Benazir Bhutto's assassination and the American elections
Benazir's assassination is widely considered to be a serious jolt to democratization in Pakistan and a worrying factor for regional stability and security. At the same time, this tragic event is casting its shadow over the presidential polls in the United States. Bhutto's death is likely to influence the foreign policy agendas of the candidates and may provide support to hardliner candidates' arguments.
Every potential candidate is claiming expertise on foreign policy and security issues, which is happening because of an important aspect of globalization - the modern news media. Benazir's assassination, particularly the visual impact of her entering the car, waving to the masses, and images of her death, is likely to be used by hardliner candidates in the American elections. Although it remains unclear who killed Benazir, the perception that a democratically-minded candidate fighting the elections in a democratic manner was killed, possibly by Islamic terrorists, will strengthen the issue of national security and American values, and extremism could well fuel conservative ideology.
So, how have the aspirant candidates reacted to the news of this assassination? Its overall effect was quickly noticed in the change that occurred in the candidates' advertisements. While in the Christmas week, everybody spoke about social security issues or health and medicare as their gifts to the US people, the focus in the next week after Benazir's killing, was "national security." Basically everyone claimed that the United States would be more secure and better prepared under their command!
Take the case of Rudi Giuliani. Giuliani's claim to fame is his tenure as the mayor of New York on 11 September 2001. He has consistently supported the Bush line on dealing harshly with terrorism and supported the invasion of Iraq and the war that followed. Recently, after he saw his ratings drop, Giuliani came up with advertisements that compared him with the Second World War generation in their common resolve to safeguard American values. In his statement issued after Benazir's assassination, Rudi said that "the murderers must be brought to justice", and "......terrorism anywhere - whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi - is an enemy of freedom." While Giuliani played it almost perfectly, other Republican candidates like Mike Huckabee fumbled to find the right language of national security.
Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, said in one of her speeches that she knew Benazir well and remembered her "as one who was willing to take risks for the sake of democracy." Hilary also added that she (as American President) would do everything possible in helping the democratization of Pakistan. It is not just the vocabulary of the war on terror, democracy and American values that resurfaced in the candidates' speeches following the tragic event in Pakistan. Candidates like Obama used this opportunity to take potshots at other candidates to advance their claims a little more. The biggest concern that the US presidential candidates have expressed about the present political scenario in Pakistan is about the country's nuclear weapons. The current Pakistani regime lacks credibility and has performed numerous flip-flops on the possible causes of Benazir's death; hence, several candidates have expressed concern over how this regime will protect its nuclear weapons and weapons technology from falling into the hands of "rogue elements." These concerns are based on reports of al Qaeda's resurgence in Pakistan's border regions. Most Democrat candidates have criticized the Bush Government for its failures in Pakistan and Afghanistan by focusing its attention unduly on Iraq. The general feeling is that Musharraf has not done enough to contain and eliminate extremism inside Pakistan; therefore, the candidates are not sure if the present regime is part of the problem or part of the solution to the present crisis. So, even as the candidates seek a democratic Pakistan and view it as an opportunity, they have expressed their preparedness to enter Pakistan if the situation worsens, even if this remains a last option.
The assertion that the modern media has created an influence of the Benazir assassination on the American elections suggests that it can certainly spread the message of peace and progress as well. However, it can just as easily spread fear and suspicion and promote hardliners, especially in a scenario where contrasting values are seen and promoted as being contradictory. One can argue that all these remarks by the candidates are the natural reflection of an interconnected world, but if the hardliner candidates' credibility increases because of Benazir's death, the assassins would have succeeded in denigrating Pakistan politics as a whole.
The author is Fox International Fellow, Yale University.
Comments