Crocker's talk

Talking to journalists in Islamabad last week, US Ambassador Ryan C Crocker touched on a number of on-going bilateral issues, including the pending trade and investment treaty and the establishing of economic reconstruction zones in FATA.
More importantly, he also had comments to make on two sensitive issues, namely, activities of Dr A Q Khan's proliferation network and Washington's position vis-a-vis general elections due next year. "The issue of unauthorised proliferation," he said, "is closed." The assertion was in line with another news story that President General Pervez Musharraf's senior aide, Tariq Aziz, had told the Ambassador at a meeting earlier in the day that after thorough investigation into the matter the government had concluded that there is nothing more to report about the network's proliferation activities and hence Dr Khan's chapter is now closed. Is it? Not really, considering Crocker's supplementary remarks.
He said the issue consists of a number of parts, and "the other set of information is, what was the full context of the activity?" Clearly, questions remain to be answered, which means it is still an open case. In fact, President Musharraf's memoir has raised fresh questions about the AQ network's activities. So far as the present situation is concerned the envoy said that his country is satisfied with the safeguards Pakistan has now put in place and the "on-going proliferation is now closed." The statement is important not only because it shows the US concerns have been adequately addressed, but also because it would help Pakistan's image as a responsible nuclear state.
It is sad but true that due to our peculiarly turbulent political history the US stance on such a purely domestic matter as the conduct of national elections holds significance.
Whereas it would be unthinkable for the US Ambassador to India to opine on the subject within that country's domestic context, it is a measure of the weak state of democracy in this country that Crocker was actually invited to express his views on the creditability of last elections and the ones due next year. Explaining that the issue came up for discussion during President Musharraf's recent Washington visit, he said, "What concerns us is a free and fair election and President Musharraf has given a clear commitment about it." That indeed is good news and believable, too, albeit to a certain extent. For there is a growing realisation among the American opinion leaders that the kind of political engineering that went on during and after the last elections in this country forces mainstream and relatively liberal parties to the sidelines, allowing more conservative extremist forces to occupy political space thus vacated.
That is helpful neither to democracy nor to US interests. Yet it does not seem to suit the US to have a completely free and fair electoral process that might bring about major changes that may or may not be to its liking. It is expected to insist on fair and free proceedings on the election day so that the mainstream parties can have a decent representation in the assemblies, but ignore any pre-poll restrictions due to which the leaders of the two major parties may remain in exile and are also barred from heading the new government in the event of their electoral victory.