In 1947 the nation of Pakistan was born in the wake of the Indian subcontinent's independence from Britain. It was carved out of northwestern India in a bid to prevent a bloody civil war between Hindus and Muslims. Up to a quarter of India's population was Muslim.

Author Andrew Boyd summed up the troublesome situation in this embryonic new nation: "About 8 million Muslims fled from India to Pakistan and about 8 million Hindus and Sikhs fled from Pakistan to India; half a million people were killed" (An Atlas of World Affairs, 10th ed., p. 164, emphasis added throughout).

The problem's historical roots

Periodic tensions and border skirmishes with India have characterized Pakistan's 60-year history. Control of the northern province of Kashmir has been a bone of contention throughout that whole period.

Eventually India built up a substantial armory of nuclear weapons, primarily in fear of Pakistan's intentions, and then the latter nation felt it had little choice but to counter with its own atomic arsenal. Here we have a basic root cause.

All present problems usually have a history and the stores of thermonuclear weaponry, particularly in Pakistan, are a current cause for grave concern for the whole Western world.

In 1999 Pakistan's inner tensions and domestic difficulties resulted in a military dictatorship headed by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Then in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan became an ally of America in the war against terrorism—a particularly important development because of its strategic border with Afghanistan.

What America had hoped for

Musharraf's rule was seriously weakened by terrorist incursions and problems with terrorists on the Afghan border. He also faced internal strife between conflicting ethnic groups, divisive political parties and military and intelligence services substantially sympathetic to the terrorists. He tried to cope by a major curtailment of national liberties, but that decision soon backfired. Recently he was forced to step down from his army post, but continues to rule in a civilian capacity.

America had hoped that the Western-educated (at Oxford and Harvard) Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister and one who believed in secular liberal democracy, would be able to balance Mr. Musharraf by becoming prime minister a third time after the January elections. The idea was that Bhutto and Musharraf could learn to work together as a team in stabilizing the country.

A primary U.S. goal behind this strategy was to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and their sympathizers. America has already spent many millions of dollars in trying to help Pakistan safeguard its atomic arsenal.

Benazir Bhutto's sudden, violent death has spoiled the American plan for stable democratic reforms in Pakistan. In the words of the International Herald Tribune, the assassination "left in ruins the delicate diplomatic effort [the Bush] administration had pursued for the past year to reconcile that country's deeply divided political factions" (Dec. 28, 2007).

Does democracy really work in the Muslim world?

The reality of this relatively recent quest for democracy in the Islamic world, according to a feature article in The Times, is simply this: "Over the past decade, thousands of people…have been murdered by Islamists in Muslim countries that have held reasonably free elections (Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia). Islamist opposition to democracy is based on the claim that allowing men to legislate would be a form of sherk, that is to say associating man with God, who is the 'sole and ultimate legislator.' Man-made law cannot rival God-made Shariah.

"Referring to Islam's history, in which the murder of leaders, including three of the first four caliphs, was the surest way to come to power, the Islamists hope that by assassinating senior politicians they would kill hopes of democracy in the Muslim world" (Dec. 29, 2007).

Although outwardly secular in belief, Benazir Bhutto apparently took great risks because she shared the Islamic concept that "one's fate is written in advance" (ibid.) and that at the end of the day no action on our part can avert it.

True democracy may be very hard to achieve and sustain in Pakistan. As the Financial Times Magazine stated: "Democracy is not just about elections. It is about living under law rather than the whim of power" (June 9/10, 2007). Benazir Bhutto's belief in a secular, tolerant democratic form of government was perhaps the major reason the administration in the United States had pinned its hopes on her recapture of political power and influence.

The West's primary concern

One of the West's worst nightmares is the thought that Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear weaponry might fall into the hands of terrorists or their supporters. Securing these weapons is no easy business. Scotland on Sunday stated that "the weapons are believed to be stored in bunkers at around six military bases, but Musharraf—suspicious of U.S. intentions should Pakistan seriously destabilise—has withheld exact locations" (Dec. 30, 2007).

According to the Scotland on Sunday team of three reporters sent to Islamabad, "In early 2005, a joint security assessment by the CIA and the US National Intelligence Council predicted that Pakistan could become 'a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation by 2015'" (ibid.).

In some quarters Pakistan is considered the world's weakest link in the chain of nuclear security. As one reporter put it, "Political meltdown in Pakistan and Afghanistan would embolden the West's enemies."

What can America and the Western world do to secure Pakistan's nuclear arms? Experts suggest watching closely and working with the Pakistan nation, continuing to render generous technical and financial support. Recent experience shows that it can become very difficult to go much beyond these measures, especially if the country becomes more hostile to America and its way of life.

Every nation has its choices

The Bible shows that God granted the precious gift of choice to our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden. He has extended that gift to humanity ever since. Benazir Bhutto stated: "In Pakistan there are two fault lines. One is dictatorship versus democracy. And one is moderation versus extremism." She went on to say that Pakistan must choose. God has so structured our human experience that our choices affect others: wise choices positively and unwise choices negatively. The stakes are high for the rest of the world in Pakistan's future choices.

Our Creator specifically told ancient Israel through Moses to choose life. But He left the option with His nation. "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Both Pakistan and America are going through the arduous process of choosing a new national leader. The choices both countries make are likely to have major consequences for their citizenry. WNP