Pakistan's Fragile Coalition Takes Big Hit

Unable To Reach Pact On Ousted Judges, Ministers From Ex-PM Nawaz Sharif's Party Resign

(AP)  Ministers from the party of ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif submitted their resignations from Pakistan's Cabinet on Tuesday, shaking the fragile coalition government that took power just six weeks ago.

Sharif announced Monday that he was pulling his ministers from the government over its failure to meet a promise to reinstate judges ousted by archrival President Pervez Musharraf.

But Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's office said he did not immediately accept the nine resignations and that a decision on them would come after his party's leader, Asif Ali Zardari, returned to Pakistan - expected later Tuesday.

A withdrawal of Sharif's party raises the prospect of the fledgling government collapsing, casting Pakistan into political turmoil just as it faces mounting economic woes and tries to maintain a fragile truce with Islamic militants along the Afghan border.

Sharif said his party would remain part of the ruling coalition, which is led by the party of Zardari, the widower of assassinated ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Zardari's party expressed "respect" for the decision and said the parties remained close.

But a spokesman for Sharif sharpened the tone Tuesday, accusing members of Zardari's Pakistan People's Party of "serving the interests" of Musharraf by blocking the judges' restoration.

"Such loyalists of Musharraf are to be blamed for our decision to quit the Cabinet," Sadiqul Farooq said.

Farooq claimed that Zardari aides had secret contacts with Musharraf.

Zardari party spokesman Farhatullah Babar denied there had been any back-channel contact with Musharraf and insisted his party remained committed to restoring the judges.

He said Zardari would return to Pakistan from overseas late Tuesday, meet party leaders and hold talks with Sharif at a later date.

Musharraf imposed emergency rule and purged the Supreme Court in November to forestall a ruling on his eligibility for office.

The coalition which came to power after routing Musharraf's supporters in February parliamentary elections vowed to reverse his crackdown. But the two leading parties have failed to agree just how to reinstate the judges despite weeks of wrangling.

Sharif insists a parliamentary resolution and a simple order from the government would suffice to bring back the justices.

But Zardari's party argues that the law must be changed first to accommodate those judges installed by Musharraf after the purge - an attempt to make sure they do not resist the change. It is also seeking a package of judicial reforms to prevent the judges from getting involved in politics.

A permanent split in the coalition would boost Musharraf, a former army strongman who has taken a back seat since the new government took power in late March.

Opposition parties aligned with the president have signaled their readiness to join a new coalition with the PPP if its alliance with Sharif breaks down completely.

The two main coalition parties are not natural partners.

Bhutto and Sharif fought mercilessly for power during the 1990s, a decade associated with rampant corruption and government incompetence that paved the way for Musharraf's 1999 military coup.

However, both suffered under the former army strongman and shared an ambition to re-establish the supremacy of Parliament over a presidency which currently has the power to dismiss the government.

Sharif said his party would not join the opposition "for the time being."

"We will not take any step which will benefit Musharraf's dictatorship," he said.

[winnerindia]

" SO WHY DOES OUR CONGRESS GIVE THESE COUNTRYS OUR TAX DOLLARS IN THE AMOUNT OF OVER 50 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, IN FOREIGN AID,

[e-mail]
David a belanger,veteran u.s. army "
---------------------------------
Posted by forthepeopl1 at 04:33 PM : May 13, 2008


Nut case! that aid is not given for free or, for granted. Most of the Arab countries are rich. They get that aid in return of doing something good for the U.S interests. As an example, Pakistan has 7 U.S secret air bases accross the country. Qatar, Egypt also provide same incentives to the U.S. Further, the green signal that always these countries give to the U.S whether the actions of the U.S are justified in any way or not. So don''t be fooled and don''t panic.
The U.S administration isn''t stupid to give away money everywhere for no reason.

[forthepeopl1]

DISGUSTING ISN%u2019T IT ??????????

ARABIC/ISLAMIC STATES VOTING RECORDS IN THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT AND UNITED NATIONS RECORDS, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

PERHAPS IT IS TIME TO GET OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS, AND GIVE THE TAX SAVINGS BACK TO THE AMERICAN WORKERS WHO ARE HAVING TO SKIMP AND SACRIFICE TO PAY TAXES AND BUY GASOLINE AND THE HIGHEST PRICES OF FOOD THIS COUNTRY HAS SEEN IN CENTERY.

KUWAIT %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 67 % OF THE TIME
QATAR - VOTES AGAINST 67 % OF THE TIME
MOROCCO %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 70 % OF THE TIME
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES %u2013 70 % OF THE TIME
JORDAN - VOTE AGAINST 71 % OF THE TIME
TUNISIA %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 71 % OF THE TIME
SAUDI ARABIA %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 73 % OF THE TIME
YEMEN %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 74 % OF THE TIME
ALGERIA - VOTES AGAINST 74 % OF THE TIME
OMAN %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 74 % OF THE TIME
SUDAN - VOTES AGAINST 75 % OF THE TIME
PAKISTAN %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 75 % OF THE TIME
LIBYA - VOTES AGAINST 76 % OF THE TIME
EGYPT - VOTES AGAINST 79 % OF THE TIME
LEBANON %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 80 % OF THE TIME
INDIA %u2013 VOTES AGAINST 81 % OF THE TIME
SYRIA - VOTES AGAINST 84 % OF THE TIME
MAURITANIA - VOTES AGAINST 87 % OF THE TIME

SO WHY DOES OUR CONGRESS GIVE THESE COUNTRYS OUR TAX DOLLARS IN THE AMOUNT OF
OVER 50 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, IN FOREIGN AID,

[e-mail]
David a belanger,veteran u.s. army

[bobbyduck1]

I''m a huge critic of everything about the Bush mob, they are the worst ever in American history and hopefully will be brought up on charges at some point.

But this is one area where, unless I''m very mistaken, there was simply no other choice than Musharraf - to have any liaison with Pakistan over the past several years, you have to deal with whoever is running the place, whether you like them or not.....

I believe that the best president in modern history - Bill Clinton-would have done much the same. As would Barack or Hillary, given the circumstances....

Or have I missed something?