Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


Parties slam govt move

July 05, 2012

ISLAMABAD, July 4: Opposition parties both inside and outside parliament expressed reservations on Wednesday over the decision taken by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet and approved by the federal cabinet about the resumption of Nato supplies to Afghanistan.

PML-N spokesman Senator Mushahidullah Khan termed the decision a violation of a unanimous parliamentary resolution on the matter which clearly said that “Nato supplies should not be resumed without unconditional apology submitted by Washington” on the Salala attack in which 24 Pakistani troops died last year.

He alleged that instead of waiting for an official apology from the US, the PPP-led government had accepted a “personal ‘sorry’ of top American diplomat Hillary Clinton”.

He said: “My party will not tolerate disrespect to the two houses of parliament which after a detailed debate had passed the 14-point resolution which has not been mentioned while accepting the American excuse.”

He said the Americans had rejected Pakistan’s demand on cessation of drone attacks.

Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf chairman Imran Khan addressed a news conference in Lahore and rejected the resumption of Nato supplies.

The Jamaat-i-Islami, which withdrew its representative from a parliamentary committee due to differences on reviewing the terms of engagement with the US, termed the decision an “abject surrender to the US pressure and blackmail”.

Jamaat Amir Syed Munawar Hassan condemned the restoration of Nato supplies and said the government had strengthened the enemies of Islam and Pakistan and the nation would have to rise for its independence and for the protection of its nuclear weapons.

He said the rulers had served the US interest at the cost of vital national interest and the decision would prove to be detrimental to them.

He said the government had paved the way for US interference instead of curtailing it.