Farhana Ali | Friday, March 7, 2008
Now that the parliamentary elections in Pakistan have gone decisively against President Pervez Musharraf, there are two relevant questions for the United States to consider: Will the newly elected Pakistani prime minister agree to work with Musharraf, America's staunch ally on the war on terrorism? If the answer is no, what should the United States do in response?
To allay U.S. fears about the elections, Musharraf and his Pakistani friends in Washington repeatedly assured American policymakers that Monday's elections would be "free, fair and transparent," as well as on time -- a relatively new word attached to the infamous slogan.
Voting did proceed as planned, but many U.S. experts and officials were wary about whether the elections would produce an honest result. From the U.S. State Department to the Washington-based think tank community, there were concerns that manipulation of the results would force the White House to make some tough choices.
Yet contrary to some Western news reports, the choice for the United States in Pakistan is not simply between a moderate democratic leader or the all-powerful military regime. Rather, the choice for America was boldly articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice a year ago during a hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "No matter what the [election] result, we need to move in Pakistan from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy."
Her remarks signal that the United States no longer can...Full post @ www.washingtonpost.com
No comments:
Post a Comment