The current online edition of Foreign Affairs contains a detailed essay written by each of this year’s U.S. presidential candidates (some going back to last summer). The only three essays that still matter are those penned by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Naturally, the one South Asian nation they all mention is Afghanistan. What I wanted to do was highlight their thoughts on India and Pakistan and then end this post with the latest developments in Pakistan, which will play a pivotal role in how each of these candidates would be able to actually implement their stated policy (note: I’ve recently learned that quite a bit of the blogosphere anxiously waits for this ignorant American to blog about Pakistan again on SM).

First up is John McCain, the Republican nominee:

Success in Afghanistan is critical to stopping al Qaeda, but success in neighboring Pakistan is just as vital. We must continue to work with President Pervez Musharraf to dismantle the cells and camps that the Taliban and al Qaeda maintain in his country. These groups still have sanctuaries there, and the “Talibanization” of Pakistani society is advancing. The United States must help Pakistan resist the forces of extremism by making a long-term commitment to the country. This would mean enhancing Pakistan’s ability to act against insurgent safe havens and bring children into schools and out of extremist madrasahs and supporting Pakistani moderates. [Link]

Well, it seems that events on the ground have already upstaged McCain’s foreign policy. We won’t have Musharraf to kick around much longer (more about that at the end of this post). I would like to know more about what he means by “long term commitment.” That does sound like a good idea, although historically out-of-line with how we operate. America usually does not make long term commitments unless it has a stable leadership to work with that believes in (or a leadership that has been installed by us and coerced to believe in) our goals. As for India, this is all McCain has to say:

As president, I will seek to institutionalize the new quadrilateral security partnership among the major Asia-Pacific democracies: Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. [Link]

It looks like Musharraf’s party lost pretty badly in Pakistan’s elections there on Monday. So is this a good thing that will somehow change Pakistan for the better as many in the blogosphere seem to hope? Probably not is what I have asserted in the past. Vinod followed up with a great post about the dangers of an illiberal democracy. From an American perspective I find myself suddenly much more concerned about Pakistan now that Musharraf is in a weakened position there. I do not see this as some great victory of the people. Rather, it may just be a step out of the frying pan:

Early results showed a “big gain” for Mr Sharif and Ms Bhutto’s parties, Mr Azeem told the AFP news agency.

“If the results are confirmed we will play the part of the opposition as effectively as we can,” he said.

Most official counts will not be declared until later on Tuesday, and correspondents caution that it is still to early to be sure of the overall trends.

But high-profile victims of the poll were reported to include party president Chaudry Shujaat Hussain and his close ally, Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid.

They were among the PML-Q losses in Punjab, the country’s most populous province and a key electoral battleground.

“The result will be the voice of the nation and whosoever wins we should accept it – that includes myself,” said Mr Musharraf. [Link]

In Vinod’s earlier post he wrote the following (partly an analysis of a Zakaria article):

…the naked pursuit of Democracy – so the argument goes – becomes a sort of Cargo Cult pursued by well intentioned, often outside reformers with potentially tragic results. In an incorrigibly tribal or sectarian context, elections can merely result in one group gaining the bludgeon of state power to loot the assets and trample the rights of another.

Before Zakaria, the Founding Fathers famously used the aphorism “Tyranny of the Majority” and the diktat “People Get the Government They Deserve” to describe exactly such a breakdown. The implication is that in our politically-correct, post-modern world, while criticism of the government flows easily from our lips, perhaps criticism of the “governed” doesn’t flow quite enough. [Link]