seen by her supporters as an attempt by the government to deny any blame for her killing. "To hear that Ms Bhutto fell from an impact from a bump on a sunroof is absolutely rubbish," Sherry Rehman, a PPP spokeswoman who was with her at the time, said yesterday. "There was a clear bullet wound at the back of the neck. It went in one direction and came out another ... My entire car is coated with her blood, my clothes, everybody – so she did not concuss her head against the sunroof."

Babar Awan, a senior party official, said the sunroof claim was "false". He had seen her body and there were at least two bullet marks, one in the neck and one on the top of the head. "It was a targeted, planned killing. The firing was from more than one side," said Mr Awan.

Although the violence in the wake of the killing is fairly sporadic by Pakistani standards, the country has been paralysed during the three days of mourning declared for Ms Bhutto, ending tomorrow. The government said 176 banks, 72 train carriages and 18 stations had been destroyed, and petrol stations across the country were closed for fear of attack, creating long queues of cars at the few that remained open. Many flights were cancelled, leaving passengers stranded.

With shops shuttered in many parts of Pakistan, there were fears of food shortages. In Karachi, scene of some of the worst outbreaks, the police were authorised to open fire on rioters if they were attacked, and three people were killed in a clash yesterday as food stores were looted. "There was bound to be a reaction to such a tragedy," said Farhat Hayat, a senior Karachi police officer. "Hopefully the situation will calm down over the coming days. We are monitoring things very closely."

The accusations of Ms Bhutto's close associates, and the reaction of her followers on the streets, are only part of the pressure on President Musharraf, who is facing conflicting demands to quit and to delay the election, scheduled for 8 January, which he had hoped would legitimise his increasingly unpopular regime. At the urging of Britain and America, increasingly concerned at the growing strength of Islamist extremism in Pakistan, he had sought a power-sharing deal with Ms Bhutto under which she was allowed to return from eight years in exile.

The loss of the PPP leader, who for all her flaws was the only determinedly secular political leader in Pakistan, leaves Western policy in disarray. After the 9/11 attacks the US set aside its criticism of Mr Musharraf, who as chief of the army seized power from Mr Sharif in 1999, and set him up as a bulwark in its "war on terror". Since 2001 Pakistan has received nearly $11bn (£5.5bn) in American aid, but Mr Musharraf's lack of a democratic mandate has not only made him unable to deal with Islamist militancy but has forced him to compromise with it.

Extremist influence in parts of the military and intelligence establishment of this nuclear-armed state have led some analysts to conclude that Pakistan is now more of a danger to world peace than Afghanistan, from where the 9/11 attacks were carried out. The situation in 2001, when the US, Britain and their allies intervened in Afghanistan to oust al-Qa'ida and its Taliban hosts, has now reversed. Instead of Afghanistan threatening to destabilise the region, it is Pakistan, and particularly its ungovernable tribal areas along the border, where al-Qa'ida and the Taliban have fled, that has become the problem.

The 44,000 Nato troops, 7,800 of them British, who are battling to prevent a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan will never succeed while their opponents have bases across the border from which they can attack with impunity. But intense pressure on Mr Musharraf to deal with the insurgents on his own territory has been of little avail. Not only were the Pakistani army's sometimes half-hearted incursions into the tribal areas bloodily repulsed, with hundreds of soldiers being captured, but Pakistan has paid the price in an upsurge of terrorism.

The country is under assault from al-Qa'ida, which has issued a steady flow of demands for the overthrow of Mr Musharraf, and local allies. The week before last their target was a former government minister, Aftab Sherpao. He survived a suicide attack on a mosque, but 50 others died. This year, there have been dozens of similar bloody attacks, largely against the military and police, displaying highly sophisticated capability and intelligence. Responsibility for the attempted assassination of Mr Sherpao was claimed, unusually, by a new organisation called Tehreek Taliban-i Pakistan, which is an attempt to unite the Taliban-inspired groups operating in the country. In short, the Pakistani version of the Taliban has fused with al-Qa'ida.

Benazir Bhutto had promised that if she was elected prime minister, she would have allowed Nato forces to strike across the border against al-Qa'ida and its tribal allies. This clearly made her a target for the extremists, and the attack on her bore all their hallmarks. Yet Pakistan has always been a country where political trust is absent, inflammatory rhetoric is commonplace and conspiracy theories reign supreme.

In this atmosphere, many were sceptical about the government's claim that telephone intercepts showed Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal militant operating from the lawless South Waziristan area, had ordered the killing. He was said to have called afterwards to congratulate those immediately in charge of the operation; a spokesman for the militant leader denied it.

In many respects, this was simply the latest in a series of bombings that have caused increasing tension in Pakistan because no on can be sure who is carrying them out. No official findings have been made public on the perpetrators of the previous attack on Ms Bhutto, in Karachi on 18 October, the day she returned from eight years in exile.

She herself, and many ordinary people in Pakistan, believed that elements of the army and the intelligence agencies are behind the bombings. But security experts think that while there may be rogue officers within the army and intelligence that provide help to militants, the wholesale involvement of the state is improbable. For one thing, it is the army itself that is the main target of the explosions. The Inter-Services Intelligence organisation, often accused of undercover political operations and killings, has been hit by two huge bombs on buses this year that killed scores of its officers as they were going to work.

The MQM, the Karachi-based party which draws its support from Urdu speakers who fled India at Partition, has come under suspicion. It had a history of violent clashes with the Pakistan People's Party in the 1990s, and some believed it could be involved in the attacks on Ms Bhutto. However, while there is evidence that the MQM has been involved in extortion, beatings and murder, it does not seem able or motivated to carry out anything on the scale of the bombings on 18 October and 27 December.

"Bhutto's death will exponentially exacerbate the existing state of political unrest, because the blame will fall on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's regime," said Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis at consultancy Strategic Forecasting.

"This situation benefits the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, and their supporters who would want Pakistan's security forces to be busy containing political unrest and violence rather than performing counter-jihadist operations focused on north-western Pakistan."

The Pakistan People's Party has been left hollow. Founded by Ms Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, it works as an institutionalised cult for the Bhutto family. The allegiance of its followers was to the memory of Mr Bhutto, who was enormously popular among Pakistan's poor, and through him to Ms Bhutto. The party never held internal elections – Benazir named herself "president for life" and never allowed other senior officials to become national figures. The deputy leader of the party, Amin Fahim, is respected, but he lacks charisma and could in no way replace her.

So who could inherit this dynasty? Mr Zardari has been most prominent since his wife's death, and said yesterday that a meeting of the PPP central committee would be held soon. He also announced that the couple's eldest child and only son, Bilawal, a 19-year-old student in his first term at Oxford University, would read out his mother's will today. Asked whether he could take over as PPP leader, Mr Zardari said he was "too young".

What about Mr Zardari himself? What did the will say? Mr Zardari, who said yesterday he had only just became acquainted with the document's contents, told questioners to "wait and see". But few see him as a plausible leader in the longer term. Not only is he not from the top tier of Sindh's feudal families, as the Bhuttos are, he remains entangled in corruption investigations in several countries outside Pakistan, where he benefited from the political deal that brought him and his wife in from the cold. Now she is gone, he could be vulnerable once more.

Benazir's mother, Begum Nusrat Bhutto, is too old, and in poor health. Her sister Sanam, the only surviving child of Zulfikar, has always avoided political involvement. There are other people in public life with the name of Bhutto, but they are estranged by the tangled history of the family.

Unless an autopsy resolves the question of how Benazir died, her death will remain as much of a mystery as those of her father, the man who ousted him, and her brother. Zulfikar, who was overthrown by his army chief, General Zia ul-Haq, and sentenced to death by a military court, was hurriedly buried in 1979 under strict army supervision. No autopsy was carried out, despite claims that he was actually tortured to death, not hanged.

In 1988, when General Zia was blown out of the sky, his remains were never handed over for scientific examination. The explosion on board his aircraft has never been explained. As for Ms Bhutto's brother, Murtaza, he had fallen out with the family and formed a guerrilla group to oppose military rule. In 1996, when his sister was prime minister, he was gunned down in Karachi during a clash with police. No policemen were ever charged in connection with the incident, which remains murky.

In other circumstances Murtaza's 25-year-old journalist daughter Fatima might be seen as Benazir's heir. She is as intelligent and feisty as her aunt, but ceaselessly attacked her in her newspaper columns, always referring to her as "Mrs Zardari" to emphasise that she was influenced more by her husband than her father. But she did pay her respects in Naudero, leaving open the possibility of a reconciliation.

Then there is a family elder, Mumtaz Bhutto, who resented Benazir's seizure of the limelight. Her less than principled deal to share power with President Musharraf gave him ammunition – he said they were conspiring to "strip Pakistan's bones clean" – but it remains to be seen whether he or anyone else can hold the PPP together and prevent it collapsing into factions. What seems certain is that the party will not want the elections to be held next week.

Mr Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N said after the assassination that it would now boycott the poll. Even the MQM, which is closely allied to President Musharraf, called for the election to be postponed.

What is clear is that it is not possible to campaign normally any more – public gatherings are just too dangerous. But without rallies and meetings, many would contend that any election lacked legitimacy. The government, aware that the US has been pressing for an election to legitimise its "war on terror", has been insisting that it will go ahead, but many believe it is waiting for street violence to die down before announcing a postponement. It is holding consultations with the political parties, in the hope that they will sanction the decision and avoid the appearance of authoritarianism.

Given Pakistan's turmoil, the international community is likely to accept a temporary postponement of the elections. Members of Pakistan's political class and analysts are in agreement that the government will have to steer the country back towards stability. But too long a delay could raise another possibility: that the military might step in.

It is common in Pakistani politics for whoever is out of power to demand that the incumbents be removed by the generals and for fresh elections to be called. But numerous previous interventions in politics have made most military commanders highly wary of becoming entangled in politics, and President Musharraf, who doffed his uniform only this month, has taken care to put close associates in key positions.

Some troops have already been deployed in Pakistan's major cities, however, to quell the violence triggered by Ms Bhutto's assassination, and there are suggestions that any further unrest could take the country back to the imposition of martial law.

Last month, President Musharraf handed over control of the 500,000-strong army to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. He is widely admired as a professional soldier with no obvious political ambitions, and is favoured by Washington. He is said to want to pull the army out of politics and restore some of its damaged reputation.

But as President Musharraf's future looks increasingly uncertain, Pakistan's chief sponsors may begin to explore other options.

The US could greenlight a temporary army takeover with the provision that elections are held as soon as order is restored. President Musharraf, widely considered a source of instability, would be removed. And Gen Kayani would step in with the promise of free and fair elections in a matter of months. In Pakistan's troubled history, this would be nothing new. After the street demonstrations of 1968 that called for the end of military dictatorship, Field Marshal Ayub Khan was asked to step aside and his deputy, Gen Yahya Khan took over. In 1970, he presided over Pakistan's first truly democratic election, and one still considered its fairest.

But many generals have taken power in a military coup and promised a quick return to democracy. Gen Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan's longest-serving dictator, said he intended to hold elections within "90 days". He stayed for 11 years. And Gen Musharraf, who famously declared in 1999, "I will not perpetuate myself", has yet to let go.

Future of the dynasty

Asif Ali Zardari 51, Benazir's widower. Married in 1987, they had three children. Like his wife, he is from a Sindh feudal family, though much less prominent. He became known as "Mr 10 Per Cent" during her periods in office, and charges of corruption against him may be revived now Benazir is gone.

Bilawal Zardari 19, Benazir's eldest child and only son, is in his first term at Oxford University. His father says he is too young to succeed, but today he is due to read out his mother's will, which may spell out his future. Significantly, her Karachi residence was named Bilawal House after him.

Sanam Bhutto 50, the only survivor among Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's four children. Devoted to her elder sister Benazir – she went with her into exile – she has always shunned politics. Her teenage daughter Azadi is regarded as equally unlikely to take up the family mantle.

Fatima Bhutto 25, Benazir's niece, shares her intelligence and looks, but accused her aunt of complicity in the death of her father, Murtaza. He had fallen out with his sister, and was shot dead by police in 1996, while she was PM. But Fatima has joined Benazir's mourners, possibly signalling a return to the fold.


http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3293916.ece

Raymond Whitaker: As it mourns its lost leader, Pakistan is in the eye of the storm
The year is off to a fearful start in south Asia; the US continues to plot a dangerous course in Iraq, with its arming of Sunni militias; and the Israeli-Palestinian problem is no nearer a solution
Published: 30 December 2007

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan has ensured that 2008 will get off to a fearful start, and with reason. If any part of the world gives cause for concern in the coming year, it will be the region encompassing Afghanistan and Pakistan, and particularly the lawless border between the two countries.

Not only is Pakistan nuclear-armed, but its barely governed tribal areas have become the headquarters of al-Qa'ida and a base for the Taliban to regain a foothold in Afghanistan, where 7,800 British soldiers and 36,000 other Nato troops are battling to stabilise the country from which the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington were plotted. In 2008, it may well become accepted that Pakistan is a worse problem for the international community than its neighbour. That in turn could spell renewed trouble in Kashmir, that eternal flashpoint between Pakistan and India, the superpower of south Asia.

The respected Conflict Data Programme at Uppsala University in Sweden says there was a trend in 2007 for some of the world's worst conflicts to spill beyond their original borders, drawing in the whole region. This was true not only of Afghanistan, but of Iraq. Turkey has already begun counter-attacking into northern Iraq against the Kurdish guerrilla movement, the PKK, which has taken a heavy toll of soldiers and civilians in south-eastern Turkey, and is likely to carry on doing so in 2008.

But the main question in the coming year will be whether the US will be able to declare its troops "surge" a success by the summer, when it plans to start bringing large numbers of its forces home. Although violence has fallen sharply over the past year, and a measure of normal life has returned to Baghdad and other parts of the "Sunni triangle" in central Iraq, a political settlement between Sunnis and the Shia-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki remains elusive, and the US may be tempted to try to replace him. But its arming of Sunni "neighbourhood militias", while successful in curbing al-Qa'ida in Iraq, may be disastrous in the longer term.

Britain, meanwhile, is due to reduce its remaining troop contingent from 4,500 to around 2,500 by the spring. Having handed over security responsibility in mid-December to Iraqi forces in Basra, the last of the four provinces under its control, Gordon Brown hopes to have no more than a token British force in southern Iraq by the end of 2008.

As for the crisis that many see as the root of Islamist hostility towards the West, Israel and Palestine, it is hard to envisage much progress over the next 12 months. The White House at least got peace negotiations started at Annapolis for the first time in seven years, but the old issues, including the status of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinians to return, are no closer to being solved. And Hamas, which seized control of Gaza, is not taking part. Border closures and heavy Israeli intervention in Gaza are highly likely in 2008 if militants continue firing Qassam rockets into Israel.

Any of these conflicts could have an impact on the biggest show of the year: the US presidential election. Given the relentless tendency to hold state primaries ever earlier, the Republican and Democratic candidates may well be known long before the party conventions in the summer, which is when the fun will really start. The sums likely to be spent on the campaign will exceed the GDPs of many Third World countries.

As for potential trouble spots, look no further than Kosovo. The Albanian majority population were restrained with difficulty from declaring independence from Serbia immediately after the election that brought the former Kosovo Liberation Army commander, Hashim Thaci, to power, but the US and EU will give their blessing to a breakaway early in 2008. Serbia and its ally, Russia, are sure to react angrily, and may encourage the Serbian-majority enclave around Mitrovica to split away in its turn.

Russia is due to hold its own presidential election, but the result, unlike America's, is not in doubt. President Vladimir Putin has already named his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, and the votes will follow in March. The only question is how Mr Putin will continue to run the country.

If one is seeking light relief, there are the Beijing Olympics to look forward to, though the less than subtle Chinese efforts to use the games to proclaim the country's greatness could prove annoying. In football there is the African Cup of Nations in January and February, which will deprive the Premiership of some of its best players, and Euro 2008 in Switzerland and Austria in June. None of the home nations is taking part, which at least keeps the occasion out of the "conflict" category.

Bajo la Lupa

Alfredo Jalife-Rahme

Al Qaeda: después de Benazir, tras las 100 bombas nucleares de Pakistán

La trágica desaparición de Benazir Bhutto, a unos cuantos días de obtener el triunfo en las urnas democráticas convertidas hoy en urnas funerarias, representa la crónica de una muerte anunciada desde hace dos meses, cuando sufrió un atentado al retorno de su exilio.

Se elimina a la primera mujer que fue primer ministro en el mundo islámico a los 35 años: un genuino gino-cidio (la muerte de las mujeres) que a “alguien” interesa explotar en 25 por ciento de la población mundial con el fin de fracturarlo genéricamente.

Su asesinato, que denota extrañas deficiencias en materia de seguridad, comporta mucho parecido logístico con los homicidios de Colosio Murrieta (1994) en México y del primer ministro israelí Yitzhak Rabin (1995) que cambiaron el curso histórico de sus países con su respectiva dedicatoria: la captura del petróleo y el gas de México (que inicia el cordobista Zedillo y le corresponde implementar a los panistas Fox y Calderón) y la likudinización fundamentalista militar hebrea, ambos proyectos al servicio del nuevo orden unipolar mundial de los neoconservadores straussianos, quienes florecieron a partir del 11/9.

De dos cosas una: “alguien” en la cúpula del poder mundial en Wall Street y la City desea borrar las huellas comprometedoras del 11/9 en el sitio de su origen primigenio (Pakistán: el “país del 11/9”, como lo bautizamos en CNN en Español), o bien, las mismas fuerzas aviesas globales buscan crear el caos generalizado para encubrir y/o aprovechar la desintegración del sistema bancario israelí-anglosajón (v. gr. la crisis inmobiliaria), que Ambrose Evans-Pritchard afirma será mucho peor que la Gran Depresión de 1929 (The Daily Telegraph, 28/12/07).

Al saberse del asesinato de inmediato se dispararon los dos oros: el amarillo y el negro.

Antecedentes inmediatos: seis sucesos relevantes aparecieron en el radar geoestratégico global en el lapso de seis días antes del asesinato: 1. India y China celebraron ejercicios militares por primera vez, lo cual comporta un profundo significado en Eurasia (Rediff News, 21/12/07); 2. expulsión extraña por el gobierno de Karzai, de Afganistán, de dos “diplomáticos” europeos, quienes negociaban tras bambalinas con los insurgentes talibanes; 3. el 25 de diciembre, Rusia lanzó exitosamente un cohete intercontinental a más de 7 mil kilómetros de distancia (BBC, 25/12/07); 4. el mismo día, otro misil ruso fue lanzado exitosamente desde un submarino nuclear (RIA Novosti, 25/12/07); 5. la cancillería rusa arremetió contra el proyecto de despliegue misilístico balístico de Estados Unidos en Polonia y la República Checa y acusó que no estaba dirigido contra Irán sino a la misma Rusia, y 6. un día antes, Washington reveló un acuerdo con el gobierno del general Musharraf para instalar “tropas especiales” estadunidenses con el fin de golpear por la retaguardia a la insurgencia afgana que se refugia en la transfrontera paquistaní (William M. Arkin, The Washington Post, 26/12/07).

Es nuestra hipótesis que “alguien” perpetró el gino-cidio días después con el fin de contrarrestar esta serie de eventos relevantes que afectan los intereses israelíes-anglosajones.

Llamó la atención que Rusia exima de toda culpa a Musharraf y acepte la inculpación de Al Qaeda, como afirma Konstantín Kosachov, encargado de las relaciones internacionales de la Duma: “es absolutamente verosímil (sic) la versión de que las redes del terrorismo internacional Al Qaeda y talibán estén involucradas en el asesinato de la lideresa opositora paquistaní y ex primera ministra Benazir Bhutto” (RIA Novosti, 28-12-07). En el hermenéutico lenguaje a descifrar entre las grandes potencias en la etapa posmoderna del “terrorismo”, acusar a Al Qaeda equivale a endosárselo a los servicios secretos de la CIA y al MI6 británico.

En su portal The Washington Note (27/12/07), Steve Clemons, becario del The New American Foundation y muy cercano a Benazir, comenta sobre su martirologio democrático: “estaba dispuesta a correr el riesgo de perder su vida para intentar y conseguir un diferente trayecto en Pakistán, pero ceo que sus oportunidades eran muy bajas en el caldero de un escenario político que requiere de líderes políticos que se mezclen con las masas”.

Es cierto: como consecuencia de la desglobalización, hoy el planeta tiende más hacia la oclocracia (el gobierno de las masas) que a la democracia decimonónica de corte anglosajón.

Más allá de la colisión hereditaria de la dinastía Bhutto contra el ejército, los poderosos servicios de inteligencia (ISI, por sus siglas en inglés), y su antagonismo contra los copiosos jihadistas-salafistas de la coalición de Al Qaeda y los talibanes medievales en la transfrontera de Afganistán-Pakistán, estaban condenadas al fracaso tanto su proyecto neoliberal (en una versión hipercorrupta que epitomiza su viudo Asif Ali Zardari, propulsado como heredero político por The Financial Times) como su alianza con Estados Unidos, Gran Bretaña e Israel.

El mismo Steve Clemons, entrevistado por Raw Story (27/12/07), se preocupa por el “comando y control de las ojivas nucleares” de Pakistán: “el asesinato de Benazir puede provocar que el reloj nuclear del juicio final se acerque a la medianoche”. Dicho reloj fue puesto este año por el Boletín de Científicos Atómicos a cinco minutos para la medianoche y Clemons arguye que ahora se encuentra “más cerca de medianoche, a una situación apocalíptica potencial”.

Ya decíamos que “La balcanización de Pakistán sería lo de menos” (ver Bajo la Lupa, “Pakistán: ¿Qaedastán y talibanización benditas por Bush?”, 11/11/07) de no ser por el destino de sus 100 bombas nucleares “clandestinas” que podrían caer en manos de los presuntos responsables de los atentados del 11/9 y/o los integristas talibanes de Afganistán y Pakistán: ayer, aliados de Washington y Londres contra la antigua URSS, y hoy, enemigos convenientes en el marco de la guerra contra el terrorismo global que ha implementado Baby Bush en sus siete años de gobierno. Pero todavía más impactante es el silencio ensordecedor de Israel sobre la dotación clandestina de 100 bombas sunnitas de la dictadura militar de Pakistán, en contraste con la alharaca que ha vociferado en referencia al proyecto civil atómico de Irán” (ver Bajo la Lupa, 18/11/07).

¿A quien daña la pulverización de Pakistán y/o su qaedización nuclear? Ya lo habíamos anticipado: al RIC (Rusia, India y China) y a Irán (ver Bajo la Lupa, 18/11/07). La muerte de Benazir provoca la reacción en cadena exquisitamente preprogramada.

En la superficie teatral, la política de Baby Bush en Pakistán se encuentra hecha añicos (IHT, 29/12/07). Pero otra cosa es la profundidad de los avernos donde operan los servicios secretos de inteligencia de Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña (y el ISI). El cataclismo de la hibridación alocada de una coalición contranatura entre Musharraf y la fallecida Benazir obliga a Baby Bush a buscar un “plan B” (que no tiene) para la nueva situación en Pakistán vulcanizado y en vías de desintegración.

John McLaughlin, anterior director ejecutivo de la CIA, “predijo que el caos duraría semanas por lo menos y que la capacidad de las autoridades de Pakistán menguaría para lidiar con Al Qaeda en ese lapso” (The Guardian, 29/12/07). Pakistán va que vuela hacia su qaedización nuclear.

http://www.channel4.com/film/media/video/interviews/B/bisson_chris_lg_01.ram

... desENTRAÑAndo la TURBULENCIA.