 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||
DECEMBER 22-23, 2001 - CONFERENCE ROOM |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
ABSTRACT CBMS: A PRE-REQUISITE TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN SOUTH ASIA
ARSHI SALEEM HASHMI*
Peace process and conflict transformation are normally viewed in the context of CBMs, reconstruction of
civil society and rebuilding of communities. How this actually is to be done is an issue that has triggered considerable debate. Although, there is no agreed theory of CBMs, it is argued that they can be used in any
region by any State, irrespective of the State of their relationships; foes and friends alike, larger or lesser powers, neighbouring countries, members of alliances and participants in regional organizations can all
benefit from their implementation. CBMs are criticized as useless measures because they do not prevent wars, they do not suggest disarming any nations. Proponents note that CBMs are only intended as steps towards these
goals. They also argue that these measures prevent accidental wars and , by improving trust between rival states or potential adversaries, clear the path to better political and military relations. The object
of CBMs is to effect a breakthrough in the psychological barrier created by false emerging images of each other. CBMs are actions and measures, which contribute to peace by reducing the levels of mistrust and
misunderstanding or the uncertainty. Clearly CBMs are not intended to deal with the root causes of conflicts, but advocates argue that these measures are the first step in turning hostile relationships into more
accommodating ones. It is often said that if CBMs won't work, nothing else will. The critics in South Asia believe that there is no recognized or accepted theory of CBMs nor have the method or tools employed changed in
any way since the1975 CSCE Helsinki Conference. CBMs are defined as the tools, which help exchange of information and /or increasing communications between the parties, help preventing wars or military operations etc.
There can be hundreds of other measures, which can be devised, but the question of enforcement always arises. The nature of
conflict in South Asia has shown a stubborn continuity. The main conflict, as noted, is between India and Pakistan. It has territorial, religious, ideological, ethnic, political and strategic dimensions, making it one
of the most enduring conflicts in the third world. Minor territorial disputes do exist between India and Bangladesh but the source of conflict here is ethnicity and religion. Ethnicity is almost the only cause of sharp
difference between India and Sri Lanka, which in 1987 came close to a military conflict. During the two decades of rule by an authoritarian monarch, Nepal, in Indian perception, sought to strike a closer relationship
with China than Indians believed was good for their country's security. Conflict based on ethnic and religious identities are often associated with political violence, even though most social movements that are
concerned with identity do not advocate violence as a medium of change. One reason for the close identification of political violence with identity is that most violent conflicts in the world today have ethnic or
religious dimensions. The significance of confidence building measures (CBMs) is augmented in the societies where the very fabric of region is pluralistic which demands not only tolerance but also
understanding and accommodation. Extremism of every kind, religious or ideological, national or ethnic is as against the nature of our region as it contradicts human rights and dignity of man.
* Cooperative lecturer, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi.
|
|||||||||
Home | About CR-SA | Objectives | Program | Participants | Abstracts | Site Map |
|||||||||
All Content © PPSCR Contact Webmaster Web Site Designed & Maintained by TWT |
|||||||||