Most watched poll: 10,000 observers in Pakistan
There is deep concern in London about the future of Pakistan.This arises not just from the fear that unrest in the tribal areas on the Afghan frontier adds to the influence of the Taleban in Afghanistan, but from the links between Pakistan and terrorism in Britain.
Recently, the former deputy head of Britain's MI6 secret service, Nigel Inkster, who is now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, highlighted British fears when he publicly named pro-Taleban commander Baitullah Mehsud, who comes from South Waziristan in Pakistan, as "public enemy number one".
The British hope is that elections can lead to greater stability in Pakistan. But there is recognition that elections by themselves are not enough.The Foreign Secretary David Miliband set out the formal British position in a speech on 12 February 2008.
"In Pakistan, the path to democracy begins with free and fair elections, but it needs deeper roots: an independent judiciary, a commitment from the army to stay out of politics, and devolution of powers to states and local government," he said.
Behind that formal expression of policy lies a hands-on approach that shows how deep the fear for Pakistan lies.Near panic set in among senior British officials last November when Gen Musharraf declared a state of emergency and sacked the Supreme Court.
Led by a former British High Commissioner to Pakistan, Mark Lyall Green, who is now political director of the Foreign Office, the British and US governments acted to try to unscramble Gen Musharraf's actions and put the country on the road to greater democracy.
This is seen as vital in combating the Islamists inside Pakistan.
Then there was the catastrophe of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, whose return to Pakistan the British government had encouraged.Nobody in London expects Pakistan to settle down anytime soon.
One London-based observer remarked recently: "The best one can hope for is that Pakistan will muddle through as it has done in past crises, with continuing oscillations between military and civilian rule."
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir, since both became independent from British rule in 1947.The nuclear-armed neighbours nearly went to war a fourth time in 2002.They began peace moves in 2004 but progress slowed after India blamed Pakistan for the 2006 Mumbai train blasts.
Travel and sport links have been restored since then but little progress has been made over Indian-administered Kashmir.Chaos and uncertainty in Pakistan appears to have slowed down the peace process anyway.In this context, India has mixed feelings about the upcoming elections in Pakistan. Indians were not upbeat about the elections in the first place.
National Security Adviser MK Narayanan summed up the establishment mood in a television interview before Benazir Bhutto's assassination when he said India was sceptical of a future Pakistani government under Ms Bhutto.
"Her track record is not necessarily something that would make us believe that she will follow to the letter and spirit of what she has said," Narayanan told a television interviewer.
Ms Bhutto had spoken about closing down terrorist camps, private militias and had hinted at giving Indian detectives access to some militant leaders who were wanted in India and allegedly living in Pakistan.
The establishment's scepticism is shared by many."As part of the historical record, there is not much to choose between civilian governments and military regimes in Pakistan when it comes to an amicable relationship with India," says analyst Harish Khare.
Analysts point to the fact that it was during Ms Bhutto's premiership that the situation in Kashmir took a turn for the worse. And it was during Nawaz Sharif's time in power that the Kargil conflict happened.
Although the American people are more focused on their nation's own presidential race, Washington's interest in - and concern about - Pakistan's elections can perhaps be gauged by the number of high-ranking military and intelligence officials it has despatched to Islamabad in recent weeks.
Among them were the top military officer in the US, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm Michael Mullen, CIA Director Michael Hayden and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.
The stakes for the US in Monday's election are high: the US has backed President Pervez Musharraf since an alliance was forged in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks and it views Pakistan as a vital ally in the self-declared war on terror and fight against al-Qaeda.
The political unrest linked to Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule last year and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has dealt a blow to Washington's strategy in the region - the restoration of democracy in Pakistan in order to offer an alternative path, away from militancy and extremism.
The US is now looking to the elections to stabilise what it is all too aware is a nuclear-armed nation and ensure that Islamabad's collaboration in the fight against terror - to support which Washington has given more than $10bn in aid to Pakistan - continues.
But there is perhaps a sense of frustration in Washington about the limitations as to what the US can do to make that happen.
Richard Boucher, Assistant US Secretary of State, told the national security and foreign affairs panel of the US House of Representatives late last month that "if history was any guide", some fraud was to be expected in Pakistan's elections.However, he urged Congressmen not to give up on the idea that a new leadership could emerge from "a legitimate process" and said US embassy teams were doing what they could to monitor voting.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Congress she was concerned about the potential for election violence and voting irregularities.But, she added: "I believe that the Pakistani leadership understands that they have to have an election that inspires confidence in the Pakistani people that this is a step forward for democracy."
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/02/19/news0006.htm
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. __._,_.___
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___