KARACHI, Dec 22: Amid deteriorating security environment following the Indian decision to recall its high commissioner from Islamabad, some of the participants of a workshop here on Saturday urged India and Pakistan to ask the United States to mediate and to establish a linkage for resolving the contentious issues between India and Pakistan.

This was also suggested by the keynote speaker of the two-day workshop on “Paradigms of conflict resolution in South Asia,” Farooq Hasnat, Chairman of the Department of Political Science, University of Punjab.

He was very much concerned at the similarity of tone and vocabulary used by President Bush after the Sept 11 incident and that of Ariel Sharon and the BJP government of India.

The workshop was inaugurated by the Vice Chancellor of Karachi University, Dr Zafar Saeed Saify. Its first session was presided over by Dr Shafqat Jamote, former federal minister, who held the view that after Sept 11 there had been a shift in alliances.

Dr Hasnat said in the aftermath of the happenings of Sept 11 the concept of conflict and its management had underwent a dramatic transformation. These developments had not only been confined to the basic concept of inter-state relations, but had also drastically altered the meaning and modalities of security dimensions. Thereby a need to construct new paradigms, keeping in view the changed perceptions, had become a necessary requirement.

For the present, as well as in the near future, the US and its allies held the choice to determine for the “global village” what was moral, proper and a civilized behaviour. Thanks to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban for their wicked acts - the “civilized Western world” had acquired “global legitimacy” to brand anyone whom they disliked as a terrorist, especially if it did not fit in the grand design of their national strategy.

It became convenient, then, to brand the Palestinians, the Kashmiri freedom-fighters and the other wars of liberation as terrorist activities, no matter they were reacting against the terrorist measures of those that were the real wrong-doers and engaged in the policy of annihilation.

He pointed out that since Sept 11 the language used by Ariel Sharon was almost the same which President Bush used after the terrorist attacks. He said the BJP leadership was using the same terminologies, and warned that copying President Bush would be disastrous for the region as a whole.

A vital point to consider was that all these conflicts were administered by an outside power, utilizing fully its authority. It was no surprise that even before the happenings of Sept 11 the new world order that emerged a decade ago had brought forth such concepts as “terrorist groups,” “insurgences” and “civil wars.”

More attention should be diverted towards these realities in the South Asian context. In this part of the world, mutual suspicions were old and tensions had been allowed to grow to be mature.

Under the circumstances, the challenge presented to an analyst was to find out distinctive ways and means and to build appropriate paradigms so as to assist the policy-makers in resolving the existing conflicts, he said.

Prof Moonis Ahmar raised the question why there was a need to rethink the paradigms of conflict resolution at the international level and also in the context of South Asia?

After Sept 11, there was a need to rethink such paradigms because the rationale of global politics had changed to one major issue, ie, terrorism. It was in the context of growing insecurity and fear at the international level to deal with the threat of terrorism that the paradigms of conflict resolution and peace process must be re-examined and re-formulated.

He also examined as to what extent such paradigms were able to seek the management and resolution of conflicts and peace, and what alternative paradigms of conflict resolution could be created and what were the likely obstacles in this regard?

He said it was the general perception that there was Islam bashing as the conflicts in Palestine, Afghanistan and Kashmir threatened world peace.

A. R. Siddiqui, Executive Director of the Regional Institute of Security Studies, dealt with the conceptual aspect of the paradigms of conflict.

He was optimistic about the future of South Asia and called upon the two countries to behave like two independent states by forgetting the past.

Farhan Siddiqui dealt with the linkages between conflict resolution and peace process. He was of the view that state structure was responsible for the continuing conflict, instead of resolving it.

Analyst Zafar Nawaz Jaspal concluded that the Nuclear Confidence Building Measures (NCBMs) approach betw-

een India and Pakistan was a practicable solution to the nuclear flashpoint in South Asia. The NCBMs between India and Pakistan increased openness and transparency in military activities and in arms acquisitions, thus increasing the predictability of each other’s actions and behaviour. Under the NCBMs arrangement, normal military activities would not mistakenly be perceived as threatening. In addition, military activities that did pose a threat were immediately identifiable as out of the ordinary, allowing time for a state to seek clarification or react militarily, if necessary.

The failure of the UN to resolve the Kashmir issue was responsible for the prevailing South Asian security environment, and the strategic nuclear equilibrium between India and Pakistan made NCBMs between them imperative for their national interests. The national interests of both neighbours obliged them that they should seriously develop understanding intended for avoiding lose situations in their bilateral relations.

Sundeep Wesleker, founder of the International Centre for Peace Initiatives, Mumbai, India, presented a paper on Track-11 diplomacy in South Asia and the process of CBM.

He said the states had a great role in conflict emergence, and once they decide to resolve the conflict, they would be resolved.

Conflict had to be resolved in such a manner that the principles of peace and justice were not compromised and the principle of coercion was defeated and territorial compromise would not obstruct the peace process.

Sharmina Nasreen of Bangladesh said protracted conflicts between and within the states of South Asia had resulted in a sharp rise in the number of refugees and displaced persons over the years. Almost 70 per cent of these refugees were women and children. But the existing conflict resolution mechanism remained woefully inadequate in dealing with refugee issues — especially when it came to refugee women who represented “the most marginalized of a marginalized section of population.”

Meenakshi Gopinath and Sumona Dasgupta in their paper, which was read out by Shireen Saleem, dealt with the gender issue in conflict resolution. The paper dealt with many of these variables using the available empirical evidence of women’s experiences of conflict across South Asia. They concluded that women of Kashmir had been the worst hit by the ongoing struggle in the territory.

Musarrat Qadeem of Peshawar University in her paper dealt with the debate on non-nuclear CBMs in South Asia. Conflict and tension had arisen in South Asia because of differing perceptions and different images, the protagonists had of each other. Misperceptions tended to paint a totally different picture than that which actually existed. Sometimes these distorted perceptions were acquired because of a lack of information. At other times, misperceptions by leaders and decision-makers were deliberate.

Street politics in both India and Pakistan prohibited political leaders to support measures in the direction of relaxation of tension. So, even if both governments strived for normal ties, the opposition was always ready to exploit the situation. One example in this regard was of Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto who as prime ministers wanted to improve bilateral ties but were compelled not to take drastic measures because of domestic pressures.

Irresponsible and provocative statements given by government officials of both countries also broke the spirit of confidence building. It seemed as if it had become compulsory for every leader to assert their stand on Kashmir without realizing that their intransigent posture on the Kashmir dispute had precluded all endeavours for peace and cooperation in South Asia and had escalated the cost of their involvement in that conflict.

Dr Mutahir Ahmed Shaikh maintained that the issue of terrorism was becoming the most important ideological, political and social phenomenon at the global level. At present, South Asia was in the grip of terrorism. Terrorism did not exist in a vacuum; it was a combination of political and militant expression against the existing ruling political establishment in South Asia.

On the other hand, the CBMs (Confidence-building Measures) regime, though not strong enough to confront the terrorist forces, was trying to give an alternative view to resolve conflicts in a peaceful way.

Arshi Saleem, while dealing with CBMs, also dealt with political violence in the region. Referring to terrorism in South Asia, she dealt with the problem in the region. She also referred to the Tamil problem.