6.45pm Alan Collins has the reaction of our Gillingham and Rainham candidate Rehman Chishti: “I have lost a dear friend who was not just a political friend – she was more like a mother. She was my mentor too. When I went to work for her in 1999 she was my mentor. She was the greatest politician I ever could have worked with - sincere, humble and down to earth. The world has suffered a great loss. My heart goes out to her three children and husband. I can’t believe she has gone.”
5.15pm: Video memories of Benazir Bhutto
4.25pm: BEN ROGERS HAS WRITTEN FOR PLATFORM: BENAZIR BHUTTO'S DEATH IS A TRAGEDY FOR PAKISTAN; A CRISIS FOR THE WORLD
4.25pm: Rudy Giuliani's response: “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us.” Washington Wire has other US reactions.
4.05pm: EU Referendum: "With probably over a million Pakistani immigrants in this country, there is also a strong domestic dimension. There are justified fears that violence in Pakistan might spill over into the streets of Bradford, Coventry and other major British towns and cities, or that perceived wrongs to Pakistan will visit the sort of action meted out to Benazir Bhutto. Either way, the assassination of Bhutto is a profound and dangerous development, and one from which no good can come."
4pm Fraser Nelson has already noted that Bhutto's Wikipedia entry was updated within minutes. YouTube also has a large number of videos capturing coverage of her death. This rudimentary video is the first tribute uploaded.
CNN has world leaders' reactions | BBC has pictures of Bhutto's final rally
3.30pm: David Cameron's reaction: "This is an appalling act of terrorism. Today Pakistan has lost one of its bravest daughters. Those responsible have not only murdered a courageous leader but have put at risk hopes for the country’s return to democracy.”
3.30pm: Nick Clegg's reaction: "This is a dark day for everyone who believed in a stable and democratic future for Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto was a courageous politician known throughout the world, not just Pakistan, for her forthright and sometimes controversial views. Her tragic death is a hammer blow against the dream of pluralism and tolerance in modern day Pakistan. In the light of her brutal assassination, the need for the full restoration of democracy in Pakistan in now paramount."
3.30pm: David Miliband's reaction: "I am deeply shocked by news of the latest attack in Rawalpindi, which has claimed the life of Benazir Bhutto and killed at least 15 other people. Benazir Bhutto showed in her words and actions a deep commitment to her country. She knew the risks of her return to campaign but was convinced that her country needed her."This is a time for restraint but also unity. All those committed to a stable future for Pakistan will condemn without qualification all violence perpetrated against innocent people. In targeting Benazir Bhutto extremist groups have in their sights all those committed to democratic processes in Pakistan. They cannot and must not succeed. The large Pakistani community in the United Kingdom will be gravely concerned about these latest developments. Let me reassure them that the UK government will continue to work with all those who want to build a peaceful and democratic Pakistan."
2.35pm: James Forsyth thinks that the assassination significantly reduces the west's options in Pakistan: "Musharraf now knows that the West has no palatable alternative to him—Nawaz Sharif is too Islamist for Washington and London’s comfort—and so will be less concerned about Western demands that this January’s Parliamentary elections go ahead."
This always looked likely to happen from the moment Bhutto decided to go back. Pakistan has been a tinderbox for as long as I can remember. We can only hope that there are not serious reprisals. Pakistan only ever looked remotely stable under general Zia, since his death the country has struggled yet again.
Posted by: Tony Makara | December 27, 2007 at 14:26
Well let's hope Musharaff can keep a lid on things, or we could end up more worried by Pakistan than by Iran.
Posted by: Reagan Fan | December 27, 2007 at 14:29
Unless this was Musharaff himself, which seems unlikely, it would appear to vindicate some of his expressed concerns about the safety of electoral candidates - concerns others dismissed as self-serving and indicative that he didn't really want democracy...
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | December 27, 2007 at 14:42
Pakistan only ever looked remotely stable under general Zia
Zia was the root of the bloody problem. He supported all and every Islamist going. That is why the CIA were strongly suspected of being involved in his assassination.
Tories need to do better than say "if only we had that strong man back. He made the trains run on time."
Posted by: Passing By | December 27, 2007 at 14:43
Britain should stay out of the mess. Our focus should be on rooting out Islamic extremism and electoral fraud in our own Pakistani communities.
Posted by: Moral minority | December 27, 2007 at 14:48
Passing By, general Zia was a friend of the west at the height of the cold war. He was a stabilizing influence for Pakistan. I don't believe the CIA were involved in the crash that killed him.
Posted by: Tony Makara | December 27, 2007 at 14:53
A terrible situation! I do however agree with Moral Minority that we should stay out of any direct input and concentrate on our own community relations.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | December 27, 2007 at 14:54
general Zia was a friend of the west at the height of the cold war.
Just like Saddam, eh?
Posted by: Passing By | December 27, 2007 at 14:55
There won't be a great deal of surprise about this. The islamo facist terrorists made her a target, as they have done President Musharaff in the past. As for 'staying out', I don't think there is a great deal we could do even if we wanted to!
Posted by: rightsideforum | December 27, 2007 at 14:57
Passing By, well Mr Rumsfeld thought so!
Posted by: Tony Makara | December 27, 2007 at 14:57
"I don't think there is a great deal we could do even if we wanted to!"
There may be pressure from the White House to use our forces in Afghanistan to fight Islamic terrorists inside Pakistan. That could lead to more Islamic terrorism on the streets of Britain.
Posted by: Moral minority | December 27, 2007 at 15:01
Britain should stay out of the mess.
You forgot to add "it's a far away land of which we know little".
Like or not, we're in this and if we are we'd better bloody well fight to win.
Posted by: Passing By | December 27, 2007 at 15:05
Tony Makara!! Zia, a "stabilising influence"? He is the person who single-handedly turned Pakistan from the tolerant, progressive country envisaged by Mohamed ali Jinnah, who wanted a country in which all religious groups had equal rights, into a country on a turbulent path towards greater Islamisation. He introduced the blasphemy laws, the Hudood Ordinances and other discriminatory laws, and emboldened the Islamists. If that's your vision of stability, it's a very strange one. Benazir's murder is a disaster, not only for Pakistan but for the world. She was certainly no saint, but she was the most prominent and popular symbol of liberal, tolerant, secular, progressive democracy in Pakistan.
Posted by: Ben Rogers | December 27, 2007 at 15:05
Passing By wrote "like or not, we're in this and if we are we'd better bloody well fight to win".
Just like Basra? Military intervention in Pakistan would be an even bigger disaster and lead to more blood on Britain's streets.
Posted by: Moral minority | December 27, 2007 at 15:13
Ben Rogers, I think we have to consider Pakistan from the international perspective when looking the Zia years. I'm sorry that Bhutto has been assassinated but president Mussarif warned that something like this could happen. The martial law was an attempt to calm the situation, although I hoped that ultimately the imposition of martial law would be a stop-gap measure.
Posted by: Tony Makara | December 27, 2007 at 15:18
I'm sorry this has happened, although it never seemed a good idea for her to go back there, although brave.
Perhaps we should, indeed, be more worried about Pakistan than Iran.
Posted by: Joe James Broughton | December 27, 2007 at 15:37
I mourn her death but also the 15 other anonymous victims just as much. We'll never be told their names but they were human beings with families too.
She faced corruption charges and Musharraf was prepared to overlook prosecution for the sake of the stability of the country. Not entirely the unblemished martyr that the BBC will doubtless present her as.
'Passing By' makes a point about Saddam. We could both have typed the same words but he means the opposite to me.
Realpolitik dictates that you look at the alternatives and sometimes you have to conclude - 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he is our son-of-a-bitch'. We need to support Musharraf more than ever now for fear of civil war in a country with nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Geoff | December 27, 2007 at 15:42
Geoff, fair analysis. I hoped to see elections but sometimes stability has to be the number one priority. Now is the time for the west to offer qualified support for Musharraf in the hope that he can salvage some semblance of order and then we can see how the situation can be taken from there. The main thing now is to quell any reaction and to restore order.
Posted by: Tony Makara | December 27, 2007 at 15:52
Tony I think you are right! Much as I find Musharaff reactionary, we must not forget that he himself has had attempts on his life and, although we are far from knowing for certain, my instinct tells me that the forces behind Ms Bhutto's murder are the dark forces of Islamism and that, distasteful as it may be to some, the West needs Musharaff as an ally in fighting those dark forces!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | December 27, 2007 at 16:04
We seem to have jumped back to the Middle Ages, and the dark centuries of the Ismaili Assassin sect.
Posted by: sjm | December 27, 2007 at 16:37
Do check out our Platform section, Ben Rogers has already written an excellent analysis of the situation there.
Posted by: Deputy Editor | December 27, 2007 at 16:45
This is a tragedy.
Posted by: Ash Faulkner | December 27, 2007 at 18:03
This is an appalling outrage and my condolences go to all the victims’ families. I feel deeply and personally shocked by this. As Ben Rogers says this is a disaster. We in the west have tended to concentrate on other countries in the Middle East, but, if it falls into the wrong hands, Pakistan with its established nuclear weapons could become a much more dangerous place and a greater threat to world peace than Iran. It would not just be Israel that would feel threatened but also India.
Those who criticised President Musharraf from an idealistically democratic perspective are now shown to be rather naïve. We have to deal with the world as it is rather than as we would wish it to be. In many ways, I’m sceptical about the west backing any particular person in such a volatile country. Western support can be counter productive and we have to face the possibility that the Islamists will eventually take over. The tide may be unstoppable. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I don’t think we have any choice but to support President Musharraf.
Posted by: Martin Wright | December 27, 2007 at 18:04
Bhutto herself was quite convinced that former supporters of Gen Zia were behind the plots to kill her. (This was in October.) Aren't the most likely culprits also elements within the ISI? They're riddled with Zia-ite nationalists (who hate Bush & co. just as much as some of the commentariat here) and they created the Taliban in the first place. The assassin himself was clearly trained and well-disciplined and saw Bhutto for what she was - a puppet of the West being set up by Musharraf as the acceptable face of his secular military dictatorship. Now that she's gone, what's Plan B?
Posted by: Oliver McCarthy | December 27, 2007 at 18:37
That's a real tragedy; what a failing state Pakistan has proved to be.
To the commentator saying
"We seem to have jumped back to the Middle Ages, and the dark centuries of the Ismaili Assassin sect"
Please note that nowadawys Ismailis are the most moderate Muslims on earth and the Aga Khan, their leader, is a smart and Westernized man who has high popluarity in the Western Media.
PLUS Bhutto is an Ismaili herself, did you know that? Her family is a traditional Ismaili family.
Just wanted to mention that
Posted by: Zman | December 27, 2007 at 18:49
Ben Rogers is quite right to point out the malign influence of Zia Ul Haq, who had Benazir Bhutto's father executed. Reagan & Thatcher's support of his regime was out of necessity in light of the Cold War and Afghanistan but the consequences of his islamisation of the Pakistan Legal code and Constitution and of strengthening of salafist influence in the security and armed forces have not been good for Pakistan or the West.
On the day of her murder it is worth celebrating the good about Benazir Bhutto, her courage, her democratic credentials, the hope she bought. Time enough later to consider her weaknesses. She was the best hope in forthcoming elections for a Pakistani government opposed to the islamists, to one likely to take forward discussions on Kashmir with India, to move Pakistan away from the fundamentalism General Zia built.
It is a bad day for our forces in Afghanistan and for our interests in a peaceful sub-continent.
Posted by: Ted | December 27, 2007 at 19:40
I have been listening to the BBC World Service's coverage and they keep referring to the reaction from Britain, "the former colonial power". Is that necessary?
Posted by: Umbrella man | December 27, 2007 at 19:59
A tragic, horrifying and shocking death of a brave and beautiful woman. Very sad.
Posted by: Votedave | December 27, 2007 at 20:06
' "the former colonial power". Is that necessary? '
Its the BBC putting down some markers so that they can then suggest its our obligation to do something, and our obligation to take millions of Pakistani asylum seekers if the whole country goes pear shaped.
Posted by: Iain | December 28, 2007 at 09:35
reply to the above person "Zman" .. What a wrong information You have Benazir and her family doesnot belong to the Ismaili Muslim or(Aga Khani) sect she and her family Belongs To Shia Muslim Sect . Please before making any post gather some information.
Posted by: Hamid Hemani | January 04, 2008 at 08:12
COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.
Posted by: ali abbas | January 07, 2008 at 14:58
Zia was the root of the bloody problem. He supported all and every Islamist going. That is why the CIA were strongly suspected of being involved in his assassination.
You are right that General Zia used religion to radicalise young Pakistani's against his enemies, however General Zia was not assassinated, but rather died in an accidental plane crash.
At that time anyway, not just General Zia but also the Mujahadeen and Osama Bin Laden were still allied to the CIA - The USA at that point saw the big threats as being Shia Islamists especially Iran and any governments of Socialist leanings, when Benazir Bhutto became Pakistan's PM the CIA had mixed feelings about it.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 07, 2008 at 15:17
@Zman
Firstly my friend, Hamid Hemani, replied 100% correct that benazir bhotto and her family is tradionally a Shia Itna Shiri Muslim (which is Twelver Shia Islam) and secondly Zman your lack of information and grip on assasination topic clearly shown. Because its already been proved in book:
"The Assassin Legends: Myths of the Isma'ilis"
written by Farhad Daftray published by I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd: London, 1994
that it was a myth created by marco polo and others that ismailies are assasins and they are trained to do this in order to get success in next world. And unfortunately due to lack of grip on this topic European or Western writers accepted this myth and propogate this much that it becomes truth to them. Writer farhad daftray destroy this myth in his book by giving references to the primary sources and logical proves.
Kindly read this book my friend. Before posting anything be 100% sure that you are well aware of the topic on which you are commenting and please talk on the topic which is being in discussion rather taking it to some other(religious) topic.
Peace!!!
Posted by: Waqar Hemani | June 02, 2010 at 14:22