December 27, 2007 is a black day in Pakistan’s history. A lone bomber. A matter of seconds. Tragedy! The world’s sixth most populous country was robbed of a leader.
Charismatic and effervescent woman she was, Benazir Bhutto lived the life of a celebrity, a writer, an astute politician, and vocal populist. Her sudden and shocking assassination in Pakistan reminds many Americans of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Benazir Bhutto remains a topic of discussion at American political gatherings as well as on television and in newspaper columns.
Like JFK, Bhutto fell victim to a murderous attack while, from a moving car, she waved to her ecstatic supporters. However, in the case of Bhutto, a human bomb walked to her vehicle and blew himself up seconds after a gunman fired shots at her. The Muslim world’s first, young female leader, elected to lead a nation of 162 million people, was dead, along with 20 innocent civilians.
Pakistanis are dazed, shocked, and drowned in disbelief and sorrow. They are not alone in mourning Benazir Bhutto, who had emerged as the symbol of democracy and secularism in Pakistan. Her death is grieved all over the world. She had her pitfalls and controversial side too. Yet to many, she remained the jewel of Pakistan’s political landscape and revered as an icon.
The news of Benazir’s assassination consumed the presidential candidates’ attention. Democrats and Republicans alike, all were unanimous in squarely condemning the assassination. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee took some bizarre stands. They advocated U.S. military incursions inside Pakistan to take out the terrorists hiding in its tribal areas. Republican John McCain, Democratic Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson came up with more compassionate and measured reactions. The U.S. media outlets, like CNN and MSNBC, gave live coverage to the violent backlash and a wave of grief in Pakistan following its worst political disaster in recent memory.
Pakistan has almost become a campaign issue in the U.S. presidential elections, and Bhutto’s assassination virtually exposed the ability of presidential candidates to deal with a potentially explosive situation in a nuclear armed nation. Some of the reactions were so naïve and off the track that they have become a subject of ridicule in newspaper columns, thus, one way or another, the incident directly affected the political fortunes of the candidates. The tragedy put to test the foreign policy skills of the candidates, their global vision, and their ability to deal with any international crisis.
The biggest loser in this unusual test was Mike Huckabee, the Baptist priest-turned-politician and former Governor of Arkansas. Huckabee’s reaction was unimaginative, simplistic, and far from reason and reality. In Huckabee’s wisdom, Benazir’s assassination should lead to a crackdown in the United States on illegal immigrants from Pakistan. Embarrassed Huckabee campaign officials had no excuse for their candidate’s gaffe but to frankly admit that he was trying to turn attention away from scrutiny of his foreign policy knowledge.
Said the former Arkansas Governor, “In the light of what happened in Pakistan yesterday, it’s interesting that there are more Pakistanis who have illegally crossed the border than any other nationality, except for those immediately south of our border. America might look half-way around the world and say, ‘How does that affect me?’ We need to understand that violence and terror is significant when it happens in Pakistan [and] it’s more significant if it can happen in our own cities. And it happens if people can slip across our border and we have no control over them.”
A day before his difficult-to-understand reaction, Huckabee made another gaffe when he incorrectly suggested that Pakistan was under martial law. His attempt to connect Benazir Bhutto’s assassination with anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States was compounded by its shocking senselessness.
On his part, Obama surprised his admirers when he too committed his foul – unconvincingly connecting Benazir’s assassination with the political conduct of his election rival Senator Hillary Clinton. Without explaining in detail what he would have done if he were the president, Obama said the Iraq invasion, for which Senator Clinton had voted, had strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Obama too, apparently, failed the test. Instead of giving his vision, he entrenched himself in the blame game of politics. The so-called rising star of the Democratic Party was not too bright to an average foreign policy challenge.
Other Republicans, including Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, towed their traditional tough line on the war on terror, while expressing their condolences with the Bhutto family and the Pakistanis. However, none had a more appealing message or a different strategy. Romney and Giuliani are largely seen as camp followers of Reagan and George W’s political doctrines. Their reaction thus can be greatly anticipated as well.
John McCain was the lone voice of reason from the Republican’s side not only condemneding the incident but also acknowledging the limitations of President Pervez Musharraf in dealing with terrorism in what he called one of the most difficult terrains of the world.
Bill Richardson, the Democratic candidate, was another visible voice. He came down hard on President Musharraf, calling for his resignation. He said the risks of Musharraf staying in office were far more than those posed by his resignation. America, he said, must support the democratic forces in Pakistan and not just Musharraf. Richardson’s vision was broad, focused, proactive, and promising.
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were eloquent displaying greater clarity of thought and action. Edwards even called President Musharraf and asked him to allow international inquiry of the incident. American politicians have developed a love-hate sentiment for Musharraf and in the ongoing campaign the Pakistani president has been made a punching bag by the candidates, some of whom also consider him a valuable necessity for Washington. The commonality of views between Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson is that they want to employ both American military might as well as values in achieving foreign policy objectives. Little wonder Democrats are increasingly focusing on foreign policy and stress diplomacy as a major weapon to improve America’s battered image overseas.
Many voters foresee a cliffhanger in both parties’ upcoming primaries, where voters’ heads are with Clinton and hearts with Obama. Same is true for Romney and Huckabee, respectively, within the Republican Party. Democrats and Republicans are thus in for blazing primaries, which are already generating enough heat to fire up their campaigns. While it is unlikely that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination will alter the primaries’ results, yet it has left an imprint no foreign leader has had on a U.S. presidential election in decades.
