Participants of the seminar, organized as part of Ideas 2002 Arms for Peace international defence exhibition, also emphasised the need for defining terrorism.
As the freedom struggle in Kashmir continues, the need for resolving this dispute between India and Pakistan, through a process of negotiations, was emphasised to end the violence to eliminate a dangerous flash-point. Concern was also expressed over the growing Indo-Israel nexus.
The participants were also concerned over the unchecked unilateral actions being taken by the Israelis and the Indians against the Palestinians and the Kashmiris. They said they believed that it was the fallout of the American unilateralism.
Discussing the ramifications of a unipolar world, the need for strategic restraint regimes to control arms races and nuclear proliferation was also emphasised.
The security imbalance created by the inordinate amounts spent on defence was also pointed out with an emphasis on investing more on human development. The larger countries were called upon to send signals of reassurance rather than heightened threats.
The need for moving towards co-operative mechanisms and processes within Asia was also emphasised to avoid conflicts and violence.
There were two sessions. The first dealt with the Asian security scenario and the second was focused on the Asian Defence market.
Inaugurating the seminar, former army chief Gen Jehangir Karamat said the regional security scenarios in Asia would be affected by domestic disparities and vulnerabilities and political upheavals leading to instability and social turmoil.
This aspect, he said, acquired great importance in the context of the ongoing war on terror because besides destroying terrorist structures a war would also have to be waged for the hearts and minds of people.
Examining the developments since 9/11, it was contended that normality in Afghanistan was essential for peace and stability in Asia. After the recent events and the ongoing situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the epicentre of terrorism no longer existed — it was now a widely-dispersed phenomenon. It was emphasised that close international co-ordination and co- operation was required to remove the challenge that terrorism posed to democratic societies and states.
Commodore Fasahat H. Syed (retired) spoke on the four sets of security paradigms which included proactive planning and programming to deal with terrorism.
The political suppression was another major cause which ultimately led to acts of terrorism, he said. It included denial of the right to self-determination, duplicity in the conduct of international relations, selective dispensation of politico-economic justice, neo-colonialism, double standards by the UN in implementing its resolutions, indifference of big powers towards resolving of conflicts and funding of radical and extremist organizations.
Keynote speaker Prof Zhu Febg of China examined the effects of 9/11 on the security paradigm and said regional stability was still on the brink in South Asia owing to the conflict between India and Pakistan. He emphasised the need for dialogue and activation of regional and sub-regional institutions. He said he believed there was need to search for a new security edifice.
Iran’s Dr Amer Mohammad Yousefi’s presentation was mainly focused on littoral states of the Gulf region and the Caspian sea and the oil and gas reserves. He said hegemonic pressures from Russia, with whom Iran had entered into many strategic agreements, might cause problems for Iran.
Tim Kennedy, who serves as a consultant to the Pentagon, presented the western perspective on the same topic and maintained that press reports saying that President Bush would revise the plan to construct a pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan was a significant development.
He said the international war on terror, energy resources, and NATO’s strategic transformation were just a few of the reasons why the stability of the Caspian States was of vital interest to the region, the West and the world.
He said the most obvious impediment to peace and stability in this region was the Allied military action in Afghanistan. Mr Kennedy also dealt with the military action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
He also referred to the presence of an Indian military base in Tajikistan, which reflected New Delhi’s desire to play a role in the new Great Game.
But he evaded to define terrorism. When asked to answer the growing perception that the US war on terror was selective and directed against the Muslims, he restated the official US policy and said it was not so.
Shireen Mazari said that with the nuclearization of South Asia, the Asian defence parameters, in the form of distinctive strategic sub-regions, were challenged by states like India, which now saw their strategic operation milieu in the form of “southern Asia” stretching from West Asia to East Asia. She came hard on the Indian designs and the US policies.
For Pakistan, joining the US-led anti-terrorist coalition reflected a major policy shift in that it required withdrawing support from the Taliban government, which had seen Pakistan as one of its leading allies. For Pakistan the logic of this shift was clear: to preserve its strategic assets and national sovereignty. As the war progressed in Afghanistan, US demands on Pakistan increased, but, unfortunately for Pakistan, the US economic commitments still remained unfulfilled.
The present danger for Pakistan, she said, was the shift in the focus of the war against Al Qaeda. With members of this group on the run and US inability to nab the leadership, attention was focusing on their possible presence in Pakistan. There was also increasing US involvement with the Pakistani security agencies, she added.
One major reflection of the negative fallout of 9/11 on Pakistan has been the introduction of a new form of terrorism within the country — that of suicide bombings and the indiscriminate targeting of foreigners.
Questioning the morality of US unilateralism, she said that overall the presence of the US and other Western forces in Afghanistan had brought in an external military dimension into the region, which so far had not created any stability. Since the International Security and Assistance Force in Afghanistan had an area of operation limited to Kabul, the lack of law and order continued to pervade the rest of Afghanistan and the situation had been further aggravated with a revival of warlordism. A further factor of instability had been almost total sidelining of the Pakhtun Afghan population from the structures of power. Given that this group was the largest single ethnic Afghan group, such a situation would only extend the political instability.
Dr Mohammad Selim of Egypt focused mainly on the Middle East and the American and UN indifference over Israeli brutalities against the Palestinians.
He said situation in South Asia was serious and escalation of tension between India and Pakistan was a major concern of the Arabs. A war between the two would have serious impact on the Arab economy and politics.
He called for demobilization of troops from the borders and beginning of a dialogue to include Kashmir as one of the issues.
He also said the Indo-Israeli nexus was a cause of concern to the Arabs, especially Egypt. He suggested ways for forging cooperation among Arab and other Asian countries.
He emphasised that the Arabs needed to reassess their Asian paradigm in many ways. Perhaps, the most important of them is to establish a pan Arab-Asian institutional framework for cooperation similar to the Europe-Asia Forum. The League of Arab States is already in the process of establishing a Sino-Arab Forum for cooperation. Such a forum should be expanded to comprise other Arab Asian counties or similar forums with these opportunities should be established. The Arabs also need to revise their economic Asian paradigm towards integration between economic, political, and cultural issues.