Need to move towards Conflict Resolution

The POST, Sun, July,9, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s recent assertion in Geneva that stage has come for India and Pakistan to move towards dispute resolution and called for a just settlement of Kashmir dispute to ensure durable peace and security in South Asia. He stressed that considerable progress has already been made through confidence building measures (CBM) and increased people to people contacts which has reduced tensions and improved the overall bilateral atmosphere. He further stated that time has come to move beyond dispute management to dispute resolution.

Highlighting his quest for a durable and lasting peace, he emphasized that a lasting solution must be accepted by all the three stakeholders-Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris. He called for demonstrating courage, determination, flexibility and commitment on the part of all involved. In addition he made it quite clear that Pakistan is ready to do its part. It is well acknowledged fact by almost all concerned that without the resolution of the ongoing Kashmir dispute durable peace is unlikely to be firmly rooted in South Asia.

Prior to analyzing the assertion that time has come to move towards conflict resolution perhaps it would be appropriate that three frequently employed terms(CBMs, conflict management and conflict resolution) are properly defined. CBMs can be easily defined as a bilateral or multilateral measure that build confidence, arrests the undesirable drift towards open hostilities, reduces tensions, and encourages the adversaries to make contacts for negotiations without taxing too much the operative policy pursuits.

The term conflict implies the pursuit of incompatible objectives by different groups. The conflict management, though positive approach in essence, merely means limiting, mitigating and containing a conflict that has the potential to erupt into a violent clash. In many ways it amounts to regulating a conflict with the intension to prevent its anticipated deterioration into a violent outbreak. Conflict resolution implies that deep rooted causes of conflict are addressed with a view to resolve the conflict. The term is undoubtedly used to refer both to the process which is expected to introduce changes and to the completion of the process.

A review of  the current peace process which started soon after the 12th SAARC Summit and the Joint Statement of President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee clearly indicates that progress in two areas have been extremely impressive. Undoubtedly these areas are CBMs and the people to people contact. Apart from general CBMs aimed to improve overall atmosphere between India and Pakistan, many Kashmir related CBMs have been working though not as satisfactorily as were augured at the time of their introduction.

Not only a bus started plying between Muzafferabad and Srinagar, but the leaders of APHC were allowed to visit Pakistan. The Pakistan visit of the Kashmiri leaders was viewed as a significant development which enabled the Kashmiri leadership to fully comprehend the views of the Kashmiris living in Azad Kashmir. Following the tragic earthquake that hit the Kashmir region, five points were opened to facilitate the contacts between the Kashmiris living on both sides of the LOC. Another route for bus from Rawalakot to Poonch is also opened. In addition it has also been agreed to start plying trucks between Muzaferrabad and Srinagar with a view to encourage trading interactions between the two Kashmir.

Perhaps the most significant developments relate to periodic meetings of the Indo-Pak leadership in which almost all contentious issues are almost regularly discussed. In addition many new ideas have been advanced by the Pakistani President including the notion of regions in Kashmir, demilitarization, self governance in order to facilitate the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. The primary purpose of advancing such ideas is to help both sides to think hard and try to find a solution that may contain seed of acceptability. It is somewhat agonizing to realize that no new idea aimed to resolve disputes have been put forward by the Indian side. On the contrary the injection of complications has been administered. The current Indian position on Siachin is vastly different than what it agreed in 1989. In fact it appears to reflect unnecessarily injecting more complications.

Everybody recognizes the fact that it is not easy to reach a settlement over Kashmir dispute but what is becoming abundantly clear is the fact that the parties involved need to make extra efforts. So far the past three years have only witnessed both the Pakistani as well as the Kashmiri leadership attempts but not much has been forthcoming from the key country India.  A comparative analysis of Indo-Pak efforts to resolve the Kashmir dispute clearly highlights that Indian efforts are extremely unimpressive. On the contrary, it generates the impression that India is not just employing delaying tactics but it does not want any other solution than the one on Indian terms.

It is not difficult or even surprising for any neutral international observer to quickly reach the conclusion that India is not going to accept any objective solution. Systematic application of delaying tactics is easily identifiable. Besides, even the delaying tactic is reflecting that India is going to only pursue its often stated position. Frequently it has thrown spanner and obstructed the ongoing peace efforts by stressing that there shall be no redrawing of the boundaries. Currently India is dragging its feet over the dialogue between the Indian officials and the leadership in Kashmir.

The two roundtable conferences between the Indian officials and the Kashmiri leadership have been held despite the reservation of many Kashmiri leaders. At the end of the second round table conference five working groups were established. The most intriguing aspect of the working groups’ is their focus is only on how to improve situation within the Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) rather than making attempts to move towards the resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan. It was essential to establish a group which could suggest some way out of the existing impasse over the ongoing Kashmir dispute. The establishment of five working groups clearly indicates that the main focus of efforts in only on how to reconcile the estranged population of the IHK with that of India-an effort to heal the wounds not to resolve the dispute.

What is perhaps is the most disappointing is the lack of desired level of interest on the part of international community. Neither the Americans nor the Europeans have lived up to the expectations of the oppressed Kashmiri people. Either they don’t want to be involved in Indo-Pak crises or they have not much interest in the regional stability. In both cases their vociferously drummed concerns appears to be fake rather than genuine.

Given the nature of operative international anarchic political system the overriding principle is indeed based on self help and national interests. Nations recognize the supremacy of national interests and if the pursuits of national interests require damaging the established system or universally recognized principles, the powerful will just go ahead and inflict a blow to the system and relegate the principles to oblivious zones. One glaring example is the recent Indo-US nuclear deal which is likely to damage the well established NPT regime one hand and could encourage undesired proliferation. The argument advanced to prevent the known aspirants becomes weak if viewed with the context of Indo-US nuclear deal.

Cognizant of emerging but constantly improving contact between the people of Pakistan and India along with the appreciation of vastly improved atmosphere primarily because of the effective working of the CBMs, the Prime Minister appeared to have been encouraged to stress that the time has come to move on to conflict resolution. The dividends generated by the advent of CBMs seem to have generated an impression that time has come to subject even the complex disputes to concerted resolution efforts. The international community needs to be more active in supporting the resolution efforts and not sacrifice generally accepted peace norms for the sake of  overwhelming attraction of a large market.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.