While the United States has very high stakes in Pakistan, Washington should avoid giving an impression that it is backing any particular candidate in the May 11 election, former US ambassador to Islamabad Ryan Crocker said on Monday.
The upcoming election was as much about Pakistan’s institutional future as it was of new parliaments and a new government, the former diplomat noted in a conference call.
“Given our history in Pakistan, we have got to be incredibly careful not to do anything that could even create the impression that we are favouring any candidate over any other candidate,” he said in the call arranged with reporters by the Council on Foreign Relations.
In this context, he said, Secretary of State John Kerry on his recent visit to the region deliberately did not visit Pakistan.
“And the reason, as I understand it, is so that there could be no suggestion that he was in Pakistan to somehow affect the outcome of the elections. This all has to be about strengthening the institutions of the state and most particularly those who — those which are involved in the conduct of the elections. I think we do have a role to play in that.”
Crocker hoped to see a significant and distinguished group of international observers from around the world, including the US, present for the elections, again, in the best of all possible roles to put the seal of good housekeeping on the outcome.
“We just have to avoid any vulnerability that we are backing a particular candidate. And there will be enormous pressures and – to do so from the candidates themselves, I wouldn’t doubt, as well as assertions that we are – that we are or we aren’t.”
Emphasising US stakes in Pakistan, Crocker said it was a country of 180-plus million people and possesses nuclear weapons.
Crocker who was the US ambassador to Pakistan from 2004 to 2007 said Pakistan was facing a growing extremism challenge amid press reports of the ascendancy of the Taliban in Karachi.
“So a stable Pakistan is crucial to a stable region, and that takes us back to the importance of these elections.”
He said at the same time the good news was that the government completed its term, made no effort to extend that extra-legally.
“There is a credible election commission in place and a caretaker government to oversee all of this, because it comes down to one word: institutions.”
Pakistan, he claimed, was in a state of institutional failure. “It’s not a failed state, but you could argue it is a failing state.”
“So these elections need to be, well-run and credible in their outcome. I think we as the United States and more broadly as the international community need to do whatever may be helpful to the success of these elections, and that means efforts on institutions, not, repeat, not on individuals.”
“From the point of view of US interests, I don’t think it matters that much who emerges in first place and who forms the next government as long as the process of getting them there is broadly seen as legitimate.”
The other piece of good news, he said, there was no appetite in the Pakistani military to get itself involved in the electoral process, certainly not under the current management.
“So as long as there is not widespread disorder, I would be reasonably confident that the military will keep its distance.”
Thirdly, he said, there had been massive political rallies throughout the country by the various contenders without much trouble. “Given the number of people who were out and the threats by the Taliban and others to disrupt the process, that so many rallies were held without incident is an encouraging beginning.”