 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||||
DECEMBER 22-23, 2001 - CONFERENCE ROOM |
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
Background Why conflicts occur and how the
world can be a better and safer place for mankind in the face of conflicts, which remain endemic and violent? Since long, different individuals have asked the basic question about the causes, formation, prevention,
management and resolution of conflicts. But so far, despite sustained research no suitable answer has been found to respond to the outbreak of conflicts at various levels and numerous obstacles to their solutions.
Conflict resolution is an ideal term but it is now being frequently used because it gives a sense of hope to those people who are under the shadow of endless sense of insecurity and fear. When human mind tends to be
violent, aggressive, egocentric and chauvinistic, the outcome has been the frequent outbreak of wars and other forms of hostility. Does it mean that unless human mind is restructured and is made peaceful, we will
continue to face the outbreak of conflicts? Is it possible to change the psychological and sociological behavior of people so that aggressive, chauvinistic and violent tendencies of human mind are neutralized?
Conflict resolution experts like John Burton, James Schellenberg, Edward E. Azar, Roger Fisher, Peter Wallenstein and Johan Gultung have talked about the sources of conflict and coping with their escalation, but the
question which needs to be addressed after September 11 is how to prevent positive conflict from becoming a negative conflict. Since centuries, Islam and Christianity have coexisted notwithstanding Crusades and other
points of friction. Their conflicts have been positive in the sense that the followers of both the religions, despite perennial differences on various issues maintained a level of tolerance and restrain. After September
11, it seems that the positive conflict between Islam and Christianity has inducted an element of open hostility. The war in Afghanistan is emerging as a major source of conflict between Christianity and Islam because
the bulk of military campaign against Taliban is launched by the Western Christian countries. Most important, overwhelming majority of forces deployed in Afghanistan to track down Al-Qaida group and Osama Bin Laden are
from the Christian countries. The United States and the Western countries involved in Afghanistan since the events of September 11 may not subscribe to this thinking, but it is a perception, which exists in many Muslim
countries. Since time immemorial, human beings are concerned with two important dimensions of conflict: negative and positive. While negative conflict has been a source of destruction and violence,
positive conflict is considered to be healthy and essential for pursuing future goals. The problem occurs when negative side of the conflict dominates and creates condition for the outbreak of violence and wars. If
human beings, particularly those who are educated, conscious and aware of basic issues, promote positive side of the conflict, much can be done to prevent conditions in which intolerance, insecurity and power ambitions
cause instability and violence. The war in Afghanistan is a classical example to prove how a negative conflict can ruin the entire country and destabilize Central, South and West Asia. To a large extent, same is true
with the Kashmir conflict and other inter-state and intra-state conflict which tend to be negative in nature and cause immense destruction to prospects for peace and stability in South Asia. Various
concepts and ideas have been presented on identifying the sources of conflict. Likewise, several studies in sociology and international relations have pointed to the individual as the prime source of conflict because of
his intolerance and greed in seeking various objectives and ambitions. To some extent, groups and states are also identified as sources of conflict because of their quest for unilateral win-win approach. In the course
of conflicts, all the three parties i.e. individuals, groups and states fail to redeem the fact that the root cause of a conflict is the wish of one individual, group or state to impose its own will on the other. When
injustices continue to shape perceptions at different level, the end result can be the institutionalization of conflicts. Therefore, the bottom line in conflict formation and escalation is the emphasis laid on
individuals, groups or states for win-lose or lose-lose situation instead of win-win situation. The desire and capacity of some people to win at the expense of each other is thus the core cause of conflict formation and
escalation. Hence five important paradigms which have influenced conflict formation, escalation, management and resolution are:-
1. International System. All the five paradigms continue to change and shift according to the situation. But, it doesn't mean that there is a replacement of these paradigms with new paradigms because adjustments and changes can take place in
such paradigms and traditional and non-traditional categorization can also be made within the ambit of their ambit. While states are more concerned about their interests than moral dimensions of international
relations, the shape of conflicts also becomes complicated and violent. In the midst of a debate between the relevance of traditional and non-traditional paradigms of conflict and conflict resolution, the fundamental
question, which arises, is about awareness and better sense of understanding among people on issues, which cause conflict and strategies which can help unleash the process of conflict resolution. The predicament which
human beings are facing these days is the futility of diplomacy and negotiations to avert or manage a conflict. The outbreak of Gulf War in January 1991 and the recent U.S. led attacks over Afghanistan point to the
inability of conflict resolution managers to play their role in restraining the use of force in a particular conflict situation. The changing dynamics of international order since September 11, 2001 tend to question
the paradigms of conflict resolution and peace process. As the two important approaches for enduring human security at different levels, conflict resolution and peace process in the Western and non-Western world have
emerged as major sub-disciplines in the field of international relations. While concepts, approaches, theories and ideas discussed and examined in conflict resolution and peace process periodically undergo review
according to the prevailing conditions, a debate is going on since September 11 that to what extent the paradigms of conflict resolution and peace process could be reformulated and restructured. At the heart of the
issue is the role of non-state actors, particularly in areas of war and military strategy at a global level. The biggest challenge which the world is facing since September 11 is how to deal with issues
which are more concerned with terrorism, both individual, group and state-sponsored than sustained areas of conflict, particularly at the inter and intra-state level. If terrorism is accepted as a major destabilizing
factor in contemporary international relations, it is time we resolve the fact that it is an effect and not a cause of conflict. Terrorism in any form is an outcome of a situation when normal avenues of justice are
denied and when those who resort to the illegal use of force and violence consider an unresolved status of a conflict a major cause of struggle. The destruction of twin towers in New York on September 11 by a terrorist
attack needs to be understood in broad parameters of conflict formation and escalation in different parts of the world. There exists a close linkage between conflict resolution and peace process because both
these approaches are aimed to stabilize inter-and intra-state relations. The process of conflict resolution cannot take off unless it is backed by concerted efforts for peace. In conflicts of different types there has
always been an element of urgency to pursue an approach, which can build confidence between warring parties and seek constructive engagement for peace. After September 11, the focus of global politics and policies has
shifted from multi-dimensional threats of security to the issue of terrorism and religious extremism because the world powers are more interested in dealing with these issues owing to their capacity to destabilize world
order. Rationale It is in this perspective that a two-day workshop on discussing the paradigms of conflict resolution was planned in the month of September this year. The workshop has been sponsored by the
University of Karachi, the United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC and Plougshares Fund, San Francisco. Some of the questions, which this workshop will try to ponder, are about the issues, which shape conflicts
at different levels, both in the Western and non-Western world. Individual characteristics of people, the role of society and state in shaping and escalating conflicts will be adequately discussed in the workshop.
South Asia cannot remain isolated from mainstream international relations particularly when the U.S. war against terrorism has changed the paradigms of conflict resolution and a fresh perspective is needed to ponder on
ways by which a fair and just approach is pursued in dealing with issues which cause crisis and instability. The workshop will enter into a discourse on traditional and non-traditional paradigms
of conflict resolution and how an alternate approach on understanding and dealing with new challenges in the realm of human security could be followed. To a large extent the South Asian countries are still following
traditional paradigm of conflict resolution which gives emphasis on the military, rather than human dimensions of security. Since conflict resolution as a discipline has still not been professionally established in
South Asia, adequate work is lacking in order to understand, examine, analyze and predict about the outbreak of conflicts. There also exists dearth of proper thinking at the policy-making level on different dynamics of
conflict. Unfortunately, the superficial handling of various conflict cases also contribute to the prolongation of conflict. The workshop will make an extra effort to provide a set of conceptual tools,
which may help in bridging the gap in developing and developed world as far as understanding the field of conflict resolution is concerned. Events of post-September 11 gives an opportunity to the participants of
workshop to rethink the conceptual dimensions of conflict resolution and come up with an alternate discourse. |
||||||||||
Home | About CR-SA | Objectives | Program | Participants | Abstracts | Site Map |
||||||||||
All Content © PPSCR Contact Webmaster Web Site Designed & Maintained by TWT |
||||||||||