By Toufiq A. Siddiqi
(HONOLULU) Jan. 4 -- The assassination of Benazir Bhutto barely two weeks before the scheduled elections in Pakistan and a week before the Iowa caucuses has had the U.S. presidential candidates scrambling to come up with immediate responses. Many of the statements come across as if they were based on what the candidates' advisors thought might be helpful in Iowa or New Hampshire, rather than carefully thought-out policies on how to work best with an important strategic ally in a turbulent part of the world.
Although the news media continually bring up the question of Pakistan being a country with nuclear weapons that might fall into the hands of "Islamic extremists," this is not a major concern either in Pakistan or for many in the security establishment of the United States. It is highly unlikely that a small group of extremists would be able to get hold of such weapons, which are kept disassembled in separate locations at well-guarded military sites.
Thus, the only likely way in which extremists could get control of the nuclear weapons would be if they came to power in the country. And, despite scenes of buses being burnt, mobs throwing rocks and angry, bearded men shouting slogans, the fact remains that more than 95 percent of Pakistanis support moderate parties that are expected to work on meeting the basic needs of the population. These problems are immense, especially considering that the population grows by more than 3 million every year.
Each new government in Pakistan, whether led by Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), or that of Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), or by the military, has been enthusiastically welcomed by most Pakistanis when it came in. Invariably, none has been able to meet the expectations and needs of the Pakistanis, and thus lost their support after two or three years. Whoever gets into power after the next elections in Pakistan will face the same challenges as before, with the added one created by suicide bombers and other extremists.
We in the United States need to accept the fact there are no instant solutions to the development problems that Pakistan faces, and that the choice we face is deciding whether or not we are willing to make a real long-term commitment to the development of a moderate Pakistan. Almost half the country's population is illiterate, and the highest priority in financial assistance should be on expanding the primary and secondary education system to meet the needs of the 21st century. Health care and the creation of employment opportunities should also have high priorities for development assistance.
It is thus important that U.S. presidential hopefuls think through their positions carefully before making snap announcements that might be harmful to the development of sound long-term American policies toward Pakistan that are compatible with U.S. policies for the neighboring countries -- Afghanistan, India and Iran. Threats to cut off development assistance to Pakistan, for example, may play well with some domestic audiences in the primaries, but could work against the ability of the next U.S. president to develop a good relationship with the future government there.
Pakistan is a country of 160 million people and has withstood many hardships, including U.S. sanctions. Its people may be poor, but they want to be treated with dignity. Making stringent demands on them for the benefit of domestic political campaigns is likely to be counter-productive.
It is worth recalling that pro-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan was lowest when we invaded Iraq, one of the cradles of Muslim civilization, and was highest when the United States provided urgent help for the earthquake victims in northern Pakistan about two years ago. We need to keep in mind that free and fair elections in Pakistan may not necessarily result in a government that will make U.S. priorities its own. In fact, as things stand at present, any candidate in Pakistan that the U.S. openly endorses will have a harder time getting elected. We would be better off enunciating the principles and values we support, rather than appearing to endorse particular persons. As friends, we can help Pakistan evolve over time into a modern and progressive democracy, and that is surely something which most American voters can support.
Toufiq Siddiqi received his early education in Pakistan and frequently travels to that country. He is an Adjunct Senior Fellow in the Research Program at the East-West Center in Honolulu and president of Global Environment and Energy in the 21st Century, a nonprofit organization. He can be contacted at siddiqit@eastwestcenter.org or at (808) 944-7456.
The EAST-WEST CENTER is an education and research organization established by the U.S. Congress in 1960 to strengthen relations and understanding among the peoples and nations of Asia, the Pacific, and the United States. The Center contributes to a peaceful, prosperous and just Asia Pacific community by serving as a vigorous hub for cooperative research, education and dialogue on critical issues of common concern to the Asia Pacific region and the United States. Funding for the Center comes from the U.S. government, with additional support provided by private agencies, individuals, foundations, corporations and the governments of the region.
The East-West Wire is a news, commentary, and analysis service provided by the East-West Center in Honolulu. Any part or all of the Wire content may be used by media with attribution to the East-West Center or the person quoted. To receive the East-West Center Wire, please contact Derek Ferrar, Media Relations Specialist at (808) 944-7204 or send an email to EastWestWire@EastWestCenter.org.
Click here for daily news on the Pacific Islands.
Click here for links to all East-West Center media programs, fellowships and services.