Thursday, May 15, 2008, Jamadi-ul-Awwal 8, 1429    

US media on collapse of Nawaz-Zardari talks

Ayaz Ahmed Pirzada

Failure of Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharief to resolve the issue of judges who were dismissed by the President in November last and of collapse of Pakistan’s fragile governing coalition in less than three months after the Feb 18 elections has received prominent coverage in the US print and electronic media. The split of two largest political parties has been seen as a significant blow to Pakistan’s progress toward mature democratic rule and a deep disappointment to the public, which ousted Musharraf’s party at the polls in February and had demanded the restoration of the judges during months of unprecedented civic protests. The Washington Post (May 13) reported that the judicial dispute — and by extension, the question of Musharraf’s future — would now likely drag on, distracting the new government from addressing more important national problems, especially battling radical Islamist fighters and rebuilding the badly ailing economy.
It said that for the past month, Pakistanis watched with sinking hopes while Sharif and his archrival, Pakistan People’s Party leader Asif Ali Zardari, held three rounds of negotiations over the judicial dispute. A final round of talks between the two in London broke off with no agreement over the weekend, even after the top U.S. regional diplomat met there separately with both men and privately urged them to reconcile. Sharif, who was overthrown by Musharraf in 1999, insisted on a plan to bring back the ousted judges and demote those who took the oath of office under Mascara’’s rule; Zardari, who benefited politically and legally from Musharraf’s court purge, insisted that the president’s appointed judges keep their full powers.
The paper quoted a spokesman of the State Department as saying that the makeup of the Pakistani Government would not affect bilateral cooperation. “How they arrange themselves politically, the platform of the Government, those are going to be decisions for the Pakistani Government to make,” spokesman said. But according to paper, diplomatic sources in Washington said there was frustration among Pakistan’s Western allies that the civilian leadership had failed to resolve the judicial issue at a time of pressing national problems.
The newspaper’s story added that the rift between Zardari and Sharif leaves unresolved a second, more significant power struggle between Musharraf and the former chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. Chaudhry, an iconoclastic figure, challenged Musharraf in a society where judges have traditionally deferred to the military. Political breakdown could give Musharraf more room to reassert himself as a power broker .As a civilian President, he has the authority to dissolve Parliament and appoint military commanders. Ultimately, the greatest threat to Pakistan’s political evolution is the possibility of military intervention. So far, the new Army Chief has shown no interest in politics. But if renewed protests should erupt over the judicial dispute, food and fuel prices should continue to rise, or civilian authorities should fail to address the rising threat of violent extremism, some fear the Army could be tempted to take over, as it has done before, the news story added.
New York Times (May 13) reported that protracted negotiations that collapsed , the senior member of the coalition, the Pakistan Peoples Party led by Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, insisted that judges appointed during the emergency by President Musharraf as loyalists to him should also be retained. The essence of the feud over the judges revolved around the future of Mr. Musharraf, regarded by the Bush administration as a strong ally in the campaign against terrorism. Mr. Musharraf no longer leads the Army, but remains President.
If Mr.Iftikhar Chaudhry is reinstated, the Supreme Court would almost certainly rule that the Nov. 3 emergency decree was illegal. That in turn would reopen the issue of the legitimacy of Mr. Musharraf’s second five-year presidential term, which was found legal by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, who replaced Mr. Chaudhry, and who is regarded in the Pakistani legal fraternity as being friendly toward Mr. Zardari. Mr. Chaudhry could also decide to overturn an amnesty introduced last year by the Musharraf Government for politicians accused of corruption. One of the prime beneficiaries of that amnesty is Mr. Zardari.
It said that the public, suddenly burdened with an economic crisis of wheat shortages and high energy prices, is starting to express disenchantment with the new Government for concentrating on the judges at the expense of basic bread-and-butter issues. …. Mr Zardari’s party is the senior member of the coalition and has much to lose if Mr. Sharif gets credit for finally toppling Mr. Musharraf. There are also suspicions in Pakistan that the Bush administration is pushing to protect the ex- general, at least for a while longer.
In editorial the New York Times (May 13)said, the country’s two main Opposition parties — led by Mr. Zardari, the widower of the assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and Mr. Sharif — won control of Parliament in February, promising to quickly reinstate the judges. But they have not been able to agree since on how to do that. Mr. Sharif, who was driven from office by Mr. Musharraf, wants the judges restored immediately, by executive fiat, with a clear expectation that they will legally oust the former general. Mr. Zardari, who seems more willing to envision a deal with Mr. Musharraf (as did his late wife), wants the judges restored by an act of Parliament, coupled with judicial reform measures — a process that could take months to play out. ..Strong personal rivalries, in abeyance until now, have made this all the more complicated. Mr. Zardari’s party is the senior member of the coalition and has much to lose if Mr. Sharif gets credit for finally toppling Mr. Musharraf. There are also suspicions in Pakistan that the Bush administration is pushing to protect the ex- general, at least for a while longer.
The editorial opined that Pakistan needs its judges reinstated quickly. But it also needs the coalition government to hold together. Political leaders who have Pakistan’s interests at heart should be able to find a compromise that restores the judges, promotes much-needed judicial reform and resolves the issue of Mr. Musharraf’s future. One possible solution would be to hold another election — one the deeply unpopular president is certain to lose. The United States must make clear, finally, that its goal is not to keep Mr. Musharraf in office but to help the civilian government survive and prosper. The new government has many more problems to deal with, including rising food prices, a deepening economic crisis and a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda, it added. A news story in the Chicago Tribune (May 13) said that 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 writer is a columnist/analyst/former diplomat.