 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||
DECEMBER 22-23, 2001 - CONFERENCE ROOM |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
ABSTRACT KEY NOTE ADDRESS FAROOQ HASNAT* In the aftermath of the happenings of September 11th of this year, the concept of Conflict and its management have underwent a dramatic transformation. These
developments have not only been confined to the basic concept of inter-state relations, but have also drastically altered the meaning and modalities of security dimensions. Thereby, a need to construct new paradigms,
keeping in view the changed perceptions, becomes a necessary requirement. One would like to stress that the interpretation of what is war or an act of terrorism has become a prerogative of the sole Super
Military power, the United States represented by its President George W. Bush and others that would replace him in the future. For the present as well as in the near future the United States and its allies hold the
choice to determine for the "global village" what is moral, proper and a civilized behavior. Thanks to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban for their wicked acts - the "civilized western world" has acquired the "global
legitimacy" to brand anyone whom they dislike as a terrorist, especially if it does not fit in the grand design of their national strategy. To put it simply, the American President has resolutely declared that "either
you are with us or otherwise…." The violators, it has been determined, would face a barrage of daisy cutters, cluster bombs, F-16s and if the need be, even atomic weaponry. It becomes convenient then, to brand the
Palestinians, the Kashmiri freedom fighters and the other Wars of Liberation as terrorist activities, no matter they are reacting against the terrorist measures of those that are the real wrong doers and are engaged in
the policy of annihilation. It is no more a nation state that is the player in international relations. Even an individual or a group can become an active target of global and regional security concerns. As
such, policies will be shaped not on the basis of national power but on the act of terrorism itself and the sensitivities about the invisible enemy or its shadow. Nonetheless the state power (military and then followed
by economic aid) has become a vehicle of solving conflicts, may it be Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Palestine or Afghanistan. A vital point to consider is that all these conflicts were administered by an outside power,
utilizing fully its authority. It is no surprise that even before the happenings of September; the new world order that emerged a decade ago had brought forth such concepts as "terrorist groups", "insurgencies" and
"civil wars". Thereby more attention should be diverted towards these realities in the South Asian context. In this part of the world, the suspicions are old and tensions have been allowed to grow to be mature. The
South Asian conflicts transmit with itself a variety of dynamics, through which emerges a mushrooms of "sub-Conflicts", with their tangible roots embedded in the "real cause". In the circumstances, the challenge
presented to an analyst is to find out distinctive ways and means and to build appropriate paradigms so as to assist the policy makers in resolving the existing conflicts. In the context of what is
presented above, a unique concept of conflict has been introduced which has come to be accepted by the world community in general. Thereby, tensions as well as conflicts existing in South Asian are no exception – nor
will be the new paradigms designed, suggesting appropriate ways and means to solve or at least minimize the gravity of this new commencement.
* Professor and Chairman, Department of Political Science, University of The Punjab, Lahore |
|||||||||
Home | About CR-SA | Objectives | Program | Participants | Abstracts | Site Map |
|||||||||
All Content © PPSCR Contact Webmaster Web Site Designed & Maintained by TWT |
|||||||||