ISLAMABAD: US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher’s unannounced visit to the capital last week that made many in the media, political and diplomatic circles wonder about its very purpose, was actually not linked to the second round of Pakistan-US Strategic Dialogue. He was here on a ‘political mission’ and his trip was largely related to Pakistan’s internal politics.

Reportedly the Foreign Office was not in the loop and instead men from

President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s camp were involved in the visit of

this diplomat who was also here last month and is now back again for the ‘strategic dialogue’.

According to information received from ‘insiders’, his brief trip here last week could be defined as an attempt to salvage the Musharraf-Benazir deal.

Notwithstanding the presidential Spokesman Rashid Qureshi’s vehementdenial, it has transpired that Mr Boucher did meet the president at his Camp Office in Rawalpindi on Friday.

After his negotiations in the twin cities, Mr Boucher was reportedly to go back and touch base with Ms Bhutto in Dubai to report on his talks here.

Interestingly the American embassy spokesperson had insisted on Friday that Mr Boucher was here just to prepare for the Strategic Dialogue and the Foreign Office which is directly involved in the dialogue seemed to have no clue! The US embassy neither denied nor confirmed reports about Mr Boucher’s meeting with the president. There was also no word about it from the Foreign Office but when contacted, its spokesperson Tasnim Aslam’s response was that she had no information about such a meeting taking place and neither had the Foreign Office fixed one.

Despite a behind-the-scenes role in Pakistan’s internal politics, particularly in nudging President Musharraf and Ms Bhutto towards a power-sharing arrangement, the White House and the US State Department continue to issue statements asserting that the Bush Administration wants to see free, fair and transparent elections in Pakistan.

Notably, only last week the US ambassador Ann Patterson categorically stated that while her government was interested in the current political developments in Pakistan, it had no preference for any particular candidate or party in the country’s electoral process.

Speaking at the Foreign Service Academy here on Sept 5, Ms Patterson declared: “The United States does not support particular candidates or parties in your electoral process. We support free, fair, and transparent elections that reflect the choices of the Pakistani people.” Her loud and clear message was: “We support the efforts of your government, of your political parties, of your civil society, and indeed of ordinary citizens to continue building a democratic and prosperous Pakistan.”

Regardless of such proclamations from various members of the Bush administration, pointed questions about the US role continue to be raised in Pakistan. Also, it has put to question the government’s repeated claim of upholding Pakistan’s sovereignty just as has the unceremonious deportation of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to Saudi Arabia with the intervention of the Saudi Kingdom acting at the behest of the US. Both are seen as undermining Pakistan’s sovereignty which is being selectively exercised by those at the helm of affairs for self-preservation.

SAUDI DIPLOMACY: In the diplomatic circles here, there has been much talk about the proactive role of the otherwise cautious Saudi kingdom in the forced exile of Mr Nawaz Sharif.

The new style of Saudi diplomacy has astonished many. Some key quarters confirm that the Saudi intervention was prodded by the Americans who have apparently also been pressurising the UAE and the Lebanese to support President Musharraf.

Whether the Saudis were dragged into an episode that was subsequently termed ‘abduction’ by lawyers and legislators or they did so at their own initiative, it is being resented by many in Pakistan.

Geoff Lawson is a tough character. You could see it in the way he played the game. He was a determined fighter and he made the most of whatever ability God gave him. He was always up for a challenge, and he could take some stick yet still keep coming back.

Pakistani audiences saw a good deal of Lawson when he toured here in September-October 1982. It was a trying tour for Australia – they lost the Test series 3-0 and the ODIs 2-0 – but Lawson, bowling with heart and soul, distinguished himself as the most successful bowler for his side.

His victims, all top-order batsmen, included names like Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Mohsin Khan, Mansoor Akhtar, and Haroon Rashid. One of his wickets was a well set Miandad bowled between bat and pad off a National Stadium flat track on a hot and dusty September morning. It left Miandad (and the rest of Pakistan) with the most astonished, wide-eyed look and showed, if nothing else, that Geoff Lawson was capable of uncommon accomplishments.

Lawson’s appetite for challenges makes him an inspired choice as Pakistan’s national cricket coach. Nor does his Australian pedigree hurt. Cricket in the 21st century is dominated and defined by the Australian paradigm, and absorbing the best of the Australian model appears to be a perfectly logical approach to global cricket success.

We can be sure Lawson is thoroughly familiar with the ins and outs of the Australian system. Apart from his Test and ODI career, he was also a seasoned product of the Australian domestic circuit, the world’s toughest domestic cricket environment. Although he did not captain Australia, he did captain his state side, New South Wales, and led them to several national titles, earning a reputation for a ruthless philosophy of leadership. More recently, he supervised New South Wales as their coach. Whether he can now make some of Australia’s glitter rub off on Pakistan will depend on what areas he chooses to focus on.

For all the talk about the unsuitability of foreign coaches, the fact remains that Pakistan’s traditional weakness – inadequate and improper grounding in the game’s fundamentals – is the ideal deficiency that can respond to a rigorous Australian influence. Lawson has given public statements that he wants more of a “killer instinct” in Pakistan, but this is not where the problem lies. Pakistani teams have a well-earned reputation of going for the kill once they smell blood. It is in creating opportunities to smell blood in the first place that Pakistan remains weak.

Ian Chappell, cricket’s foremost rationalist, has made the point that Pakistani teams are typically bursting with talent and flair, yet they keep handing the advantage to the opposition by committing careless schoolboy blunders. The gaffes run the full spectrum, from the maddeningly frustrating to the amusingly sublime. Casual running between the wickets and repeatedly playing away from the body or across the line are areas that send Pakistani fans into apoplexy. The bowlers are equally culpable, gifting wides and no-balls like they were dispensing candy. Pakistan are also notorious for conceding too many extras, a clear measure of slackness and recklessness. And this is not to even mention the bowling action, a core proficiency where Pakistan has had more than its share of problems. It is due diligence on these weak fundamentals that will lift Pakistan into the top cadre of international cricket.

Pakistan’s disorganised cricket governance is the major obstacle to Lawson’s agenda. He has an initial two-year term, and the clock starts ticking with the Twenty20 world championship. Stringent assignments involving the likes of South Africa, India and Australia follow.

Lawson’s task extends well beyond the cricket, because he must also contend with an administrative culture where chaos, officiousness, and misplaced priorities are endemic. His first and foremost duty is to keep a cool head while others around him are losing theirs. Nothing demonstrates this better than the latest Shoaib Akhtar scandal that has just exploded in the Pakistan dressing room, managing to rock Pakistan’s Twenty20 campaign even before it began. Pakistan cricket is full of turbulent waters even in the best of times, and these are hardly those.

Charles Dickens wrote two endings to his famous novel Great Expectations – one unhappy and the other ambiguous – and eventually published the ambiguous one. What ending will Geoff Lawson script for the great expectations that he finds himself faced with? Pakistani fans have come to expect a lot from their national coach and are pining for a happy ending. Let us hope that circumstances – in the form of ad hocism, unaccountability, and deteriorating relations between the Board and the players – do not have the final word.