Pakistan in uncertain times

PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif’s decision to pull out of the coalition pushes Pakistan to a fresh phase of political uncertainty. Despite several rounds of talks, Sharif and Zardari failed to resolve differences over the restitution of about sixty judges sacked by Musharraf on November 3 after imposing emergency for a second time. Though the PML-N ministers will quit the cabinet of Yousaf Raza Gilani, the party will not join the opposition or do anything that destabilises the government. PPP Co-chairman Asif Zardari has said that his party will not pull its ministers from PML-N led government in Punjab to form its own government with the help of the PML-Q. The collapse of the coalition and split between country’s two most popular parties in such short time portends more political uncertainty. After a decade of animosity in the 1990s, they had coalesced in the cause of democracy. This comes at a time when the country is facing some of its worst economic crises with dark prospects of social commotion. The lingering problems of militancy and terrorism further complicate the situation. The unresolved issue of restoration of judges also threatens to bring lawyers, civil society activists and political workers on the streets.
This is a grim development for a nation that has just turned a new leaf in its history in the February 18 elections that promised a bright democratic future. The people rejected Musharraf’s autocratic rule and repudiated his person, allies and policies by voting into power secular and democratic forces who faced his wrath for eight years. Sharif has blamed Musharraf for being source of instability and conspiring to thwart the verdict of the people on February 18. He has encouraged his allies to come closer to the PPP in order to reduce its dependence on the PML-N. The presidency had become a hub of covert moves to try fresh alignments to isolate Sharif. By dragging his feet on the judges’ issue, Zardari has risked popular backlash and a huge dip in the popularity of his party. Both had promised to restore judges through a resolution of the parliament followed by an executive order. Now he says he is not convinced that this would be a legal course to undo an admittedly illegal and unconstitutional act by Musharraf. This is an anomalous position. He has shown greater concern to retain the new judges inducted by Musharraf rather than restoring those who stood up to him and refused to take oath of allegiance. Sharif demonstrated resilience to accept the PCO judges but as ad hoc members of the court. The inability to reconcile the two positions has plunged the country into a seemingly ominous crisis.


Chad-Sudan standoff

THE arrest — and then release — in Khartoum of opposition Islamist leader Hassan Turabi is a bizarre twist to what has been a bizarre course of events. Saturday’s raid on the Sudanese capital by a Darfur rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), was a bolt out the blue. Visibly shocked, the government of President Omar Bashir has taken the view that this could not have happened without help. In accusing both the government of neighboring Chad and Turabi of involvement, it suggests a remarkable conspiracy. The JEM — the most Islamist of all the myriad of Darfur rebel groups —certainly has had links with Turabi in the past and a faction, now split from it, is led by a former member of the republican guard of Chadian President Idriss Deby. Chad denies any involvement although the two countries have a history of interfering in each other. This week’s attack, moreover, is a mirror image of a rebel assault on Chad’s capital three months ago, which the Chadians accused Khartoum of sponsoring. One of the great ironies in the present rivalry is that Deby would not be Chadian president but for Bashir. Having been forced to flee Chad, it was with Bashir’s support that he returned in 1990 at the head of an invasion force and captured the capital. The notion that Deby would link up with Islamists to attack the Sudanese is difficult to accept. He banned Islamist movements in Chad in 1996 and he has spent much time of late accusing Bashir of trying to export Islamism to sub-Saharan Africa. Following mediation by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Presidents Deby and Bashir were all smiles at the OIC summit in Dakar after signing a pledge not to support rebel attacks against each other. It seems strange that the Chadian president would renege so soon.
There are too many instances in Africa, particularly eastern Africa, of governments using rebel groups to destabilize neighbors and fight proxy wars. Whether or not Chadian and Sudanese accusations are true is irrelevant. What is needed is a change of relationship. Sudan’s response will not help that. Breaking off diplomatic relations and threats of retaliation will only worsen the situation. Sudan and Chad need to talk to each other. Sudan is not going to resolve the crisis in Darfur without involving Chad; nor is Chad going to deal with its own rebels without involving Sudan. It would be unfortunate if the Darfur rebellion were to be taken over by extremist Islamists. The conflict is not about Islam. Both sides in the dispute are Muslim. It is an issue about ethnic cleansing and human rights. The JEM is already the most ambitious of the many Darfur rebel groups. It has already taken the fight to neighboring Kordofan province, attacked oil fields and threatened to drive foreign oil workers out of the country. If, with its extremist credentials, it were to become the leading Darfur rebel movement, many in the international community would lose interest. The people who would suffer in that situation would be the Darfuris themselves.

—Arab News