Letter
from the Executive Director
Dear Friends,
The Summer Workshop is just over, and as I write
to you, memories come flooding back. An excellent
group of 32 young professionals from all countries
of South Asia and China participated. With each
passing year the quality seems to get better.
There was instant rapport, friendship and camaraderie
and boundaries and barriers of geography and mind
seemed to disappear. Discussions were intense
but friendly, knowledgeable and constructive.
My particular thanks go to the faculty, their
commitment and effort, which once again was outstanding.
A special feature this year, was the award of
the FORD-ACDIS Fellowship to two best research
proposals from among the participants. My congratulations
to them.
I have suggested some follow-up activities after
the Workshop and I am looking forward to the participants’
proposals. The Valedictory Function was graced
by HE Nihal Rodrigo, the Secretary General, SAARC
and extracts from his address appear elsewhere
in the Newsletter. All South Asian Ambassadors
in Kathmandu graced the occasion. We propose to
carry out a review of the Summer Workshop on behalf
of the Foundations supporting us early next year.
On 6th October the Book “South Asia at Gun Point:
Small Arms and Light Weapons Proliferation” was
released by HE Ruth Archibald, the Canadian High
Commissioner to Sri Lanka. Dr Vernon Mendis was
in the Chair. It has become RCSS tradition now,
three times in a row, to release such books within
three months of the completion of the Conference.
A record that I am happy to say no one in the
world can match. The Conference itself was in
collaboration with the UN Department for Disarmament
Affairs and the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade. This is the third conference
within a year held in collaboration with the UN,
again a record for any institution in the world.
It also puts the RCSS in the unique position of
being placed in UN records, as the Secretary General
himself has acknowledged the Centre’s contribution
in his report to the General Assembly.
The Ford Foundation has provided a support of
US $ 100,000/ for the year 2000-2001. This may
be less than in earlier years, but this will enable
us to hold the IRC meeting, continue with the
Newsletter and networking activities as well as
the Kodikara Awards and also provide a nominal
institutional support. We are ever grateful for
this continued support, commitment and encouragement
from the Ford Foundation on this. Exciting projects
lie ahead for the rest of the year and early months
of the next. In particular please look out and
apply for the Winter Workshop in March 2001, which
is being held this year with the support of the
Ford Foundation project on Non-Traditional Security.
Dipankar Banerjee
Security in the New Millennium
Ramesh Thakur, Vice Rector (Peace and Governance)
United Nations University
Global Governance
The threshold of the new millennium is also the
cusp of a new era in world affairs. The business
of the world has changed almost beyond recognition
over the course of the last one hundred years.
There are many more actors today, and their patterns
of interaction are far more complex. The locus
of power and influence is shifting. The demands
and expectations made on governments and international
organisations by the people of the world can no
longer be satisfied through isolated and self-contained
efforts. The international policy making stage
is increasingly congested as private and public
non-state actors jostle alongside national governments
in setting and implementing the agenda of the
new century. The multitude of new actors adds
depth and texture to the increasingly rich tapestry
of international civil society.
In this period of transition, the United Nations
is the focus of the hopes and aspirations for
a future where men and women live at peace with
themselves and in harmony with nature. Over a
billion people living in abject poverty will have
had neither the spirit nor the means to cheer
the arrival of the new millennium. The reality
of human insecurity cannot simply be wished away.
Yet the idea of a universal organisation dedicated
to protecting peace and promoting welfare – of
achieving a better life in a safer world, for
all – survived the death, destruction and disillusionment
of armed conflicts, genocide, persistent poverty,
environmental degradation and the many assaults
on human dignity of the 20th century.
The United Nations has the responsibility to protect
international peace and promote human development.
The UN Charter codifies best-practice state behaviour.
Universities are the marketplace of ideas. Scientists
have a duty to make their knowledge available
for the betterment of humanity. The United Nations
University has the mandate to link the two normally
isolated worlds of scholarship and policy-making.
It lies at the interface of ideas, international
organisations and international public policy.
In an information society and world, the comparative
advantage of UNU lies in its identity as the custodian
and manager of knowledge-based networks and coalitions
that give it a global mandate and reach.
The United Nations has the moral legitimacy, political
credibility and administrative impartiality to
mediate, moderate and reconcile the competing
pulls and tensions associated with both the process
and outcomes of globalisation. Human security
can provide the conceptual umbrella that brings
together the main themes of the Millennium summit
security, development, environment and governance
– within one coherent framework. This would help
to give practical content to the opening words
of the UN Charter, ‘We the peoples’.
Traditional Security Paradigm: Towards a World
Free of Wars
War lies at the heart of traditional security
paradigms, and military force is the sharp edge
of the realist school of International Relations.
The incidence of war is as pervasive as the wish
for peace is universal. At any given time, most
countries are at peace and long to keep it so.
Yet most are also ready to go to war if necessary.
Some of the most charismatic and influential personalities
in human history – from Gautam Buddha and Jesus
Christ to Mahatma Gandhi – have dwelt on the renunciation
of force and the possibility of eliminating it
from human relationships.
The 20th century captured the paradox only too
well. On the one hand, we tried to emplace increasing
normative, legislative and operational fetters
on the right of states to go to war. Yet the century
turned out to be the most murderous in human history,
with over 250 wars, including two world wars and
the Cold War, with more dead than in all previous
wars of the past two thousand years. Another six
million more have died since the Cold War ended.
Confronted with a world that cannot be changed,
reasonable people adapt and accommodate. The turning
points of history and progress in human civilisation
have come from those who set out to change the
world. This section is a story about a group of
unreasonable people who met recently for the first
Steering Committee of ‘Global Action to Prevent
War: An International Coalition to Abolish Armed
Conflict and Genocide’.
The causes of war are many and complex. Our call
to end it is single-minded and simple. Cynics
insist that war is an inherent part of human society.
To end war would indeed be to end history. Maybe.
But so too have crime and poverty always been
part of human history. Any political leader who
admitted to giving up on the fight to end crime
or poverty would quickly be returned to private
life by voters. Paradoxically, in the case of
war it is those who seek to abolish it who are
considered to be soft in the head.
The deadly situation does not have to continue
into the new century. We already have the resources
and the knowledge that can drastically cut the
level of armed violence in the world and make
war increasingly rare. What has been missing is
a programme for the worldwide, systematic and
continuing application of these resources and
knowledge. GlobalAction offers such a programme,
and it is building a worldwide coalition of interested
individuals, civil society organisations, and
governments to carry it out.
For internal conflicts, we propose a broad array
of conflict prevention measures to be applied
by the UN, regional security organisations and
international courts. For conflicts between neighbouring
states, we recommend force reductions, defensively-oriented
changes in force structure, confidence-building
measures and constraints on force activities tailored
to each situation. The possibility of conflict
among the major powers can be reduced by fostering
their cooperation in preventing smaller wars and
through step-by-step cuts in their conventional
and nuclear forces, eliminating their capacity
to attack each other with any chance of success.
Global Action’s conflict prevention and conventional
disarmament measures will promote nuclear disarmament.
Nuclear cuts in turn will facilitate conflict
prevention and conventional disarmament. Achievement
of nuclear disarmament will very probably require
both reduced levels of conflict worldwide and
some effective and acceptable way to cut back
the conventional forces of the major powers, especially
their force projection capability with naval and
air forces. Countries like China, Russia and India
are not likely to relinquish their nuclear weapons
if the main effect of doing so is to enhance the
already large conventional superiority of the
United States. Other governments are unlikely
to be prepared to reduce their conventional armed
forces drastically unless there is evidence that
nuclear weapons are on the one-way road to elimination.
Global Action’s deliberate focus is on violent
armed conflict. The world also faces fundamental
crises of poverty, human rights violations, environmental
degradation, and discrimination based on race,
gender, ethnicity, and religion. All of these
challenges must be met before human security and
a just peace can be fully achieved. To meet these
challenges, many efforts must be pursued; no single
campaign can deal with all of them. But efforts
to address these global problems can and should
complement and support one another. The abolition
of war will make it possible to focus all remaining
energy and efforts on resolving the fundamental
structural problems.
The analogy we like is with domestic violence.
Faced with incidents of violence within the family,
the first and most urgent order of business is
to stop the violence. Only then can we look at
probable causes and possible solutions, including
if necessary separation and divorce
.
From National Security to Human Security
The shift from the ‘national security’ to the
‘human security’ paradigm is of historic importance.
The object of security changes from the state
to the individual; the focus changes from security
through armaments to security through human development;
from territorial security to food, employment
and environmental security. The fundamental components
of human security – the security of people against
threats to life, health, livelihood, personal
safety and human dignity – can be put at risk
by external aggression, but also by factors within
a country including ‘security’ forces. Over the
course of the 20th century, 30 million people
were killed in international wars, 7 million in
civil wars and an additional 170 million by their
own governments.
The multi-dimensional approach to security
sacrifices precision for inclusiveness. In order
to rescue it from being diluted into nothingness,
we need to focus on security policy in relation
to crisis. Short of that it is more accurate to
assess welfare gains and losses rather than increased
security and insecurity. Security policy can then
be posited as crisis prevention and crisis management,
both with regard to institutional capacity and
material capability.
From Arms Control to International
Humanitarian Law
Human security gives us a template for international
action. Canada and Japan are two countries that
have taken the lead in attempting to incorporate
human security in their foreign policies. A practical
expression of this was the Ottawa Treaty proscribing
the production, stockpiling, use, and export of
anti-personnel landmines. The first to impose
a ban on an entire class of weapons already in
widespread use, the Convention was a triumph for
an unusual coalition of governments, international
organisations and NGOs. Such ‘New Diplomacy’ has
been impelled by a growing intensity of public
impatience with the slow pace of traditional diplomacy.
Many people have grown tired of years of negotiations
leading to a final product that may be accepted
or rejected by countries. They look instead for
a sense of urgency and timely action that will
prevent human insecurity, not always react to
outbreaks of conflict.
It would be as big a mistake to interpret the
Ottawa Treaty from the analytic lens of national
security instead of human security, as to judge
it by criteria devised for the evaluation of arms
control regimes. Instead, it falls into the stream
of measures which make up international humanitarian
law. Such measures derive from motives different
from those which prompt the negotiation of arms
control regimes, are concerned with different
subject matters, involve radically different compliance
mechanisms and ultimately have different political
functions. The basic purpose of international
humanitarian law is not the exacting one of securing
the absolute disappearance of particular forms
of conduct, but rather the more realistic one
of producing some amelioration of the circumstances
which combatants and non-combatants will confront
should war break out. While its rules are cast
in the language of prohibition, it operates through
the process of anathematisation.
Sceptical observers of the Ottawa process have
focussed on such important non-signatories as
the United States, Russia, China and India; the
allegedly perilous simplicity of the treaty, which
creates scope for disagreement as to its exact
meaning; and the relative ease with which a perfidious
state party could move to violate its provisions.
These criticisms are for the most part misconceived,
and arise from a misunderstanding of the functions
which the Ottawa Treaty can appropriately be expected
to perform. In principle, every country whose
participation is vital to the credibility and
integrity of an arms control regime must be party
to the treaty. A humanitarian treaty seeks to
make progress through stigmatisation and the construction
of normative barriers to use and deployment. While
major-power endorsements of the convention would
have added significantly to its political weight,
amending the treaty provisions to accommodate
their preferences would have greatly diluted the
humanitarian content of the regime. The integrity
of the convention as a humanitarian treaty was
held to be more important than the inclusion even
of the United States. The humanitarian impulse
proved stronger than the arms control caution.
Even those key states which have not signed the
treaty have voiced sympathy for its objectives.
To that extent, it has changed the parameters
of discussion of anti-personnel mines from a strictly
military framework to one which is strongly shaped
by humanitarian concerns.
Human Rights
NGOs have been especially active, often intrusive
and sometimes even obtrusive on human rights.
Fifty years ago, conscious of the atrocities committed
by the Nazis while the world looked silently away,
the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. It is the embodiment and the
proclamation of the human rights norm. Covenants
in 1966 added force and specificity, affirming
both civil-political and social-economic-cultural
rights, without privileging either set. Together
with the Declaration, they mapped out the international
human rights agenda, established the benchmark
for state conduct, inspired provisions in many
national laws and international conventions, and
provided a beacon of hope to many whose rights
had been snuffed out by brutal regimes.
A right is a claim, an entitlement that may neither
be conferred nor denied. A human right, owed to
every person simply as a human being, is inherently
universal. Held only by human beings, but equally
by all, it does not flow from any office, rank
or relationship.
Few if any moral systems proscribe the act of
killing absolutely under all circumstances. At
different times, in different societies, war,
capital punishment or abortion may or may not
be morally permissible. Yet for every society,
murder is always wrong. All societies require
retribution to be proportionate to the wrong done.
All prize children, the link between succeeding
generations of human civilisation; every culture
abhors their abuse.
The doctrine of national security has been especially
corrosive of human rights. It is used frequently
by governments, charged with the responsibility
to protect citizens, to assault them instead.
Under military rule, the instrument of protection
from without becomes the means of attack from
within.
The United Nations an organisation of, by and
for member states has been impartial and successful
in a standard-setting role; selectively successful
in monitoring abuses, and almost feeble in enforcement.
Governments usually subordinate considerations
of UN effectiveness to the principle of non-interference.
The modesty of UN achievement should not blind
us to its reality. The Universal Declaration embodies
the moral code, political consensus and legal
synthesis of human rights. The world has grown
vastly more complex in the 50 years since. But
the simplicity of the Declaration’s language belies
the passion of conviction underpinning it. Its
elegance has been the font of inspiration down
the decades, its provisions comprise the vocabulary
of complaint.
United Nations
It used to be said during the Cold War that the
purpose of NATO was to keep the Americans in,
the Germans down and the Russians out. Does Kosovo
mark a turning point, changing NATO into a tool
for keeping the Americans in, the Russians down
and the United Nations out?
International organisations are an essential means
of conducting world affairs more satisfactorily
than would be possible under conditions of international
anarchy or total self-help. The United Nations
lies at their legislative and normative centre.
If it did not exist, we would surely have to invent
it. Yet its founding vision of a world community
equal in rights and united in action is still
to be realised.
The Charter of the United Nations was a triumph
of hope and idealism over the experience of two
world wars. The flame flickered in the chill winds
of the Cold War, but has not yet died out. In
the midst of the swirling tides of change, the
UN must strive for a balance between the desirable
and the possible. The global public goods of peace,
prosperity, sustainable development and good governance
cannot be achieved by any country acting on its
own. The United Nations is still the symbol of
our dreams for a better world, where weakness
can be compensated by justice and fairness, and
the law of the jungle replaced by the rule of
law.
The innovation of peacekeeping notwithstanding,
the United Nations has not fully lived up to expectations
in securing a disarmed and peaceful world. As
with sustainable development, which seeks to strike
a balance between growth and conservation, the
United Nations must be at the centre of efforts
to achieve sustainable disarmament: the reduction
of armaments to the lowest level where the security
needs of any one country at a given time, or any
one generation over time, are met without compromising
the security and welfare needs of other countries
or future generations.
Success that is sustained requires us all to make
a greater commitment to the vision and values
of the United Nations, and to make systematic
use of the UN forum and modalities for managing
and ending conflicts. People continue to look
to the United Nations to guide them and protect
them when the tasks are too big and complex for
nations and regions to handle by themselves. The
comparative advantages of the UN are its universal
membership, political legitimacy, administrative
impartiality, technical expertise, convening and
mobilising power, and the dedication of its staff.
Its comparative disadvantages are excessive politicisation,
ponderous pace of decision-making, impossible
mandate, high cost structure, insufficient resources,
bureaucratic rigidity, and institutional timidity.
Many of the disadvantages are the product of demands
and intrusions by 188 member states who own and
control the organisation, but some key members
disown responsibility for giving it the requisite
support and resources. For the United Nations
to succeed, the world community must match the
demands made on the organisation by the means
given to it.
The United Nations represents the idea that unbridled
nationalism and the raw interplay of power must
be mediated and moderated in an international
framework. It is the centre for harmonising national
interests and forging the international interest.
Only the UN can legitimately authorise military
action on behalf of the entire international community,
instead of a select few. But the UN does not have
its own military and police forces, and a multinational
coalition of allies can offer a more credible
and efficient military force when robust action
is needed and warranted. What will be increasingly
needed in future is partnerships of the able,
the willing and the high-minded with the duly
authorised. What we should most fear is partnerships
of the able, the willing and the low-minded in
violation of due process. What if the UN Security
Council itself acts in violation of the Charter
of the United Nations? Unlike domestic systems,
there is no independent judicial check on the
constitutionality of Security Council decisions.
No liberal democracy would tolerate such a situation
domestically; why should liberal democrats, who
generally lead the charge for humanitarian intervention,
find it acceptable internationally?
The United Nations has to strike a balance between
realism and idealism. Its decisions must reflect
current realities of military and economic power.
It will be incapacitated if it alienates its most
important members. But it will also lose credibility
if it compromises core values. The United Nations
is the repository of international idealism, and
Utopia is fundamental to its identity. Even the
sense of disenchantment and disillusionment on
the part of some cannot be understood other than
against this background.
The learning curve of human history shows that
the UN ideal can neither be fully attained nor
abandoned. Like most organisations, the UN too
is condemned to an eternal credibility gap between
aspiration and performance. The real challenge
is to ensure that the gap does not widen, but
stays within a narrow band. Sustained, coordinated
efforts can turn killing fields into playing fields
and rice fields. Success comes from having the
courage to fail. If you have never failed, then
you have not tried enough: you have not pushed
yourself hard enough, not tested the limits of
your potential.
( Key–note presentation at the eighth Summer Workshop,
Kathmandu.)
UNITED
NATIONS UNIVERSITY
Tokyo 53-70, Jingumae 5-chome, Shibuya-ku,
Tokyo 150-8925, JAPAN
Tel: (81-3) 5467-1295 (dir); 5467-1317 (sec) Fax:
(81-3) 3406-7347
Application Deadline for UNU International Courses
is January 31, 2001
The United Nations University (UNU) will offer
its second programme of four “International Courses”
(UNU/IC) from 14 May to 22 June 2001. These four
courses, to be held at the UNU Centre in Tokyo,
will be (1) UN System: Structure and Activities,
(2) Environmental Monitoring and Quality, (3)
Human Rights: Concepts and Issues, and (4) International
Cooperation and Development*.
The courses, which will be taught in English,
are intended to give students a deeper understanding
of selected global issues as well as help them
to sharpen their analytical and problem-solving
skills and develop specific research skills. Each
course will be taught by a team of both in-house
and outside experts, including practitioners from
a number of different UN organizations.
These courses are open to postgraduate students
and professionals from Japan and abroad who are
interested in working in international fields
in public service or private organizations, including
the United Nations system, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), multinational corporations and national
foreign-service agencies. Tuition is ¥100,000
for one course or ¥150,000 for two courses (the
maximum that can be taken simultaneously). Participants
from developing countries who take two courses
and who can successfully demonstrate a need for
financial assistance are invited to apply for
a limited number of UNU fellowships.
The UNU/IC programme is offered annually as an
integral part of the UNU’s training and capacity-building
activities. Participants who successfully complete
a course of the UNU/IC will receive a UNU certificate
of completion.
Those who wish to enroll into the 2001 UNU/IC
programme should contact Ms. Wilma James at the
UNU Headquarters: Tel. +81-3-3499-2811
Fax +81-3-3499-2828, e-mail james@hq.unu.edu.
Further information and application forms are
available from the UNU website: http://www.unu.edu/ic/.
(For other capacity-building activities of the
UNU, pleasevisit http://www.unu.edu/capacitybuilding/.)
* This course will be supported by the Yutaka
Akino Memorial Donation from the Government of
Japan and is designated the “Akino Memorial Course
for 2001.”
For further information, please contact the UNU
Public Affairs Section:
Tel. (03) 5467-1243/1246; Fax (03) 3406-7346
Sustainable
Development through Regional Co-operation
HE Nihal Rodrigo - Secretary General, SAARC
The Association which I represent, while being
concerned deeply with the promotion of sustainable
regional security, focuses primarily on economic
and social issues.
The Executive Director of the Regional Center
for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Dipanker Banerjee
has very concisely sketched out, in a recent issue
of the South Asian Survey, the evolution of concepts
relating to security and collective security.
This has covered the early, near-exclusive identification
of security with authoritative and absolute rulers,
then moved through concerns primarily with national
military security, eventually to a more comprehensive,
multi-dimensional concept which includes a host
of vital non-military aspects essential to collective
or cooperative security. In 1996, Mahbub-ul Haq
described a concept of human security in his Human
Development Report. He placed emphasis on the
non-military, non-traditional aspects and placed
a human face on collective security :
“Human security is not a concern with weapons.
It is a concern with human dignity. In the last
analysis, it is a child who did not die, a disease
that did not spread, an ethnic tension that did
not explode, a dissident who was not silenced,
a human spirit that was not crushed”.
Apart from economic security, Mahbub-ul Haq’s
concept covers security against social injustice,
gender abuse, environmental degradation and “inhumane
governance”. That concept of human security moves
away from territory and from national connotations
to people and individuals.
When ASEAN was being formed, it did take account
of certain defence-related issues based on perceptions
sensed by the States concerned. SAARC, on the
other hand, at its inception had no such external
defence-related perceptions to heed. In fact,
in its Charter, SAARC consciously precludes discussions
of bilateral, political and contentious issues
in SAARC fora. However, informal bilateral discussions
at Summits and Ministerial Meetings outside the
framework of the formal meetings of course do
take place. Nevertheless, there are no official
collective approaches in SAARC on bilateral, political
issues. The meeting of the Council of Ministers
in Nuwara Eliya, Sri Lanka last year was rare,
exceptional perhaps, in collectively endorsing
the Lahore Declaration an essentially bilateral
matter which nevertheless had its impact on confidence-building
and overall regional cooperation. What needs to
be stressed is that working towards cooperative
security in South Asia does not involve SAARC
in any collective examination of bilateral questions
in the region. SAARC Heads of Government have
recognized however that due to the particular
vulnerability of small states, special measures
of support were essential to secure and safeguard
them from threats to their sovereignty, independence
and territorial integrity.
Threat perceptions of a non-military kind abound
in all Member States. What threats are shared
? What shared threats, collectively addressed,
can in fact be averted to help enhance a sense
of cooperative and coordinated security in the
region ?
The oft-quoted descriptions on South Asia are
grim but real. The most recent report of the Mahbub-ul
Haq Human Development Center in Islamabad has
the following description :
“In South Asia, more than 500 million people –
who by themselves comprise about one-twelfth of
the world population – live in a state of severe
deprivation, lacking sufficient access to adequate
nutrition, health, housing, safe water, sanitation,
education and employment.”
Familiarity with such descriptions must not breed
apathy. In a sense, poverty remains the key element
in any discussion on human security. The latest
World Development Report of the World Bank talks
of opportunity (meaning the brighter side of globalization),
empowerment and security in relation to poverty
alleviation. Poverty alleviation continues to
be a priority in South Asia also because it is
a process which clearly involves a series of inter-related
concerns. The Independent South Asian Commission
on Poverty Alleviation, following the Sixth SAARC
Summit in Colombo, made a radical appraisal of
the nature and causes of poverty, outlining a
strategy of social mobilization and economic empowerment
of the vulnerable and dis-advantaged sections
of the population. [As the Report put it, “social
mobilization of the poor in order to enable them
to participate directly and effectively in the
decisions that affect their lives and prospects”].
This was described by one of the Commissioners
not only as good economic sense, but also good
political sense. Un-checked, wide-spread poverty
breeds a debilitating despair and a sense of alienation
leading on to desperation, festering into political
unrest, and in extreme situations, erupting in
dis-order, violence and insurgency. A debate lingers
on whether human security is best promoted through
top-down economic growth or through broad-based
social upliftment generated through empowerment
and through mobilization of the masses at grass-roots.
The effective strategy would surely be to pursue
both lines of economic activity to defeat poverty
and deprivation through a pincer movement.
Individual Member States have mounted national
campaigns against poverty. Yet, a concerted regional
offensive has not been launched although exchange
of experience and some degree of coordination
has taken place. SAARC is expected to convene
a Ministerial Meeting to look hard and a-new at
all its ramifications. A Group of Eminent Persons
appointed by the Ninth Summit, assessing the progress
of SAARC since its inception recognized that “any
attempt to define and measure poverty in a particular
manner may be inadequate and even inappropriate
as its nature, extent and intensity varies considerably
from country to country”. The SAARC Technical
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
met in July in Kathmandu and dealt with poverty
alleviation as well. There has been a general
increase in agricultural production in South Asia,
a region in which 60 per cent of the labour force
is engaged in agriculture. Despite spectacular
surpluses in some areas in South Asia, the tally
of hungry people in the region is approximately
about 280 million who are denied the basic security,
the basic human right to food. The attainment
of food security for all remains thus elusive.
A regional paradigm to ensure food security in
the region is yet to be worked out although a
SAARC Food Security Reserve Board does exist.
From a broader, over-arching perspective, it is
clear that without high economic performance,
coping with poverty and its related problems including
food security would be a prodigious undertaking.
Practical regional economic cooperation among
Member States is yet at a nascent stage. SAARC
has provided a framework within which collective
efforts are being made to promote economic security
in South Asia. The audience is aware of negotiations
that are proceeding on tariff reductions under
the SAPTA process. Progress has been admittedly
slow. A draft for a Regulatory Framework for a
South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) is under consideration
following an inter-governmental meeting in Kathmandu
last year. Some of the complexities involved have
been identified and are now being addressed with
a sense of realism.
Globalization for all its bright opportunities,
harbours a dark side. The dark side of globalization
could pose a serious threat to national sovereignty,
compelling decisions and fiats on governments.
Eventually some of these decisions then trickling
down, adversely affect lives of people at all
levels in South Asia. Opportunities as well as
obstacles to economic security and wellbeing both
exist. Developing and Least Developed Countries
are naturally apprehensive that extensive economic
liberalization would negatively impact on their
fragile economies particularly if adequate safeguards,
even basic understandable rules, are not put into
place. The complex challenges of the volatile
global economic environment have also been assessed
in SAARC. Defences, based on better intelligence,
against the more negative global developments
are being built. The centuries-old usages, practices
and knowledge of South Asian communities relating
to, for example, neem, cloves, basmati rice, even
indeed the ubiquitous curry have been threatened.
Corporations indulge in bio-piracy, the stealthy
pilfering and patenting of genetic materials and
traditional knowledge, remedies and recipes from
defence-less communities.
The collective capacity for informed policy studies
and analyses has been enhanced in SAARC to first
grasp and then deal with the global financial
and economic threats that affect the security
of South Asian economies. SAARC has, for example,
succeeded in reaching agreement on a clear joint
position on some critical issues relating to the
WTO. This would be presented to the resumed WTO
Ministerial Conference when it takes place.
The extent of real progress in all these defences
to enhance overall security is also ultimately
dependent on an ambience of confidence among SAARC
Member States. A debate has been taking place
on the relationship between regional economic
progress on the one hand, and peace and security,
on the other. Which of the two is the indispensable
prerequisite for the other ? In her Inaugural
Statement at the Twenty-first Session of the SAARC
Council of Ministers in Sri Lanka in March last
year, President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga,
current SAARC Chairperson, reiterated the view
that SAARC should strive to achieve both economic
cooperation as well as peace and stability simultaneously
and not postpone the search for one while seeking
to realize the other. I heard some of the discussions
on the “vision-thing” for SAARC. The GEP indicated
some perspective.
Engaging one another in serious collective exercises
to ensure economic security is itself a major
confidence-building measure for South Asia.
SAARC has also facilitated the deeper involvement
of the private corporate sector of South Asia
across borders through the apex SAARC Chamber
of Commerce and Industry. The SCCI has provided
practical inputs into the Association’s economic
agenda including in respect of SAPTA, SAFTA and
other trade facilitation measures at a regional
level. The South Asian Business Leaders’ Summit
held in Bangalore last month was a useful approach.
The Chief Minister in his inaugural statement
stated that whatever the political problems that
may hold up SAARC, “economic compulsions” will
bring South Asians together.
Threats to human security transgress borders,
respecting no lines of control, seeking no visas.
TB, HIV/AIDS, Kala-azar, Japanese Encephalitis,
Malaria and other vector borne diseases need coordinated
defences to defeat. The SAARC Tuberculosis Center
which also deals with HIV-cross infections is
a major SAARC base in the battle against the infiltration
of some of these diseases across borders. A MoU
signed last month between SAARC and WHO will also
help the campaign with what reinforcements are
necessary.
There are other cross-border dangers to contend
with as well. Apart from the trafficking of women,
South Asia has to contend with terrorism, and
drug trafficking and gun-running. The SAARC Conventions
signed have drawn the battle lines but a decisive
offensive has not been yet possible.
Finally, and this does not exhaust the list of
areas essential to be addressed, environmental
security continues to be a priority requiring
better coordinated collective action. The linkages
between environmental degradation and sustaining
resource supplies in South Asia including water;
forest cover; soil fertility and so on, makes
environmental security a compelling long-term
priority
In conclusion, I would like to add that the institutional
framework of SAARC itself constitutes a confidence-building
measure and a continuum of commitment at least
at three levels. I was in time to hear the comments
of Mr. Ram Dhakal. He described the institutional
framework is an important framework. A cynic described
it as an impotent framework. The first aspect
of the institutional framework is the official
interaction and policy dialogue among the seven
Governments. Notwithstanding the postponement
of the Eleventh Summit, functional cooperation
on many activities of SAARC proceeds. The second,
at non-official levels, SAARC has facilitated
cross-border links of a bilateral nature at the
professional level. Associations have been formed
linking professionals, academics, and civil societies
of the seven nations of SAARC. The professional
groups include Town Planners, Accountants, Architects,
Cardiologists, Management Development Institutions
and University Women. At SummIT-2000 held last
week in Kathmandu, it has also been resolved to
set up an Association of computer authorities/associations
in SAARC and I believe the list is increasing.
Thirdly, SAARC has also been the institutional
link between its Member States and UN organizations
over a range of activities conducted at a regional
level across border. It has also been the channel
for promoting mutually beneficial cooperation
between SAARC and other regional organizations
such as the European Union, ASEAN and with individual
countries outside South Asia such as Canada and
Japan with whom SAARC has Memoranda of Understanding.
I believe the military and defence-related aspects
of cooperative security have been fully discussed
at the sessions of the Seminar. I hope my brief
and rather sketchy remarks relating to other major
essentials integral to an effective comprehensive
collective security would have been of some modest
use. The last word of course is that the greatest
threat to the security of South Asian states is
possibly non-cooperation among them.
(Valedictory address at the eighth Summer Workshop)
The Eighth
Summer Workshop
The Eighth Summer Workshop on Defence, Technol
ogy and Cooperative Security in South Asia, organized
by the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS)
was held in Godavari Resort, Lalitpur, Nepal,
from September 10-20, 2000. Participants came
from all South Asian counties and from China and
were from a diverse professional background including
public and private sector institutions, research
establishments, media, academia and NGOs.
Faculty included eminent policy makers, renowned
university professors and some former military
top brass from South Asia and outside. They presented
critical, balanced and objective views and various
streams of thought on subjects of their lectures.
The ten days workshop comprised of lively sessions
of interactive lectures, discussions, and debates
on a wide variety of subjects in the sphere of
Defence, Technology and Cooperative Security.
The Key Note address was delivered by Prof Ramesh
Thakur, Vice Rector (Peace and Governance), United
Nations University, Tokyo, on Security in The
New Millennium, extracts of which are included
elsewhere in the newsletter.
Defence expenditures in South Asia, foreign policy
and security perceptions, nuclear strategies and
disarmament Issues, missile defence and cooperative
monitoring, regional economic cooperation and
international legal questions, were among many
subjects discussed in the Workshop.
A list of participants and faculty with full
contact details is given below.
CONTINUITY & INTER-WORKSHOP ACTIVITY
The workshop alumni have now become a part of
the RCSS network. Participants have already formed
a forum to exchange views and news in enhancing
their communication and networking through a separate
web page. The RCSS will provide all necessary
assistance in this endeavour. Selected alumni
also volunteered to conduct a post workshop seminar
in their respective cities to disseminate the
knowledge acquired at the Workshop, for which
again the RCSS will provide a modest support.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Ms Bushra Hasina Chowdhury
Lecturer, Department of International Relations
University of Dhaka.
Mr Md Obaidul Haque
Lecturer, University of Dhaka.
Mr Md. Nazrul Islam
Lecturer, Department of Anthropology
Shahjalal University of science and, Technology,
Sylhet.
Mr Sheikh Abu Faisal Md Murad
Research Associate, Bangladesh Institute of International
and Strategic Studies (BIISS).
Mr Sharif Atiqur Rahman
Research Internee, Centre for Alternatives, Dhaka.
Mr Tenzin Rigden
Journalist, Kuensel Corporation, Thimphu.
Mr HE Yao
Department of International Politics, Fudan University
Shanghai.
Ms QU Fei
Shanghai Development Institute, Shanghai.
Mr SU Dejin
Opinion Department, China Daily, Beijing.
Ms Tang Lu
Reference News Department, Xinhua News Agency
Beijing.
Ms Shalini Chawla
Research Assistant
Institute of Defence and Analyses, New Delhi.
Mr Alok Kumar Gupta
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Ms Sonika Gupta
Research Officer
Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, New
Delhi.
Mr Prakash C Hota
Journalist, Press Trust of India, New Delhi.
Ms S Kaur Multani
Lecturer, SGVN Junior and Degree College, Hyderabad.
Mr R Sridhar
Lecturer, Dept of Political Science, Madras Christian
College, Chennai.
Dr Sashi Upadhyay
Lecturer, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
Dr C Vinodan
Post Doctoral Fellow, Department of Political
Science
University of Kerala, Trivandrum.
Ms Aishath Shuweikar
Assistant Director, Department of External Resources
Ministry of Foreign Resources, Male.
Mr Ram Babu Dhakal
Section Officer/SAARC, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Kathmandu.
Ms Aabira Sher Afgan
Rawalpindi.
Ms Bushra Asif
Research Assistant, Sustainable Development Institute
Murree
Mr Farooq Ahmed Dar
Lecturer, Government Gordon College, Rawalpindi.
Mr Abdul Shakoor Khakwani
Assistant Professor, Dept of Business Administration
Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan.
Mr Adnan Rehmat
Editor, Internews, Islamabad.
Mr Farhan Hanif Siddiqui
Lecturer, Department of International Relations
University of Karachi.
Mr Syed Hussain Shaheed Soherwordi
Lecturer, University of Pehawar.
Ms Nausheen Wasi
Research Assistant, Ford Foundation/ International
Research Dept. University of Karachi.
Ms Thiloma Nirmala Abeyajeewa
Assistant Director, Legal Division, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Colombo.
Mr K S Keerthi Ariyadasa
Lecturer, Dept of History and Political Science
University of Colombo.
Mr Dhamma Dissanayake
Lecturer, Dept of History and Political Science
University of Colombo.
Mr Chanaka Harsha Talpahewa
Assistant Director/ South Asia & SAARC Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colombo.
ACDIS–Ford
Foundation Fellowships
The Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and
International Security at the University of Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign announced the award of two
six month research fellowships at Illinois funded
by a grant from the Ford Foundation. Fellows were
be selected from among the participants at the
Regional Center for Strategic Studies annual Summer
Workshop on Defence, Technology, and Cooperative
Security. Fellowships include round-trip travel
from South Asia; a monthly stipend of $2,520 per
month; and travel and per diem for two weeks in
Washington, D.C. and up to one week at the Cooperative
Monitoring Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Two selected candidates:
Abdul Shakoor Khakwani
Department of Business Administration
Multan Cannt, Pakistan
Md Obaidul Haque
Lecturer
Department of International Relations
University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
The following candidates have been named as possible
alternates:
Aabira Sher Afghan
Protection Assistant (Legal)
UNHCR, Islamabad, Pakistan
Chanaka Harsha Talpahewa
Assistant Director / South Asia & SAARC Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Bushra Chowdhury
Lecturer
Department of International Relations
University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
South
Asia at Gun Point: Small Arms & Light Weapons
Proliferation
The latest publication of the RCSS titled “South
Asia at Gun Point: Small Arms & Light Weapons
Proliferation” was launched by H.E.Ruth Archibald,
Canadian High Commissioner for Sri Lanka at
Bandaranaike International Diplomatic Training
Institute (BIDTI) on October 6, 2000.
The book edited by Maj. Gen. Dipankar Banerjee
is a collection of papers presented at the International
Workshop on Small Arms and Light Weapons Proliferation
in South Asia, held at Kandalama Hotel, Kandalama,
Sri Lanka and the International Conference on
Conventional Arms in South Asia: Promoting Transparency
and Preventing Small Arms Proliferation at Suisse
Hotel, Kandy, Sri Lanka in June 2000.
Small
Arms and Light Weapons Proliferation and Human
Rights
Deepika Udagama*
The international community has for a long time,
with singular determination, focused attention
on the consequences of the use of weapons of
mass destruction. It has done its utmost to
control the manufacture and use of such weapons.
The merits of focusing in the menace of weapons
of mass destruction cannot be disputed. Today,
however, it is clear that it is small arms and
light weapons that are causing the greatest
damage to human life and security, wreaking
havoc on societies in all parts of the world.
The international community must seriously focus
on this issue and with the same single minded
determination do its utmost to stop the illicit
manufacture, and trafficking in small arms and
light weapons. The 1997 Report of the UN Panel
of Government Experts on Small Arms has defined
small arms as those arms designed for personal
use and light weapons as those arms designed
for use by several persons serving as a crew.
According to this definition, ammunition and
explosives form an integral part of small arms
and light weapons.
Guns kill. We all know that. But it is not only
the right to life and personal security that
are flagrantly denied by the proliferation of
small arms and light weapons. The fear these
weapons instill in society and the consequent
instability have a devastating impact on all
human rights whether they be civil, cultural,
economic, political or social rights or the
right to development or the right to peace.
Good governance, public order, public security
and economic activity are all affected by this
menace. The General Assembly has recognized
the close linkage between terrorism, organized
crime and drug trafficking in small arms and
light weapons. The massive humanitarian problems
arising from the proliferation of armed conflict
are directly fed by the illicit manufacture
and trafficking in small arms and light weapons.
The Security Council has noted that the easy
circulation of small arms can be a factor undermining
peace agreements, complicating peace-building
measures. It is extremely significant, therefore,
to recognize the human rights and humanitarian
dimensions of this problem in a comprehensive
manner.
There is no gainsaying that it is essential
to have a strong international legal regime
to deal with the issue of the proliferation
of small arms and light weapons. Currently there
are several regional initiatives on the subject,
including the Economic Community of West African
States’ moratorium on the production and trade
in small arms, the Inter American Convention
Against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking
in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other
related materials, the European Union Joint
Action on Small Arms and the European Union
Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. While these
regional initiatives are an important development,
the absence of an international regulatory framework
is acutely felt.
There are some encouraging recent developments
within the UN system in this regard. The Secretary
General, the General Assembly and the Security
Council have all recognized the pressing need
to take action. The cumulative result of all
these expressions of concern is the decision
of the General Assembly (reflected in GA Resolution
54/54/V of December 15, 1999) to call for a
UN Conference on the illicit Trade in Small
Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects to
be held in 2001. Complementing this process
is the “Vienna process” that seeks to come up
with an Optional Protocol against the illicit
Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms.
The Optional Protocol seeks to supplement the
UN Convention against Transnational Organized
crime.
Where the UN Conference is concerned, the preparatory
committee to the conference has already met
once and will be meeting again in January and
March 2001 to finalize the objective of the
conference and its agenda. It is necessary that
the UN human rights bodies have a strong input
with regards to the shaping of the agenda of
the conference and also in its deliberations
and final outcome. Such input would help ensure
that the human rights and humanitarian dimensions
of the proliferation of small arms and light
weapons are included and highlighted. The Sub
Commission must call on UN human rights bodies,
particularly the UN Commission on Human Rights
and the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights, to actively participate in the
2001 conference.
It is equally important that human rights NGOs
effectively participate in the conference, it
is my understanding that the International Action
Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a coalition of
concerned organizations, is already quite active
in this regard. It is important that human rights
NGOs inform themselves of the process leading
up to the conference and make sure that their
voices are heard.
· Dr Udagama is Senior Lecturer in Law, University
of Colombo. An International Research Committee
Member of RCSS, she participated at the Small
Arms and Light Weapons Proliferation Workshop
at Kandalama, Sri Lanka, in June 2000. Here
are extracts from her address at the United
Nations Sub Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights at its 52nd Session.
RCSS Activities
Publications:
Dipankar Banerjee ed. South Asia at Gun Point:
Small Arms and Light Weapons Proliferation;
Colombo, 2000
Policy Studies 17, P Sahadevan, Coping with
Disorder: Strategies to End Internal Wars in
South Asia;
(October, 2000)
Policy Studies 16, Lailufar Yasmin, Law and
Order Situation and Gender-based Violence: Bangladeshi
Perspective; (October, 2000)
Policy Studies 15, Aruni John, Potential for
Militancy Among Bhutanese Youth (September 2000);
Policy Studies 14, Monica Bhanot, Order, Welfare
and Legitimacy in the Regional Context of South
Asia: An Ultima Thule (August 2000)
Policy Studies 13, Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury,
Energy Crisis and Subregional Cooperation in
South Asia (August, 2000)
Conferences and Seminars
Aug 19 Authors’ Conference on Governance in
Plural Society and Security, IIC, New Delhi.
Sep 10-20 Summer Workshop at Lalitpur, Kathmandu.
Sep 27-28 Authors’ Conference on Globalisation
and Security at Colombo
Executive Director
July 24-Aug 4 Consultant to the UN Group of
Governmental Experts on the Conventional Arms
Register
at New York.
Aug 27-30 Meeting of the International Advisers
of the ICRC at Geneva. Presentation on the Emerging
Security Environment in Asia. Sep 23-24 Participated
at the IDSS, Singapore, Conference on Non Traditional
Security and discussion with the President of
Singapore.
Associate Director
Mr Sugeeswara Senadhira attended: International
Seminar on European Union-Asia Relations in
the
21st Century: Problems, Prospects and Strategies.
Karachi, Oct 24-25, 2000
Report
on the Authors’ Conference on Governance and
Security
August 19, 2000, New Delhi
On August 19, 2000, the Institute of Peace and
Conflict Studies (PCS) hosted a conference on
behalf of the Regional Centre for Strategic
Studies (RCSS) Colombo, on Governance and Security
in South Asia at the India International Centre,
New Delhi. The seminar was funded by the RCSS.
The objective of the conference was to establish
the vital link between governance and national
security in South Asia. The conference invited
one paper each from prominent academicians from
Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka
respectively. These papers were discussed by
a panel of eminent practitioners and experts,
thus providing an interface between theory and
practice of security.
The concept paper for the conference posited
that the crisis of governance exacerbates the
South Asian security problem in the following
two ways:
First, by accentuating the virtual immobility
of the State to deal with the complex problems
of human security. Instead, the State has revealed
an easy propensity to deploy its scarce resources
to strengthen the instruments of repression
like the armed forces, police and intelligence
agencies, reflecting the influence of strategic
enclaves within the State. More disconcertingly,
this diminishes its capacity for credibly providing
either national or human security.
Secondly, the very machinery of governance has
become a new source of insecurity. The criminalisation
of politics and politicisation of crime are
recognized realities in the region. They highlight
the entry of criminal elements into the inner
processes of government and the crisis in the
governance processes relating to the maintenance
of law and order and the administration of criminal
justice, which are activities cardinal to the
most basic functions of the State. This phenomenon
reveals that the State has, in effect, become
the problem of ensuring national and human security.
A diagnosis of the crisis of governance in South
Asia and its implications for the security of
its plural societies is required before any
remedial action is suggested to deal with them.
Towards this end, the country studies envisaged
under this project focussed on the following
questions.
i. Discerning the linkages between governance
and state/human security in South Asia and their
roles for developing a holistic view of national/regional
security.
ii. Historical review of the events and trends
that have accentuated the crisis of governance
and insecurity in South Asia.
iii. Criminalisation of politics with its roots
in organized crime; the growing nexus between
criminal elements in politics, bureaucracy,
and business resulting in the establishment
of an exploitative, rentier class.
iv. Role of armed forces in civil society as
part of the problematic. The culture of militarisation
is permaeting the South Asian ethos-revealed
by easy manner in which military rule was established
in Pakistan; this requires closer inquiry as
it is concomitant with strengthening the forces
predisposed towards the centralization of powers
in the state.
v. Mal-effects of the crisis of governance on
State/ human security. This could include a
lack of accountability encouraging public corruption,
and the deprivation of the people from access
to public, including civic, services.
vi. Remedial measures to mitigate these problems
accommodating ethnic identities; strengthening
civil society; promoting liberal democracy by
decentralization and devolution of powers down
to the grassroots level; encouraging indigenous
forms of governance by strengthening local bodies
like nyaya panchayats to dispense justice; recognizing/
accommodating the aspirations of marginalised
minorities; and so on.
vii. Given the dismal state of the social sector
in South Asia, the region requires a sustained
economic growth of at least 5% for a quarter
of a century to match global standards.
The conference opened with remarks from Mr PR
Chari the Director of the project and Major
General (Retd) Dipankar Banerjee, Executive
Director, RCSS. The morning session was chaired
by Dr. Mira Sinha Bhattacharjee and the afternoon
session was chaired by Mr. Muchkund Dubey. The
conference concluded with comments from Mr Chari
and Maj Gen Banerjee.
Following is a list of the authors and discussants.
Authors
1. Amena A Mohsin - ( Bangladesh),
2. Meenakshi Gopinath - (India)
3. Lok Raj Baral - (Nepal)
4. Shahrukh Rafi Khan - ( Pakistan ) {did not
attend}
5. P Saravanmuttu - ( Sri Lanka)
Discussants
1. IP Khosla - (Bangladesh)
2. Gopi Arora - (India)
3. Ramaswamy Aiyar - (Nepal)
4. G. Parthasarathy - (Pakistan)
5 Eric Gonsalves - (Sri Lanka)
Report
on the Authors’ Conference on Globalisation
and Security
September 28-29, Colombo
The authors’ conference on Globalisation sub-theme
under the RCSS Project on Non-Traditional Security
Issues in South Asia was held at Galadari Hotel,
Colombo from September 28-29, 2000.
The NTS project is part of a bigger Asia-wide
initiative. While the RCSS handles the South
Asian program, the United Nations University,
Tokyo and the Institute of Defence and Strategic
Studies (IDSS), Singapore have been entrusted
with the implementation of the North Asia and
Southeast Asia projects respectively. Three
broad themes have been identified to operationalise
the project and examine their impact on and
linkages with, different aspects of human security.
The three themes are: governance in plural societies,
globalisation and environment.
The Authors Meeting was attended by the RCSS
Executive Director, Project Chairman and six
authors from South Asia and six discussants
who studied the papers and made valuable suggestions
for their improvement.
Sub themes discussed at the Conference included
various issues affecting globalisation and security
in the region such as revolution in information
technology and communications, the tempo of
democratisation, the ergonomic liberalisation.
The issues raised included the nature and potential
of globalisation and its relevance to South
Asia, relationship between globalisation and
state sovereignty, the need to ensure human
security through protecting and marginalising
and vulnerable sections of the society and policy
options in that direction.
Participants:
Dr Jennifer Bennett, Senior Research Fellow,
Sustainable Research Policy Institute, Islamabad.
Paper Title: Relationship Between Globalisation
and Human Development
Dr Jayadeva Uyangoda, Dept of Political Science,
University of Colombo.
Paper Title: Identity and Ethnicity
Mr Phuntsho Rapten, Centre for Bhutan Studies,
Thimpu
Paper Title: Information Flow, Security and
Culture
Dr Imtiaz Ahmed, Professor, Department of International
Relations, University of Dhaka, Dhaka
Paper Title: State and Political Process
Dr Santishree D NB Pandit, Reader, Dept of Politics
and Public Administration, University of Pune,
Pune
Paper Title: Science and Technology
Ms Shyamal K. Shrestha, Institute for Integrated
Development Studies (IIDS), Kathmandu.
Paper Title: Globalisation, Growth and Equity
Discussants: Dr Chandra Gunawardena, Dr Ketesh
Loganathan, Dr Lorna Devaraja, Prof K D Arul
Pragasam, Prof George Cooray and Mr Dayan Jayathilake.
Participants:
Dr Abdur Rob Khan, Director, Bangladesh Institute
of Strategic Studies, Project Chairman.
Dr Gamini Corea, former UNCTAD Secretary General
Dr Vernon Mendis, Director General, Bandaranaike
International Diplomatic Training Institute
Maj Gen (Retd.) Dipankar Banerjee, Executive
Director, RCSS
Dr R.A.Ariyaratne, University of Colombo
Report on the HPAIR Conference “Diversity &
Convergence: Resolving Asia’s Role in the Global
Community”
The RCSS selected two participants from the
Summer Workshop of 1999 to attend the conference
organised by the Harvard Project for Asian Affairs
(HPAIR) in collaboration with the Beijing University
in Beijing in August 2000. The two participants
Maria Sultan and Sarah Bokhari of Pakistan sent
the following two reports on the Conference.
Deterrence Will not Fail
Maria Sultan *
The main aim of the conference organised by
the Harvard Project for Asian Affairs in collaboration
with the Beijing University was to orient a
new generation of students with Asia Pacific
and US role in the region.
The entire thrust of the conference as well
as the workshop was aimed at consolidating views
on the future of Sino-US relations. Keynote
addresses on August 27 were delivered by Professors
Vogel and Yuan. The focus of the address was
the growing interaction between US and China
and how in future the interests were more likely
to converge than diverge. Secondly, that ‘Cold
War’ had not ended in Asia, example given in
this regard were that of North and South Korea,
India and Pakistan, and the China-Taiwan issue.
Emphasis was on promoting democratic values
as the military personnel enjoyed more leverage
than usual.
The key note addresses were followed by division
of delegates to respective workshops. The issue
discussed in workshops were related to the Taiwan
question, reunification of Korea, South Asian
perspective on nuclear proliferation, ASEAN
and its role in the security of the region,
and lastly the question relating to US presence
in the region.
The workshop was conducted in phases. In the
first phase, speakers from each region or area
gave a briefing followed by a question session.
In the second phase, a set of questions were
given to a group of people. The delegates at
the workshop were further divided according
to alphabetical order and the aim was to come
up with possible predictions about issues of
significance, such as the Taiwan issue. TMD,
a factor of stability or instability, Korean
reunification, and nature of US presence in
the region.
The session on South Asian nuclearisation was
chaired by Elisha Yaghmai and opened by a key
not address by professor Lin Guojiong, who narrated
the theory of disarmament and gave a historical
description of non-proliferation regime and
the fear of deterrence breaking out in South
Asia while reiterating that the rule of P5 states
is to stop all proliferation. In short the presentation
focused on the threat to the regime due to new
actors, and need for new attempts including
that of CTBT and FMCT, while briefly dealing
with NPT review conference.
The notion being that nuclear weapons still
hold the currency of power in national realism
while talking about disarmament future, special
emphasis was laid on TMD and it’s impact on
Chinese politics. His presentation was followed
by presentation by me. My main focus remained
as to why South Asia had gone nuclear and that
deterrence will not fail in South Asia as well
as disarmament as theory was non-viable. Whereas
Sarah Bokhari, gave a presentation on the opposite
view, relating to the argument that in South
Asian deterrence is bound to fail and we are
incapable of managing our nuclear arsenal. These
presentations were followed by a question hour
session.
* Research Associate, Institute for Strategic
Studies,
Islamabad
Solutions
from Discourse
Sarah Bokhari*
After a century characterized by anti colonial
strife, internal unrest, wars, and the most
recently amazing economic growth, it seems Asia
has finally arrived. There is no denying the
fact that Asian nations have played a role in
world affairs and will continue to do this in
the coming years. Uncertainty surrounds the
question of Asia’s particular role, though.
Will Asia serve as a source of world stability,
or will territorial disputes, arms build-ups,
ethnic strife serve to plunge the region and
even the world into greater conflict. The answer
is that no one is clearly sure, but through
discussions among peoples in the region much
could be achieved to make the future benign
and prosperous.
With this aim Harvard University, USA, held
it’s ninth annual conference on Asia and International
Relations at Peking University, China. The aim
was to look for better ways for conflict resolution,
economic security, information technology and
multilaterism among Asian countries. Entitled
“Diversity and Convergence: Resolving Asia’s
Role in Global Community”, the conference mission
this time again was to foster international
exchange of students, research scholars and
world leaders as well as a dialogue on issues
that impact the Asia Pacific region. The Security
Workshop called “The Black Box: Asian Security
in the 21st Century” out of five workshops,
discussed the Taiwan question, Korea, Nuclear
Proliferation, the US presence in Asia, and
Asian Multilateral Security. The goal of this
workshop was to realize that conflicting claims
exist and make an attempt to develop positive
areas, preferably seeking non-military solutions
to disputes.
The PRC (People’s Republic of China) claims
that Taiwan is a rogue province and thus this
issue is an internal affair; no other nation
should get involved in the dispute. China advocates
“One China”. Although Taiwan accepts the validity
of this policy but both China and Taiwan have
conflicting ideas on the definition of “One
China”. The solution suggested for Mainland
China and Taiwan in the conference was that
a forced agreement should not be reached.
The US presence in the Asia has to do with a
lot of security problems. Whether it is the
NMD, the unification of the Koreas or the Taiwan
problem the US is involved in Asia in some form
or another. The argument for the US to maintain
its current forward deployment is to act as
a stabilizer in the region. It provides a good
insurance against a possible resurgence of Japan.
The US presence has deterred further North Korean
attacks. They say that because of US presence
in Japan and South Korea neither of these countries
have felt a deep urge to develop nuclear weapons
since they are protected under the US nuclear
umbrella .On the other hand the arguments against
the US presence in Asia holds that |
