The wrong way to defend an alleged kleptocrat
Pakistan’s Daily Times, usually given to publishing sober editorials (if we ignore the conspiracy theory mongering), comes out with all guns firing—at Jemima Khan, Imran’s ex-wife. Her offence? Writing an op-ed that was very critical of Benazir Bhutto.
But what is Daily Times’ argument?
Jemima Khan has given vent to her spleen in a diatribe against BB in the Daily Telegraph of London. Ms Khan calls Ms Bhutto a “kleptocrat”, which is all very well except that it comes from a woman who is an heir and beneficiary of her father Sir James Goldsmith, one of the twentieth century’s most notorious corporate raiders. [DT]
You would expect a good newspaper editor to know the immense moral difference between a kleptocrat—a person who steals money from the very people who elect her—and a corporate raider’s offspring—who doesn’t steal money from anyone.
And it’s downhill from there. Unable to defend Benazir from the charges leveled against her, all the Daily Times can manage is to, well, vent its spleen in a diatribe against Jemima Khan. So she’s a “habitually partying, card-carrying member of the decrepit global flitterati”. She also has a point. Or is the newspaper taking a page out of the Pakistani government’s book—that criticism of Pakistani affairs is only for the perfect?