International day of Peace - 21 September 2008

For detail click on the link below

International day of Peace

Podcast on climate change

There are complexities of issues, policies, and national-international perspective over food security, hunger and famine. On the other hand sea level rise, because of ice melting due to global warming threatening the chunk land mass of many countries. Millions of people in the coastal districts of Bangladesh are at risk in the coming time due the Sea Level Rise phenomenon.

Evolution of Rights Based Approach

There are many definitions and stand points on RBA given by number of agencies. A table is available at Annex 3. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), a human rights-based approach is a conceptual framework for the process of human development that is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. In my opinion, the definition is precisely noted in Cohen (2004),

A rights based approach is founded on the conviction that each and every human being, by virtue of being human, is a holder of rights. A right entails an obligation on the part of government to respect, promote, protect and fulfill it. The legal and normative character of rights and the associated government obligations are based on international human rights treaties and other standards, as well as on national constitutional human rights provisions. Cohen’s focal point seems poverty and deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights. And meeting these rights could empower destitute to claim their rights. However, in the context of very poor country like Bangladesh, it is acceptable. Today’s RBA came into existence during the passage of time from 1940s to now on through the formation and grown up of UN. From the following table we can have a quick journey into the history of RBA. Table : History of rights-based approach[i]

UN charter after the Word War II was the first recognizable universal consensus of nation states that came up with the agenda of peace, human rights, and development. Through civil, political and economic, social, cultural rights from 1950s to 80s, the concept of economic, social, and people centered development became talk of the development agencies. Initially economic development was narrowly trapped within income growth and domestic product growth etc. Concept of economic growth existed for decade despite the fact that economic growth may be accompanied by inequalities[ii]. In 1986, the declaration on right to development was an attempt to emphasize development as right. Right to peace, environment, and development are known as third generation rights whereas CP rights belong to first generation and ESC rights are the second generation. Right to development is not alienable from main stream rights. The Declaration reflects the aims of “constant improvement of well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development.” According to Article 8, “equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and fair distribution of income”. This article supports the argument for “fundamental rights” that is drawn in this paper for adequate standard of life. Right to development declaration is not legally binding and failed to get attention of the western wealthy states because of strategic reasons. According to Nyamu-Musembi & Cornwall, right to development “emphasizes a collective duty of all states to eliminate barriers such as unfair trade rules and debt burden, effectively pointing an accusing finger at the industrial countries. For this reason it has been opposed by Western states (2004: 8, cited in Ahsan, 2006).” In the AOA, and trade liberalization section we have found how these trade agreements have been exploiting developing countries and creating food insecurity. The failure of “right to development” reminds us about the power and intention of rich countries and their influence within UN system. In 1993, Vienna conference affirmed the indivisibility of human rights and development. It was recognized in the conference that democracy, development, and human rights are interdependent and interlinked. In 1995, World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen came up with the mantra that the ultimate goal of social development is to improve and enhance the quality of life of all people. Social development encounters problems including poverty, unemployment, and social disintegration. The summit urges to reduce sources of distress and instability from families and societies, and social development can be achieved by enhancing well-being of people. Later on economic development thinking moved towards people centered development, which is aligned with UNDP’s latest version of “human development” that is in line with Sen’s “Development as freedom”. Human development is a process of enlarging people’s choice by expanding capabilities. According to HDR (2000), it focuses on progress of human lives and well-being. Well-being includes living with substantial freedoms. Human development enhances capabilities. According to HDR, capabilities include, the basic freedoms of being able to meet bodily requirements, such as the ability to avoid starvation and undernourishment, or to escape preventable morbidity or premature mortality. They also include the enabling opportunities given by schooling, for example, or by the liberty and the economic means to move freely and to choose one’s abode. (2000, p 19). While human rights guarantee freedom by legal protection and moral obligations, human development enhances capabilities to ensure freedom. Both has same destination but through different agenda for development. According to Theis (2004: 11) the growing popularity by UN agencies, INGOs, and some western governments to adopt RBA is because, “…together, human rights and development are more effective than either one on its own. ” RBA depends much more on international legal standards. The biggest challenge of RBA is the “realization” and “enforcement” of these standards. It is also difficult to pursue governments to ratify human rights treaties. Though the treaties are ratified; it is difficult to hold government accountable to fulfill her obligations. However, we are not digging into the issues of constraints and of difficulties to promote human rights here.

End notes:

[i] Theis (2004) has drawn this table and explains how BRA came into existence. [ii] Britt Kalla (2006) noted Arjun Sengupta’s argument, which says economic growth can be accompanied by augmented inequalities or disparities and rising concentrations of wealth and economic power as well as the ignoring of human rights standards relating to economic, social and cultural (ESC) but also civil and political (CP) rights.

Handbook of Human Conflict technology by Tina Monberg

The results of Tina Monberg’s researches in conflict management has finally produced a new handbook to deal with conflicts in working environment. Psychotherapist and mediator Tina Monberg has published "Handbook of Human Conflict Technology", an essential book for managers at every level in every industry and for anyone interested in the conflict phenomenon. The concept at the basis of the book has been implemented into a number of Danish organisations. It explains how companies can execute their own conflict strategy to ensure any disagreements arising have a positive impact on their internal settings.

Tina Monberg provides practical models that can be customised to suit the needs of any company. That’s one of the strongest points of the theory which allows everyone and every environment to shape the basic strategy in order to adapt it to any particular situations. Monberg realizes that every environment can be different and a too tight system might not be working for everyone.

Many case-studies have been examined in the book to show companies that have succeeded using this strategy and a questionnaire at the back of the book has been designed to reveal your own company’s conflict culture.

The book is easy to navigate with an introductory paragraph at the beginning of each chapter addressing exactly what issues will be raised and what questions answered. This is a practical guide written in a straight-forward style that will motivate managers to introduce their own conflict strategy.

"Tina Monberg has written an excellent book about conflict resolution. This book should be required reading for any CEO!"
- Jens Graff, Erhvervsbladet

"The book gives new ways, so that conflicts can be turned around and used for the positive. It shows practical methods of how to build a conflict concept and shows how to involve all of the organisation in working with conflicts."
- Jyllands Posten

******

Publication date: 2007, ISBN: 978-1-899820-39-9, Number of pages: 280

About Author

"Mediationcenter was established in 2000 by Tina Monberg. Tina Monberg is a lawyer and qualified psychotherapist. She was educated as a mediator by Professor Frank E. A. Sander of Harvard Law School and in win-win negotiation by Professor Robert H. Mnookin of Harvard Law School. She has previously run her own law firm and worked as a corporate lawyer, but now functions as a mediator, coach and teacher, working at mediationcenter a/s and mediationcenter ltd. Tina has specialized in preventing, handling, and solving business conflicts in an interest-based way, so that from a conflict, no one comes out as a loser. In relation to this, she has created a conflict management concept, which has been implemented into a number of Danish organisations. She has worked together with The Danish Bar Association to help implement mediation into Denmark. Tina wrote the books "Two Winners - Mediation as Positive Conflict Resolution" and "Handbook of Human Conflict Technology" and has co-written several management books.

Mediationcenter provides conflict mediation and develops strategies to bring solutions to a wide range of disagreements and disputes. The aim is to transform the conflict by bringing renewed energy and cooperation to the dialogue and create an environment, where mutual interests are recognised. It is a process, which aligns all parties for a positive outcome. mediationcenter believes that this is only possible with a complete understanding of the human elements involved, where relations can be preserved and ideally improved.

The key points of mediationcenter’s philosophy are:

• Human nature is fundamentally good.


• The best results are obtained when all interests - individual and group - are attended to.


• Conflict and cooperation are not mutually exclusive entities, but parts of the same process.


• Growth is only created in the presence of cooperation and shared interests, not through fear."

For detail,

Tina Monberg
tm@mediationcenter.dk
Book Promotion Ltd.
Manuela Mesco
Manuela.mesco@book-promotion.com
www.book-promotion.com

Human Rights Report Assails U.S.

By ALAN COWELL
Published: May 29, 2008
------------------------------------------

PARIS — Sixty years after the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, governments in scores of countries still torture or mistreat their people, Amnesty International said Wednesday in a report that again urged the United States to close down the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba...

Click here for detail



Amnesty int's report at a glance

60 years of human rights failure - Governments must apologize and act now

Amnesty International today challenged world leaders to apologize for six decades of human rights failure and re-commit themselves to deliver concrete improvements.

"The human rights flashpoints in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq and Myanmar demand immediate action," said Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, launching AI Report 2008: State of the World's Human Rights.

"Injustice, inequality and impunity are the hallmarks of our world today. Governments must act now to close the yawning gap between promise and performance."

Amnesty International's Report 2008, shows that sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations, people are still tortured or ill-treated in at least 81 countries, face unfair trials in at least 54 countries and are not allowed to speak freely in at least 77 countries.

"2007 was characterised by the impotence of Western governments and the ambivalence or reluctance of emerging powers to tackle some of the world's worst human rights crises, ranging from entrenched conflicts to growing inequalities which are leaving millions of people behind," said Ms Khan.

Amnesty International cautioned that the biggest threat to the future of human rights is the absence of a shared vision and collective leadership.

"2008 presents an unprecedented opportunity for new leaders coming to power and countries emerging on the world stage to set a new direction and reject the myopic policies and practices that in recent years have made the world a more dangerous and divided place," said Ms Khan.
Amnesty International challenged governments to set a new paradigm for collective leadership based on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"The most powerful must lead by example," said Ms Khan.

China must live up to the human rights promises it made around the Olympic Games and allow free speech and freedom of the press and end "re-education through labour".
The USA must close Guantánamo detention camp and secret detention centres, prosecute the detainees under fair trial standards or release them, and unequivocally reject the use of torture and ill-treatment.

Russia must show greater tolerance for political dissent, and none for impunity on human rights abuses in Chechnya.

The EU must investigate the complicity of its member states in "renditions" of terrorist suspects and set the same bar on human rights for its own members as it does for other countries.

Ms Khan warned: "World leaders are in a state of denial but their failure to act has a high cost. As Iraq and Afghanistan show, human rights problems are not isolated tragedies, but are like viruses that can infect and spread rapidly, endangering all of us."

"Governments today must show the same degree of vision, courage and commitment that led the United Nations to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sixty years ago."
"There is a growing demand from people for justice, freedom and equality."

Some of the most striking images of 2007 were of monks in Myanmar, lawyers in Pakistan, and women activists in Iran.

"Restless and angry, people will not be silenced, and leaders ignore them at their own peril," said Ms Khan.

Amnesty int's report is available at

http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Homepage

Three faces of Vulnerability

Vulnerability as an entitlement problem
Endowment bundle is individual’s own labor power plus land and other assets he/she owns. And now Entitlement mapping is about rules and processes for transforming endowment bundle into entitlements (e.g. market structure & regulations, rights to communal output e.g. food, property etc.). Entitlement set is commodity bundles including food that can be commanded given an initial endowment. Lack of access to food and other resources caused vulnerability. Lack of command over food is caused by lack of power. There is a relation between power and command over food. Sen argues that famine is caused by power of the individual to command food, or exchange entitlement. He argues that there is always enough food to feed the worlds population, but there are many factors that prevent some people from receiving an adequate share of this. According Sen, there is enough food but extreme poor does not have command over resources (ie money) to purchase food. He emphasizes on entitlement relations. It is not lack of food rather it is lack of means to command over food. However, access to food may not help because vulnerable groups can not buy food from the market. Therefore, we need to focus on assets and entitlement.

Assets (labor, human capital, and productive assets) ------------------food entitlements

Command over food is the most essential. The striking question is how vulnerable group of people can get command over food. Food entitlements and assets have to be mutually complementary to each other. According to Ford an entitlements approach is adopted whereby vulnerability of a group is explained by the availability of resources, and the entitlement of individuals and groups to call on these resources. In a broader context this relationship between entitlement and assets depend on political economy, which in a wider context related to political economy of distribution and formation of entitlements. Globalization, economic reform, and liberalization of trade could be a broader political economy that can make poor vulnerable locally.

Vulnerability as powerlessness/ political empowerment
Extreme poor and disadvantaged by other means are the powerless community. In the power relation perspective, this community is known as the rights claimers. This group of people, some time, does not have enough voice to speak out for their rights. They are illiterate, poor, and unaware about rights as well as their duty bearers are ignorant and uneducated about rights. They live within the society but outside the power structure. They are vulnerable by means of their livelihoods. Well, what makes people vulnerable and eventually powerless? According to Watts and Bohle (1993), “Vulnerability can also be politically determined, where people are powerless in their command over basic necessities and rights”.

Within the context of a developing or poor country, political factors cause powerlessness or vulnerability. Absence of good governance and lack of efficacy of institutions leads poor to live as poor or to become poorer. Powerless groups are usually found as deprived of fundamental rights, for example, right to food, adequate house, education, health, and employment etc. When fundamental rights are violated, it could be beyond their capacity to deal with civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Therefore, weak governance and deprivation of fundamental rights cause powerlessness and eventually vulnerability.

Availability of assets and ability to own that asset makes one not to be vulnerable. Moser & McIlwailne (1997) defines vulnerability as, “The more assets people have, the less vulnerable they are; the greater the erosion of assets, the greater the level of insecurity”. Vulnerability is also defined as lack of material and immaterial condition to stand against risk events (assets, entitlements). Political economy of distribution and formation of entitlements is wider context of asset entitlement relationship. Therefore, powerless people are neither politically empowered nor economically.

Political economy / social position of vulnerability
According to Ford (2002), economic and political power plays in determining vulnerability of individuals and groups. Historical and structural class-based pattern of social reproduction lies within the causes of vulnerability. So, political, economic, and social structures influence vulnerability. According to pressure and release model (PAR), vulnerability is part of risk (Blaikie et al 1994). The model says Risk = Hazards + Vulnerability. Hazards mean natural disasters. The progression of vulnerability is a series of levels of social factors e.g. i) root cause, ii) dynamic pressures, and iii) unsafe conditions. These levels focus on social, cultural, and political processes that give rise to unsafe conditions of vulnerable groups. According to Ford the model has a distinct scale element whereby root causes concerns remote influences including economic, demographic, and political processes within society and the world economy that reflect the distribution of power. The dynamic pressures include factors such as lack of local institutions, training, appropriate skills, local investments, local markets, press freedom, ethical standards in public life, and macro forces such as population growth, urbanization, arms expenditure, debt repayment, and deforestation. Unsafe conditions mean when people live in dangerous location with dangerous livelihoods, poor health, lack of building codes and regulations, and a lack of disaster preparedness. Unsafe conditions determine the vulnerable groups.

Women headed households are vulnerable because of gender inequality, social position, lack of mobility, and lower level of income. Class, caste, gender, age, ethnicity,
religion, or disability are factors for marginality and social exclusion. Hierarchical systems, structural and historical sequences of a society, and class based patterns of social reproduction continue a society to reproduce exploitation, exclusion, inequality, and consequently inequity. Under these dominant social factors poor live constantly at vulnerable state where they do not have any choice and eventually they do not achieve freedom for development.

Context of Vulnerability

Special attention to vulnerable and so as special solutions for them is missing from SLA frame. Here, by the word “vulnerable” we mean extreme poor such as land less, low waged, disables, elderly, minority, women, and children who struggle for livelihoods. Some economic factors are dominant for food security of vulnerable groups in the community such as purchasing power and market relationship that underpins the access to food that is not produced by community or household.

Vulnerability context may differ from nation to nation especially in the context of shocks and disasters. According to Ford (2002), Bangladesh and Frorida are both vulnerable in terms of sea level rise and storms. 1992 hurricane caused damage of US $ 16bn but killed fewer than 20 people. Where as a year before a similar cyclone killed 140,000 people and ruined the livelihoods of millions. Ford suggests that there is a need to focus the characteristics of a system that influences the ability of the people and communities to respond to, cope with, and adapt to stimulus. Therefore, a generalized common framework on livelihood may miss the national context of vulnerability. What is useful in Africa may not be worthy for South Asia. Regional or even more microscopically national perspective of livelihoods of vulnerable groups should be dealt with special care and focus.

Different population living under different social, cultural, economic, and political circumstance may have different levels of vulnerability. The rights-based approach recognizes that households’ ability to access assets and entitlements are influenced to a great extent by power relations, which has political, social and economic dimensions. Therefore, fulfillment of rights by households requires transforming power relationships among stakeholders and removing the exclusionary mechanisms that prevent rights-realization by the poor (Frankenberger and Cogill 2001, cited in CARE 2003). Therefore, we suggest RBA as a process to deal power relation led exploitations and eventually to fulfill rights as an end to poverty. This argument could be further elaborated in power relation section.

A generalized version of SLA frame could miss the target. It may miss the deeper structural causes of vulnerability. SLA may be termed as superficial approach to deal with the remedies and eventually prescribe weak solutions for livelihoods. Analyzing the deeper causes Watts and Bohle (1993) came up with,

• The particular distribution of entitlements and how these are reproduced
• The larger canvas of rights by which entitlements are fought over, contested (empowerment)
• Structural properties – crisis proneness for the political economy which precipitates entitlement crisis

Capability perspective

The world “capability” consists of ability and potentiality of a person. Thus, capability of person is to move, to be clothed and sheltered, to meet nutritional level, to be in good health, and to have power to participate in the social process. Access to goods and services (e.g. education, health, and transportation) may not benefit people because of lacking physical and financial capacity and social opportunity. The three major components of capability which are complementary to each other are,

1. Endowment (commodities and assets)

2. Individual capacity

3. Social opportunities

Ability helps people to escape from poverty. When person does not have adequate ability, potentiality (i.e. constitution of endowment) may prevent the person from falling into poverty. Thus, ability helps to act against poverty and potentiality works for protection towards risk. In reality both components of capability (ability and potentiality) depends on individual capacity. People may not utilize endowments and assets because of lack of information, education, awareness, illness and so on.

A true development intervention should work for uplifting vulnerable labors from capability poverty, which means improved capability of a labor can improve his or her income. Therefore, development interventions need focus towards improving adequate standard of living of a person and eventually improving capability rather raising income only. RBA intends to ensure minimum standard of living, which includes right to food, health, education, adequate housing etc., which are fundamental needs for having capable persons. According to Rodrik, focusing on poverty is also warranted from the perspective of a broader, capabilities-oriented approach to development. He notes that an exclusive focus on consumption or income levels constitutes too narrow an approach to development. Sen (1999: 19) has explained the complex relationship between income and capabilities. Low income can cause illiteracy, ill health, hunger, and lack of well being. On the contrary, better health and education may help a person to earn well. In my opinion, Income poverty leads to potentiality poverty. Potentiality poverty leads to capability poverty. The cycle may occur in reverse way too, for example, capability deprivation – potentiality poverty- income poverty. According to Sen, if we shift our focus from “income poverty” to “capability deprivation”, it would help us to understand freedom of human lives from poverty.

Capability and Distributive justice for adequate standard of living

When human well-being and capability is the objective, distributive justice could be the means for fulfilling basic needs. Living standard and quality of life is higher in affluent and wealthy state than poor nations. Similarly, wealthy and rich people have improved quality life than poor within a poor state. Thus, poor countries with limited resources and poor having no resources are deprived of quality life, which in turn deprives capability of the people. If need is based on consumption of commodities, concept of need could be changed over time. Number of consumption may increase and become necessary need for tomorrow. Thus, basic need concept of development paradigm is now becoming obsolete. On the other hand, human capability for better functioning and enjoying freedom is now on the stage[i].

Adequate standard of living need to be justified. I claim that adequate house, health, education, food, and work could be the requirements to capable a person for functioning. Fulfillment of these fundamental rights creates atmosphere and opportunities for people to function. According to Dubois & Rousseau (2003), through design of human development strategies and capabilities the process, “…leads to the improvement of access to health and education services, to adequate nutrition and safe water supply, thus improving the level of human capital. It also helps to fight against social exclusion by increasing empowerment and participation in public decisions, therefore reinforcing the level of social capital.”

Here, we are not taking in to account consumption of commodities and luxuries, which are relative in the context of wealth and culture. Television set, car, refrigerator, air conditions, oven, etc. could be essential stuff for households in rich country, where these commodities may be luxuries and may not be relevant for poor of poor countries. Therefore, adequate standard of living could be minimum human essentials to function, to earn, to take part in social life, which could be universally acceptable for living with human dignity. We do not elaborate here comparing “need” and “want” of human being. Minimum nutrition and food is a need for human survival. Want could be extended for better food, nice restaurants, and music and more. Thus, increased income and wealth lead human for consuming more luxuries. Our focus area is marginalized poor of third world countries and so as focus is on “adequate standard of living” for them.

Distributive justice means the just allocation of goods in a society. Thoughts relating wealth disparity and inequality of living standard go in line with distribution justice. Egalitarianism version means people should be treated equal in some respect.

Development cooperation and aid once dominated by 1960s and 70s basic need theories is now shifting focus towards rights, people centered, capability, and functioning. As noted in Hellsten (2003),

The capability approach then gives alternative moral criteria for global distribution and particularly for the issues of development cooperation, development aid and globalized economy in general. We should make sure that whatever resources, commodities, services we provide to the poor countries, these countries can use these benefits to realize human capital and human resources, by realizing human functionings and human capabilities.

Poor is the object of development agenda whether their capability enhancement is a development subject. According to Alexander (2004), theory of human rights helps to effectively address many contemporary issues of social justice. Human rights has provided inspiration and guide lines to governments, national courts, parliaments, nongovernmental organizations, professionals and social activists for effectively combating atrocities and unjust social practices in different parts of the world. Thus, theory of human rights also came up with an agenda for equitable society. This theory takes side to the oppressed and disadvantaged whose rights are deprived and violated.

John Rawl’s two principles are[ii],

1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.)

2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.

Rawl’s principle 2 (a) clearly points towards “least advantaged persons”. There are some criticisms about the contradiction of principles, which end in confusion and this paper has little scope to revisit these areas. However, distributive justice is useful at combating food insecurity and hunger.

End notes:
[i] According to Dr. Sirkku Kristiina Hellsten ,“ Meeting needs for individual freedom or social confinement: Capability ethics, basic needs and Redistribution of Justice”, approach moves from mere need satisfaction to human flourishing by defending the moral appropriateness of the concept of human well being measured in terms of human capabilities. Human capabilities provide fundamental moral categories for the evaluation of resources distribution. It concentrates on our freedom to promote objectives we have reason to value, such as participation/democracy, human rights and equality would be. In summary basic functionings and capabilities are life and health, and more advanced ones capabilities to personal integrity, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation/participation, control over one’s fate/environment.

[ii] for detail see http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/johnrawl.htm

Feed The World? We Are Fighting a Losing Battle, UN Admits

by Julian Borger
Published on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 by The Guardian/UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations warned yesterday that it no longer has enough money to keep global malnutrition at bay this year in the face of a dramatic upward surge in world commodity prices, which have created a "new face of hunger".

"We will have a problem in coming months," said Josette Sheeran, the head of the UN's World Food Programme (WFP). "We will have a significant gap if commodity prices remain this high, and we will need an extra half billion dollars just to meet existing assessed needs."

With voluntary contributions from the world's wealthy nations, the WFP feeds 73 million people in 78 countries, less than a 10th of the total number of the world's undernourished. Its agreed budget for 2008 was $2.9bn (£1.5bn). But with annual food price increases around the world of up to 40% and dramatic hikes in fuel costs, that budget is no longer enough even to maintain current food deliveries.

The shortfall is all the more worrying as it comes at a time when populations, many in urban areas, who had thought themselves secure in their food supply are now unable to afford basic foodstuffs. Afghanistan has recently added an extra 2.5 million people to the number it says are at risk of malnutrition

"This is the new face of hunger," Sheeran said. "There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before."...

For detail see <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/26/food.unitednations>

Peace, Conflict Management and Human Rights: Conflict between India and Pakistan in disputed Kashmir

1. Introduction
Where Marx believed that social class is the most basic division in any society, Max Weber saw conflict as having many possible bases religion, race, ethnicity, and more including social class. Where Marx believed that class inequalities would ultimately be ended by revolution, Weber saw conflict as eternal, although it could take new forms. Group conflict theory derives from Weber's vision. Johan Galtung has come up with more concrete and specific expression about conflict, which is in fact fitted in the case of Kashmir conflict. Galtung (1998) has showed how conflict arises, “…goals may be incompatible and mutually exclusive, like two states wanting the same land, or two nations wanting the same state when goals are incompatible, a contradiction, an issue, is born… frustration may lead to aggression, turning inwards as attitudes of hatred, or outwards as behaviour of verbal or physical violence…”. Thus Galtung has drawn a triangle of contradiction, attitude and behavior centering a conflict. India and Pakistan both claims Kashmir, which originated the conflict. The 55 years long conflict has not yet been resolved, on the other hand it has intensified hatred between Indian and Pakistanis that can be termed as Galtung’s ‘attitude of hatred’ transformed from long lasting frustration. The bilateral dialogues between leaders of both countries had failed numerous times to reach at peaceful decision and resolution. The leaders of both countries have encountered each other with words of threat and by act of violence as well as exercised military power, tested nuclear weapons and missiles. The arm race and the cross boarder conflict between India and Pakistan to threat each other can be compared as Galtung’s ‘behaviour of verbal or physical violence’. India and Pakistan has enemy image for each other. They exert enmity though the conflict behavior e.g. action, threat, cross boarder shelling, hatred speech etc.

Kashmir fell in trouble because of the two-nation theory that was stimulated by the divided Muslim and Hindu leaders during partition at 1947. Muslim leaders felt for an independent state for Muslims as they realized that they would not receive freedom under a Hindu headed state. The two-nation theory is reasonable as it helps us to know source of Kashmir conflict. Kashmir conflict can also be defined as cultural and political conflict. Singh (1998: 320) has emphasized on cultural identity as he says, “…the ways in which each state’s respective relationship to the institutions of the Indian central state has served as the focal point for the creation and maintenance of cultural identity…”. Government of India has dominated ethnic and religious minorities to sustain on one cultural identity though the state has secular image in the outer surface. But the word ‘cultural conflict’ needs deliberately further investigation to adjust at Kashmir conflict because the world ‘culture’ has a set of different elements, which may have complex relations among each other. In my opinion, the concept of religious conflict is acceptable as a reason of origin of the conflict. In addition, Kashmir is now interstate political issue between India and Pakistan; the conflict in Kashmir also falls under intrastate conflict category. Kashmir was an issue of international politics during decade long cold war era while the two nuclear power of today was supported by the two super power of cold war era.

2. Background
Kashmir conflict is a long lasting issue between India and Pakistan. Historical, cultural and religious factors are involved here in the conflict. Under the scheme of partition provided by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir was free to accede to India or Pakistan. Its accession to India became a matter of dispute between the two countries and fighting broke out later that year. Indurthy (2003:1) has showed the frequency of Kashmir conflict, "since partition of British India into India and Pakistan in August, 1947, the Kashmir dispute between the two countries has become an intractable one. They fought wars in 1947-48, 1965, 1971, and 1999, but have not been able to resolve the issue...". During Partition in India Hindus were about 66 percent and Muslims were about 24 percent of the population. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, and other Muslim leader feared that an independent government over all India would favor Hindus over Muslims. Indian Muslims, Jinnah argued, would have no more freedom under such a government than they had had under British rule. Thus during time of partition Muslim leaders feared that after the departure of British, majority Hindu will dominate India that would be worse for the minority Muslims that they had experienced under British ruled India. They main cause of Kashmir conflict was rooted by the decision of Maharaja Hari Singh. Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir was free to accede to India or Pakistan. Maharaja decided to accede to India.

Mehta (2003:1) has explained the link between partition of India with today's conflict on the line of control, "by the time the British abandoned India in 1947, their politics of "divide and rule" had effectively polarized the Hindu and Muslim populations...more than a million people died in the greatest migration in history, as Muslims from India headed to Pakistan and Pakistan was emptied of its Hindus and Sikhs...but the Hindu maharaja, who ruled over the Muslim majority, vacillated until an invasion by Pakistani irregulars convinced him to join India....the average Kashmiri now lives like a tongue between teeth, in a balance of terror between the security forces and the Islamic militants...".


India has never accepted U.N. resolution for the plebiscite. In fact, India is quite sure that the accepting plebiscite means loosing the territory, as the Kashmiris prefer Pakistan. But the majority Kashmiris desire independence. India does not feel it necessary to consider U.N. proposed plebiscite because Kashmiris have voted in national elections in India; there is no need for a plebiscite according to Indian government. Pakistan always says that a plebiscite should be held. Several of the militant groups in Kashmir have also called for a plebiscite but argue that an independent Kashmir should be an option. On July 2, 1972, India and Pakistan signed the Simla Accord, under which both countries agreed to respect the cease-fire line, known as the Line of Control.

Since 1996, Indian forces have got control over major towns and villages of the Kashmir valley, militant groups have occupied far northern and southern borders of Kashmir, including the districts of Rajouri, Punch, and Doda. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front was weakened later on by the continuous efforts of Indian government. The remaining groups, most of which have close ties to Pakistan, have been largely driven to the more remote mountain areas of Doda and other southern districts.


3. Map of Kashmir

Kashmir is a legendarily beautiful mountainous region that is located where the borders of India, Pakistan and China meet. Fig 1 shows the Schematic Map of conflicted Kashmir[i] The two countries went to war over the issue in 1947-49 and again in 1965. In those conflicts Pakistan and China gained control of territory claimed by India. In 1999 India fought a war with Pakistani-backed forces in the Kargil area.

Muslim-majority Valley of Kashmir is under Indian administration, along with Hindu majority Jammu and predominantly Buddhist Ladakh. Two other parts, both of them entirely Muslim, are under Pakistani administration, and some largely unpopulated areas are currently ruled by China.


3.1 Conflict parties
The Conflict parties are India, Pakistan and the Majority Kashmiri Muslims. In Kashmir All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) is an umbrella organization. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) has had developed political and militant movement for the independence of Kashmir. Major militant organizations include the Hizb-ul Mujahidin, Harakat-ul Ansar and Lashgar-i Toiba. Muslim United Front (MUF) attracted the support of a broad range of Kashmiris, including pro-independence activists, embittered Kashmiri youth and the pro-Pakistan Jama'at-i Islami, an Islamic political organization. In general there are there conflict parties,

a) India
b) Pakistan
c) Kashmiri Muslims

4. Conflict Mapping
Kamarulzaman Askandar (2004) has given a model of ‘conflict mapping’ and explained the steps of conflict mapping, which helps us to plot a specific conflict in to the structure for having clear picture about the conflict. Kashmir conflict can be better understood from needs and fear analysis of conflicting parties, issues, causes, effects and conflict relation which are the steps of Conflict Mapping.

4.1. Needs and fears


Party A (India)

Needs
- India regards Kashmir as an integral part of the Indian nation. India needs to keep Kashmir for the sake of territorial integrity.
- India wants Pakistan to cease support for cross-border terrorism launched by groups that want to unite Kashmir with Pakistan.

Fear
- From losing the territory Kashmir
- UN resolution for plebiscite
- Any third party negotiation or mediation
- Kashmiris independence movement
- Kashmiris unity with Pakistan
- Loosing Kashmir may escalate separatist movement in other provinces of India
- Arm race and Nuclear tension with Pakistan
- Hindu-Muslim riot
- Terrorism


Party B (Kashmiri Muslims)

Needs
- Majority Kashmir Muslim needs Independence
- Some militant Muslim groups wants to unite with Pakistan

Fear
- Death, rape, torture, arbitrary arrest, disappearance, summary execution, death in custody, Hindu-Muslim riot, suppression and ignorance, discrimination, unrest situation.
- Poverty, unemployment, lack of economic progress, political unrest, social and economic insecurity.


Party C (Pakistan)

Needs
- Pakistan favors a plebiscite, as called for in a 1949 U.N. resolution.
- Pakistan depends on rivers flowing out of Kashmir, the Jhelum, the Chenab, and the Indus, for irrigation and electricity generation.
- Unity of India ruled Kashmir with Pakistan
Fear
- Nuclear tension with India
- Terrorist network in Kashmir and its impact in Pakistan
- U.S. friendly relation with India
- Allocating high budget to sustain in the arm race against India
- Threat of combating war against India, if war outbreaks because of conflict.


4.2. Conflict trees
Conflict tree has three distinct parts. Causes are the roots of conflict, issue is the trunk of the tree and effects are the branches of it.


4.2.1. Conflict Issues

Conflict issues in Kashmir are,
- Self-determination: separatist movement against Indian government to free Kashmir.
- The LOC divides Kashmir: Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir to the east and south (population about nine million), and Pakistani-administered Azad (Free) Kashmir to the north and west (population about three million). China also controls a small portion of Kashmir.
- Nuclear tension between India and Pakistan
- Religion is an important aspect of the dispute. The population of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is over 60% Muslim. Indian government suppresses majority Muslims.
- Monitoring Line of Control
- Kashmiri militants are backed by Pakistan, they want to have unity of India ruled Kashmir with Pakistan.

4.2.2. Causes

Causes for the Kashmir conflict are,

- Accession signed in October 1947 by the Maharaja, Hari Singh that was not the choice of majority people in Kashmir
- Under India's Public Safety Act, the border security forces have the ability to act at will without fear of retribution or justice.
- Kashmir problem is deeply rooted in the histories and national identities of India and Pakistan
- Cold War political tensions: India-Soviet ties against Pakistan-U.S. ties
- Post September 11 terrorism: India claims that some Muslim terrorist network has links with militants of Kashmir
- Hindu-Muslim riots escalate tension in Kashmir

4.2.3. Effects

The effects of conflicts are,
- Continuing turmoil in Kashmir
- Curbing religious extremism and militants
- Massive crackdown on the militants
- Shooting of unarmed demonstrators
- Civilian massacres
- Summary executions of detainees
- Militant groups continue their attacks
- Murdering and threatening Hindu residents
- Carrying out kidnappings and assassinations of government officials, civil servants, and suspected informers
- Sabotage and bombings
- 100,000 Hindu Kashmiris, known as "Pandits," fled the valley
- Indiscriminate shootings, assaults, and rape committed by Indian army
- Detention and disappearances
- Human rights activists and lawyers have been killed or threatened
- Custodial killings
- Violent insurgency since 1989 that has claimed thousands of lives

4.3.Conflict relation

Pakistan naturally sympathizes with Muslims across the Line of Control in India. Thus the Kashmiri militants receive arms and training from Pakistan even though Pakistan claims to have only moral support for them. India has had allies with Soviet Union in the cold war era. After the fall of communism India continued to have strong relationship with Russia.

Shuja (2004: 3) shows how India has built a close relation with Russia for developing its military capacity, “…it is interesting to note that India continues to develop its nuclear arms program with foreign assistance, mainly from Russia...India also continues to modernize its armed forces through 'advanced conventional weapons', mostly from Russia. New Delhi received its first two MiG-21-93 fighter aircraft, and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd will now begin the licensed upgrading of 123 more aircraft”. On the other hand Pakistan was in close military ties with U.S. during the cold war, which kept balance of power between India-Pakistan in the South Asia.

Mr. Vajpayee's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is very much concerned about its popularity among the majority Hindus in India. Anti Muslim, fundamental image helped these political parties to win election in India. These political parties have different political ideologies but in case of Kashmir conflict they are united. Political leaders of India are waved by the strong nationalism, which does not permit separatism in Kashmir. BJP now relies more heavily on the support of fundamentalist and militant Hindus. The BJP leaders often mention at their statement and speeches that they will teach Pakistan a lesson on Kashmir issue. BJP wants to project itself as a true nationalist force. Any compromise or good decision for the future of Kashmiris is unthinkable for the sake of nationalism. Some Fundamental Hindu leaders and their followers in BJP exert enmity with Kashmiris as well as with Pakistanis.

Conflict relation lines:

President Musharraf is also under pressure from fundamentalists and the fundamental political parties are not happy with Musharraf’s policies for the US-led war in Afghanistan. They do not support President Musharraf’s cooperation with U.S. to fight against terrorism. After the cold war U.S.-Pakistan tie was weakened. After assisting U.S. at the war against Taliban in Afghanistan and helping at the war against terrorism, Pakistan has regained moderately a good relation. On the other hand, India is good market for U.S. economy. Thus the trade and business relation between the two countries is promising. They have jointly arranged military exercises. India arranged joint exercises between the US and Indian forces. The US has also indicated it will supply modern military wares to India. U.S. does not want to have bitter relation with any of these two countries. Therefore, U.S. refused to play the role of mediator or negotiator in Kashmir conflict though President Musharraf requested U.S. to resolve the conflict. The United States is pressuring Pakistan to curb terrorism while discouraging India from attacking. Above all, the U.S. wants to avoid a war between two allies that could hinder the U.S. war on terrorism in Afghanistan and the search for al Qaeda leaders believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

India has a broken relation with China following the dispute, which led to a war between them in 1962 and is still officially unresolved. China had occupied a small part of the Kashmir during the war and till today they have full control over their occupied portion. India has bitter relation with both China and Pakistan but Pakistan has very good relation with China since partition.

Muslim United Front (MUF) attracted the support of a broad range of Kashmiris, including pro-independence activists, disenchanted Kashmiri youth and the pro-Pakistan Jama'at-i Islami (an Islamic political organization), militant groups who increasingly crossed over to Pakistan for arms and training, the JKLF and other groups. In late 1993, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), an umbrella organization of the leaders of all the political and militant organizations, acted as the political voice of the independence movement. Major militant organizations fighting in Kashmir included the Hizb-ul Mujahidin, Harakat-ul Ansar and Lashgar-i Toiba receive moral support from Pakistan. Indian forces announced a unilateral ceasefire against militant groups in November 2000, but violence continued. Separatists demand that Pakistan should be included in any dialogue between them and the government. India disagrees with demand as Pakistan motivates cross boarder violence. Indian government had brutally and strategically destroyed the unity of all groups working for political voice for the independence in Kashmir. Insurgency is turned as the only path for independence when the political process failed.

Central government forces are operating Kashmir that includes the Indian Army and India's federal security forces, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and the Border Security Force (BSF). Rashtriya Rifles, an elite army unit created specifically for counterinsurgency operations in Kashmir. Indian security forces began training local auxiliary forces made up of surrendered or captured militants to assist in counterinsurgency operations. India is committed to destroy any kind of initiatives that may have the purpose of separation of Kashmir.

There has been massive international pressure on both Delhi and Islamabad to resolve the crisis, including US, the EU and others. The UN has maintained a presence in the disputed area since 1949. Currently, the LOC is monitored by the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). UN role is not much significant in mediating conflict in Kashmir as its success is not remarkable including its monitoring over the line of control.

5. Current events and behavior of the parties
On May 11 and 13, 1998, India tested five nuclear devices, and three weeks later in response, Pakistan tested too. One month later shooting and shelling between troops of both countries on LoC killed around one hundred civilians. On February 1999, the Prime ministers of both countries signed the Lahore Declaration in which they agreed to talks on Kashmir and to alert each other about arms tests. Despite the Lahore agreement India tested long-range Agni missile, and on April 14 and 15, following the event Pakistan tested long-range Gauri and medium-range Shaheenmissiles. India conducted another ballistic missile test on April 16; the situation turned into an arm race in the region. In May 1999 India deployed thousands of additional troops at Kargil region. Later on the cross-border shelling between India and Pakistan escalated, and fighting between Indian troops and militants have worsened the situation and ruined any possibility for bilateral talks.

The attack in the Indian parliament in New Delhi on December 13, 2001 has raised the conspiracy theory between the two nations. India said that Pakistan has a connection with the terrorists who attacked the Parliament. Pakistan denied any connection. India deployed more than a million troops, backed by heavy artillery and air power, along the 2880 kilometer Line of Control. As India threatened war, Pakistan declared its readiness to combat war situation.
Shuja (2004: 2) has shown how intolerant the leaders of these two countries that fuels conflict, "On a recent visit to Indian troops deployed a few miles from the Line of Control, the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, said: 'Our goal is victory. It is time to wage a decisive battle. India is forced to fight a war thrust on it and we will emerge victorious. Let there be no doubt about it: a challenge has been thrown to India, and we accept it.' In reply, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf vowed to use 'full force' if it were attacked by India...". Most agreements between India and Pakistan have failed in deed. No agreement has provided a peaceful solution at all in this area.

About one million troops have been employed. These forces on both sides of the line are engaged in firing and shelling against each other in a regular fashion. Both countries are now powered by nuclear weapon, which is a big threat for spreading violence and power imbalance in South Asia. Even tough some critics assume there is no chance of nuclear devastation by any of these countries; 55 years Kashmir conflict insisted these nations to develop nuclear weapon for encountering threat from each other. Pakistan’s intention to have nuclear power is to ensure sovereignty and insecurity from the imbalance of power comparing with India.

6. Conflict management/resolution strategies and outcomes
All most all conflict management strategies and resolution did not work properly to bring peace and solution in Kashmir. Both countries have reached aggressive levels of conflict on the issue. Level of human development of Kashmiris is poor; on the other hand, scale of political repression is high. India and Pakistan have followed the method of withdrawal again and again from bilateral talks. Galtung (1998) has explained about the nature of meta-conflicts that is applicable in the Kashmir issue, “…the meta-conflict can be fought with physical means, violence, war and usually leads to victory for one and defeat for the…”. Among India, Pakistan and Kashmiris, none of them want to be defeated. All three parties want to win the situation. Top leaders’ high level negotiation between two countries has never been succeeded. Grass root leaders of Kashmir, who have had a desire to initiate political dialogue with government of India, were beaten and suppressed.

In January 1948, the Security Council adopted resolution 39 (1948), establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute. In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement establishing a ceasefire line to be supervised by the observers. On 30 March 1951, following the termination of UNCIP, the Security Council decided that The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) should continue to supervise the ceasefire in Kashmir. UNMOGIP's functions were to observe and report, investigate complaints of ceasefire violations and submit its finding to each party and to the Secretary-General.

Following the 1972 India-Pakistan agreement defining a Line of Control in Kashmir, India took the position that the mandate of UNMOGIP had lapsed. Pakistan, however, did not accept this position. Given that disagreement, the Secretary-General's position has been that UNMOGIP can be terminated only by a decision of the Security Council. In the absence of such a decision, UNMOGIP has been maintained with the same mandate and functions.[i]

United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC) decided to determine the future of Jammu and Kashmir by the democratic method of the free and impartial plebiscite, which was not respected by Indian government because such a plebiscite means losing the territory. In 1948 and again in 1949, the United Nations passed two resolutions in which the Kashmir people were promised the right to determine their own future through a free and impartial plebiscite. These resolutions were never implemented. Hence the resolution made by UN has proved itself ineffective in the perspective of Kashmir conflict. Askandar (2003: 29) has explained why resolution is not always effective, “…resolution is sometimes not enough to ultimately end a conflict…using the techniques of conflicts resolution merely perpetuates the conflict due to its inadequacies…”. Couple of UN resolution in Kashmir conflict has left the issue unresolved though temporarily it reduced the intensity of violence.

The United States urged India and Pakistan to stop their armed conflict in Kashmir but made no offer to mediate. Asian Political News (1998: 1) has reported, “Rubin said the U.S. has no immediate plan to mediate between the two countries…”. India strongly oppose for involving third party mediation. Though Pakistan is enthusiastic about third party engagement, India refuses any chance of third party’s role in Kashmir. U.S. encourages both parties to keep themselves away from war but does not want to play an active role. European Union does not have any strong involvement in mediating the Kashmir conflict.

India has never accepted third party negotiator and Pakistan has never been trusted by India. Thus the Conflict management strategy has consisted of numerous dialogues between the two countries along with distrust. There is no significant outcome in the Kashmir conflict because India and Pakistan has always been there as enemy of each other with disbelief and hatred. They blamed each other and ended the dialogues without some concrete agreement and decisions. None of them has taken initiatives to transform the conflict in innovative way or to find strategy for ending violence. They made cease-fire numerous times and broke it in the same fashion. Violence in Kashmir has intensified over the decades because of the lack of initiatives. Dialogue, peace process and cease-fire had gone in vain and tension across the LoC fueled the conflict again and again. Even though India has secular democracy, in Kashmir India plays authoritarian role to dominate self-determination by any means.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has already proved itself an ineffective regional body to resolve conflict as well as to strengthen economy. The failure of SAARC for not emerging as a good mediator is the lack of consensus among the members because of India’s reluctance to allow SAARC. As a super power India holds enough control over the decisions of such a regional body. Indian government has shut downed windows for non-formal sector, non-government groups and individuals, religious leaders and academicians in Kashmir. Anybody talking about independence or separation of Kashmir is considered as the traitor of the state. Civil society in India is divided, a small part of it has courage to be critical about government policy but the large part is moved by nationalism that does not allow speaking on behalf of Kashmiris who are separatists. If India would have agreed for plebiscite, as called for in a 1949 U.N. resolution, the conflict could be resolved in a peaceful manner but the reality is cruel as the formula of resolution does not work because India wants to have win situation rather than losing Kashmir.

7. Success and Failure of conflict management
India and Pakistan have been engaging in violence for last couple of decades in Kashmir. Galtung (1998) has shown how violence affects, “…Direct, structural and cultural violence that hurts both directly and indirectly, and the culture that justifies it…”. Similarly India and Pakistan chose the path of violence from the very beginning of the conflict. Nevertheless, Indian government has continued domination over Kashmiris to suppress their desire for independence. Though UN made several resolutions, it had never shown any sign of ending conflict in Kashmir. The main disadvantage to imply any peaceful settlement could be the absence of communication channel and nobody is there to relieve anger of each conflicting party. The lack of approaches of peace building and lack of good will of actors are other reasons for continuous conflict in this region.

There is no remarkable success story in managing the conflict in Kashmir. In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement establishing a cease fire line that would be supervised by the observers, which was the first noticeable success in stopping cross boarder tension. Security Council, by its resolution 91 (1951) decided that UNMOGIP should continue to supervise the ceasefire in Kashmir, which indicated UN’s initiatives regarding the conflict. In July1972, India and Pakistan signed an agreement defining a Line of Control in Kashmir that can be considered as a temporary step to stop violence. 1949 U.N. resolution was a good try to denote the future of Kashmir in a democratic way that suggested the residents of Jammu and Kashmir would vote for deciding. In my opinion, the resolution was good enough to resolve the conflict. India was the obstacle against the resolution and dismissed the chance to resolve conflict. It is also reasonable why India does not agree for plebiscite, as it may lead Kashmiris to separate from India. Hence UN has failed over the last fifty years to resolve or transform conflict of Kashmir.

Asian Political News (2002:1) has reported that, "A Pakistani special envoy voiced expectations that Japan will make further efforts to alleviate the current tension between…". Pakistan has always welcomed third party negotiators as the bilateral dialogue with India.
United States can bring success as a negotiator but the lack of will is barrier. Over the fifty years, US relationships with India and Pakistan have experienced ups and downs, as one goes up, the other goes down. The United States has rejected President Pervez Musharraf's call to mediate on the Kashmir issue as part of his roadmap for normalization of Indo-Pak ties.[ii] Already India denies Musharraf's suggestion to involve any third party including U.S. to resolve Kashmir Conflict. Thus it is essential to have Indian government’s good will for engaging third party negotiator to mediate the peace process. Third party intervention, mediation or facilitation is impossible unless India accepts it.

The Muslim population of Kashmir has organized an umbrella organization consisting of 33 political parties. It is called the All Parties (Hurriyat) Freedom Conference. It was formed to conduct dialogue with Indian government. The government behaved worse with the organization. They have refused all dialogs with the organization and have beaten and imprisoned its leaders. Hence a democratic initiative to resolve conflict has resulted in harassment, insulation and ill judgment committed by Indian government against the political parties in Kashmir. It is comparable to structural violence done by Indian governments against Kashmiris, which is explained by Galtung (1998), “…structural violence may be as bad as, or worse than, direct violence. People die or lead miserable lives because they are politically repressed, or economically exploited, or deprived of the freedom...” It can be simply assumed from this analysis how difficult it is to resolve the Kashmir conflict as any peace process initiated inside the state can be brutally suppressed and third party intervention can be colored as interference in to sovereign state like India.

Conclusion
India had been and still is rigid at considering Kashmir as an internal problem. India has disobeyed the UN resolution of Plebiscite. During the long struggle of claiming Kashmir, India has changed the strategy from accession to bilateralism of Simla Agreement. India does not want to have any third party mediation because of fear from loosing the territory. If Kashmir is separated, insurgencies at other provinces may escalate. Hindu-Muslim riot in any part of India may trigger the communal black lash in Kashmir. Therefore, Kashmir is vulnerable to conflict. Though India believes in bilateralism, Indian government does not trust Pakistan. At the edge of around fifty years of conflict at Kashmir, both governments blame each other. Kargil war, nuclear test and missile race between the two countries centering Kashmir proves that there is no advancement in conflict resolution. The government of two countries have arranges bilateral talks many times to resolve the issue and but those dialogues could not bring any good result or decision. This means bilateral dialogues is not at all a fruitful strategy to manage conflict in Kashmir unless they trust each other.

Muslim leaders and militants of Kashmir have already lost their faith at Indian government after being suppressed, beaten and jailed when they came up with democratic and political approach to resolve conflict. Hence the Kashmiris do not have voice to raise the issue that may threat territorial integrity of India. Kashmiris desire for Pakistani involvement in resolving the conflict has intensified after the Indian government has undermined them. Another mistake of Indian government is that, they have employed fanatic Hindu leaders especially L.K. Advani in the bilateral talks, who is never trusted by the Muslims in India. Even these leaders spread hatred against Muslims and show their prejudices through their speeches and statements. They also play stimulating role in spreading communal violence in India. India blames that Pakistan encourages cross boarder terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan officially denies all the blames of India except their moral support for the militants. Militants in Kashmir are mostly driven by the economic and political frustration. They are not the fanatic Muslims or holy warrior. They are fighting for the independence from oppression of Indian government. Though Indian government claims few terrorist network might have been active in Kashmir, Kashmiris have been fighting for political freedom. Pakistan is still holding long standing points of plebiscite that allows Kashmiris to choose either Pakistan or India. Many Kashmiri Muslims would prefer to be independent of both India and Pakistan. As the bilateral dialogue does not work, third party negotiation is not accepted by India, and Kashmiris does not have voice and political freedom, conflict management strategies are precisely helpless within the rigid conspiracy political structure of India and Pakistan

Recommendation
Long term or generational vision for peace building can be a fruitful approach to resolve conflict in Kashmir. The first recommendation for resolving conflict in Kashmir should to stop violence and war. As bilateral negotiation has made significant failure during last couple of decades, third party negotiator could be a fruitful way. U.S. can be a good choice as third party negotiator because U.S. has good foreign relation with both the countries. Following the background of the systematic distrust between the leaders of India and Pakistan, the United States may be able to help the two countries to bridge the gap. India’s reluctance for third party negotiation can be dealt by International community. U.N. can play a role for convincing India to accept U.S. as the negotiator. India and Pakistan have strong military capacity and nuclear weapons. It is relevant to choose a super power as negotiator otherwise both countries may undermine negotiator. European Union (EU) can also play the role of mediator but definitely not better than U.S.

It is also recommended to reduce the distrust between leaders of India and Pakistan. Especially the Elite Hindu leaders of India do not have respect for leaders of Kashmir. The elite leaders have negligence against Muslims of Kashmir besides disbelief for Pakistani leaders. In such a distrustful situation, training programs or workshops can be organized to boost up faith for each party towards another party. Education, training, and advocacy program for leaders of both countries can be an alternate way to improve tolerance and trust. Improve or bring changes in the behavior of the political leaders can be effective means for conflict management in Kashmir.

A regional body can play important role to mitigate conflicts. European Union could be a role model to develop a regional mechanism that can open up windows of opportunities in South Asia. ASEAN has proved itself as a useful body for escalating trade, business and economic activities in the South East Asia. A regional body’s success depends on the principle of consensus among its members. Principle of non-interference was equally important for the development of ASEAN. From the light of these regional bodies, strengthening SAARC or developing the similar kind with deferent mission could be an approach in South Asia to deal with the regional conflicts. Being nuclear power, India and Pakistan have developed huge power gap with other countries in South Asia, which has left the SAARC as a useless body. There is a doubt whether the concept of regional body fits within a regional structure where imbalance of power, economy and lack of consensus exist.

I agree with Galtung’s idea of creating a new reality, an ‘empirical reality’ that may lead a possibility to transform conflict in to a peaceful solution, Galtung (1998) says, “…the conflict between two countries over a disputed territory may end by one winning in a military or court battle, by a compromise dividing the territory, by both of them withdrawing their claims, leaving the territory to somebody else (such as the inhabitants!), or by the two owning the territory together. Clearly only the last outcome transcends empirical reality; the others conform to the formula that each square kilometre is owned by one state alone…”. Galtung’s idea of transcending empirical reality can be experimented on Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan.

It could be more effective to motivate the leaders of all three parties to sit at the table to have some prospective discussion over the issues. Leaders of the Indian government should show respect to the leaders of Kashmiri Muslims. Pakistani leaders have to be more considerate about what is good for Kashmiri people rather than their own benefit. Indian leaders should have the mentality for not wining at all situations. These leaders should understand that violence culture results more violence, catastrophe and loss of lives. In addition, the leaders should have the acceptance for new creative approaches and ideas to transform conflict for the better future of South Asia.

References

Askandar, Kamarulzaman (2003) ‘Management and Resolution of Inter-state Conflicts in Southeast Asia’, Malaysia: Southeast Asian Conflict Studies Network (SEACSN).

Asian Political News (August 10, 1998) ‘U.S. urges India, Pakistan to stop Kashmir conflict’, available at, http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0WDQ/1998_August_10/53000374/p1/article.jhtml, accessed on February 23, 2004

Asian Political News (June 24, 2002) ‘Pakistan hopes for Japan's role to settle Kashmir conflict’, available at , accessed on February 23, 2004

Galtung, Johan (1998) ‘Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (the Transcend Method)’, A Manual Prepared by the Crisis Environments Training Initiative and the Disaster Management Training Programme of the United Nations, UN Crisis Environments Training Initiative (CETI) and the Disaster Management Training Programme (DMTP), available at http://www.transcend.org/CONFLENG.HTM, accessed on April 05, 2004.

Indurthy, Rathnam (July, 2003) ‘Seeking an end to the Kashmir Quagmire: can India and Pakistan be brought to the table to resolve the conflict that has been ongoing for more than half a century? (Worldview)’, USA Today (Magazine), available at, http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1272/2698_132/104971297/p1/article.jhtml, accessed on February 23, 2004.

Kashmir Map, The University of Texas at Austin, General Libraries, available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_disputed_2003.jpg, accessed on March 02, 2004.

Mehta, Suketu (July-August, 2003) ‘Too beautiful for death: vital to two nuclear powers, Kashmir is the epicenter of the world's most dangerous conflict’, Mother Jones, available at , accessed on February 23, 2004

Ramesh, Randeep (2004) ‘Kahmir edges a step closer to peace’, Just Commentary, Malaysia

Schematic map of disputed Kashmir, Embassy of India, Washington D.C., available at http://www.indianembassy.org/new/Kargil/J&K_Map.html, March 02, 2004.

Shuja, Sharif (Oct, 2002) ‘The conflict in Kashmir’, Contemporary Review, available at http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2242/1641_281/93827716/p1/article.jhtml, accessed on March 02, 2004.

Singh, Nirvikar, ‘Cultural Conflict in India: Punjab and Kashmir’, University of California, Santa Cruz available at, http://repositories.cdlib.org/uciaspubs/research/98/10/, accessed on March 02, 2004.

End Notes

[i] UNMOGIP’s presence was nothing but witnessing the disputes and massacres in Kashmir, see the background of UNMOGIP, <> accessed on March 02, 2004.

[ii] US denies to play the role of a mediator that indicates US’s reluctance to engage in Kashmir conflict to resolve it. For detail see, http://ushome.rediff.com/news/2003/jun/28pak1.htm, accessed on March 02, 2004.

How U.S. foreign policy influences the human rights situation in Indonesia

1. Introduction
Indonesian military was and still is used by the government of Indonesia directly or indirectly by the influence of U.S administration which results in violation of human rights in Indonesia. Military has been implied to fight against separatist movement, ethnical conflicts and terrorism. In this paper, I will analyze how U.S. foreign policy influences human rights situation in Indonesia. The Indonesian military could be beneficiary of the new domination given by the Bush administration to its war against terrorism, the same military suppressed East Timor and continued human rights abuses in West Papua, Aceh, and other conflicted area in Indonesia. This paper seeks how the decade long influence of U.S administration on Indonesian government depleted human rights values in Indonesia. This trend of violation of human rights is continued till date through the counter terrorism activities as post September 11 phenomenon. The paper therefore, an effort to critically investigate why U.S. foreign policies do not have any significant role in improving human rights values in Indonesia.

Democracy is not yet matured in Indonesia. Long term authoritarian rules have paralyzed the human rights practices. Even though respect for human rights is ‘western concept’[i] imported in to Asia, it is significant to find out the root causes for ignorance of human rights in Indonesia.
The country is stepping towards democracy from the long term authoritarian states. During the last couple of decades military had played a dominant role in Indonesian government and suppressed separatists’ movements at several provinces that cost loss of lives and violation of human rights. U.S. had supported the authoritarian Indonesia because Suharto agreed to have military ties between the two countries and it was important for U.S. to have a strong relation with Indonesia during cold war era. Indonesia is strategically important geographical location for U.S. to fight against terrorism as well as to keep control over this region. In addition, U.S. Indonesia military ties will ensure US’s military superiority in South East Asia. Human rights values have been slaughtered in Indonesia as a result of the U.S. foreign policy from Suharto to Megawati.

2. Evidences of degradation of human rights and the separatist movement
I will show some evidences that will agree with my claim of degradation of human rights in Indonesia. Firstly, Human Rights violations multiplied in Indonesia in 1965 when coup was committed by the communist party that removed President Sukarno. Suharto became President. 250,000 members and supporters of communist party were detained and equal numbers of persons were killed between 1965 and 1967 (Jetschke 1999: 140).Why U.S. government did not deny or refuse Suharto government as authoritarian ruler because U.S. policy that undermined human rights and emphasized economic and political benefits in this region.

Secondly, Indonesian military have killed a large number of people in East Timor, Aceh and Irian Jaya (recently renamed West Papua). In 1975 it invaded East Timor, a former Portuguese colony. In 1999 Indonesian army has stormed East Timor and killed thousands of civilian and destroyed the infrastructure of the country. The Indonesian army and its militia allies systematically destroyed the country, killing at least 2,000 people and forcing 250,000 more into concentration camps in West Timor. According to the United Nations, Indonesia’s 24 years of occupation resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 Timorese.[ii] Logic of dictator ruler behind these killings and destruction is to keep territorial integrity. Military hardware was supplied by U.S. and Indonesian army used it to suppress the independence movement in East Timor. Two other independence movements are going on in Aceh and Irian Jaya. Neither U.S. governments took strong position against Indonesian government or influenced to stop killing people in these provinces. A wave of extrajudicial killings of petty criminals resulted in between 3,000 and 5,000 victims between 1983 and 1985; approximately 2,000 alleged members of a separatist movement in the Indonesian province of Aceh were killed during counter insurgency campaigns between 1989 and 1991 (Jetschke 1999: 139). If U.S. foreign policies have had initiatives to improve human rights situation in Aceh, it would not have kept silence.

Thirdly, Clinton Administration had imposed ban on military aid to Jakarta following the invasion in East Timor. Bush administration now realizes that those bad days have gone and Indonesian army needs their help to combat against terrorism. Why counter terrorism policy of U.S. does not have clear indication to avoid human rights violation, the reason is, it would be a barrier to reach their goal. Therefore, these two countries have agreed to expand modest between their militaries to support Indonesia's efforts at military reform and professionalism.

Fourthly, Conn Hallinan (June 12, 2002) in his article published in “Foreign Policy in Focus”[iii] has mentioned one statement from Magawati’s December 29, 2001 speech to military cadets, where she speaks towards the cadet: “You can do your duty without being worried about human rights,” which is an assurance from leader of the nation for the military cadets to ignore human rights values. Magawati being a representative of a newly born democratic government how relies on military to suppress self-determination movements. Either national sovereignty motivated her make such statement or territorial integrity urged her to humiliate human rights.

3. Economic interest and military ties
Here, I argue economic benefit of both countries is good reason for military ties. U.S. backed Suharto’s invasion of the former Portuguese territory. There is a reason why this continued through the Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton eras, when U.S. policy focused on supporting Suharto’s military and burnishing his image to the world. Clinton imposed ban on military aid to Indonesia because he realized that U.S. – Indonesia military ties might have been responsible for the severe violation of human rights in East Timor. Bush administration has welded the ties to fight against terrorism. Hence the relation is regained, which will secure U.S. business and economic interests. If military ties between two countries is important to balance power with China in South East Asia, economic profitability of American transnational companies is equally significant. Leading U.S. businesses including Texaco, Exxon-Mobil, Freeport McMoRan, Unocal, Elpaso Energy International, Halliburton, Anadarco and Conoco have considerable investments in Indonesia. For example the U.S. mining company Freeport McMoRan has built the world's largest gold mine in West Papua and also began exploiting its plentiful copper resources.[iv] Mutual military ties are required for functioning billion dollar U.S. companies by proving security against terrorist, separatist and fanatic Islamic activists. The colonial British, Dutch and Portuguese during nineteenth and twentieth century have had more straight forward attitude for collecting mineral and resources, doing trade and businesses, and commercializing agriculture than today’s U.S., the economic imperial of twenty first century’s global market. Here, my intention is to link U.S. economic interest with U.S.-Indonesia military ties. As a result of strong ties, U.S. closes eyes when the Indonesia army violates human rights in separatist provinces coloring guerrillas or freedom fighters as member of terrorist groups under the anti terrorism program.

U.S. government has already realized the growing threat that is emerging from the fundamentalist Islamic groups in Indonesia. Therefore, after September 11, U.S. administration has taken initiatives to strengthen relationship with Indonesian government. During their meeting, Bush promised the visiting President Megawati a restoration of military aid and a total of US$ 657.4 million in financial aid.[v] Reason why large amount of money is allocated for the defence and security issues while low amount is assigned for the social welfare could simplify the equation of U.S. interest on Indonesia’s defence. The interest behind providing huge amount of fund is to ensure security for the American transnational corporations working in Indonesia. Here, in addition, I like to focus on Bush administration’s target to upgrade capacity of Indonesian defence and security system that would be utilized to fight against terrorism but there is a doubt of misusing military and police administration of Indonesia against innocent people, journalists, intellectuals, political activists and the separatists who are not engaged in terrorist activities. Hence U.S. government has planted the seeds, which will result in human rights violation.

4. Counter Terrorism: a controversial act
The main focus here is to analyze the adverse affect of counter terrorism measures in Indonesia. Megawati is caught between international pressure to aggressively crack down on terrorism, and domestic nationalist and religious forces that resent what they see as foreign interference. U.S. foreign policy in Palestine and Iraq has already generated unfaithfulness on U.S. government among the Muslims in Indonesia as well as across the world. It is necessary to keep it in consideration that working closely with US to fight against terrorism has created anti-Muslim image of President Megawati Sukarnoputri among Indonesians. The Muslims in Indonesia have not welcomed American foreign policy in Indonesia to work against terrorism and eventually have distrusted hypocritical US Middle East policy in Palestine and Iraq that undermines Muslim world. Indonesia being largest Muslim population in the world has brotherhood sentiment with the Muslim majority countries. Consequently Indonesian Muslims have already criticized the U.S. invasion in Iraq. Thus, it is important for U.S. government to have a close relation with government of Indonesia to protect any possible terrorist threat with the help of counter terrorism acts that may come out from the angry Muslims. As a part of the war on terrorism Bush administration wants to develop military to military relation between two countries even though Indonesian military have left evidences in the country’s history for the gross violation of human rights. Phasuk (2003:4) has explained how blindly Indonesian government has accused guerrillas of the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka or GAM) for their involvement in a series of bombings in Jakarta and North Sumatran city of Medan. Nevertheless in Aceh human rights defenders are in danger and journalists have faced serious interrogations and threats. The government also claims that GAM is linked to Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) where JI is suspected as a terrorist organization, though JI has long evidence as an Islamic political party. Phasuk (2003: 4) says, “In the context of the US-led war on terrorism, the Indonesian government is waging campaign aimed at the international community to have the GAM declared a terrorist organization.” Under the banner of US-led anti terrorism program Indonesian government resists separatists’ movements at the conflict porn provinces.

Despite frequent bombings and attacks in Christian areas by Islamic groups, Bali bombing, Marriot hotel incident have reminded once again the strong presence of terrorist activities inside Indonesia. Growing Australian and American pressure to fight against terrorism has placed President Megawati in trouble. U.S. government is suspected that Islamist groups have connection with Al-Queda. On the other hand leaders of the Islamic groups in Indonesia are biased by the conspiracy theory of Bush administration. Din Syamsuddin, the vice chairman of Indonesia's second largest Muslim group, Muhammadiyah, believes the United States is working against Islam.[vi] Like Syamsuddin his followers and many other Muslims in Indonesia believes that U.S. is against Islam. Timo Kivimaki[vii] (2003:15) has pointed out that, “wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have confirmed in the minds of Indonesians that this unfairness can not be fought by using nonviolent or conventional military means.” Which indicates the frustration, anger and anguishes of angry Muslims and they will choose the violent way to exert their hatred against U.S. administration. When situation in Indonesia is such a complex after September 11, President Megawati is standing between nationalism and Muslim belief in her country and allies of US-led counter terrorism program. Megawati is loosing her popularity among the Islamic political parties as well as their supporters due to her ties with U.S. administration on war against terrorism. The controversial counter terrorism act may increase arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, disappearance, and torture in prison. I think, War against terrorism can take the shape of war against separatist at the back end and Violation of human rights would be absolute byproduct at the end.

5. Indonesia – U.S. military relation is more important than human rights values
From Suharto’s new order to Megawati’ democracy era Indonesia remains as more or less an authoritarian state. The question is arised why human rights standards and practices have not been improved during this passage of time. The reason behind why human rights are not much emphasized by Indonesian government could be the contents of human rights are new in Asia and concept is western. Eldridge (2002:13) argues, “…many Asian leaders reject the basic idea of universality with regard to both meaning and application.” There is a debate about universality of human rights. Cultural relativity is accountable for the weak presence of western human rights values in South East Asia. In Indonesia Islam, nationalism and Asian values are key dominant elements, which act as barrier for the promotion of human rights. Jetschke (1999: 148) has mentioned how Suharto government mobilized nationalist sentiments against foreign intervention in Indonesia. He took benefit out of nationalist feeling. Nationalist sentiment is strong enough to be partial and do not hesitate to violate human rights of the separatists. NGOS, INGOs and transnational human rights groups have been working since long in Indonesia for establishing human rights values. National Commission on Human Rights was result of these efforts but the will of sovereign State is more important than a commission of human rights for improving respect for human rights. Eldridge (2002: 16) stated:

“The notion of universal human rights poses a fundamental challenge to the rationale underlying state sovereignty, by which states are autonomous both in exercising jurisdiction within their territorial boundaries and pursuing their national interest in conducting external affairs.”

Thus, conflict is clearly visible between sovereign state and universal human rights. Indonesia is not the exception where military dictatorship backed by U.S. support amplified the challenge of human rights to protect violations of rights, which are considered as internal issues of sovereign state.

Conclusion
During cold war it was more essential for U.S. to have military relation rather than to have respect for human rights values in Indonesia. Now war on terrorism is the first priority for U.S. government than to improve human rights and social welfare in Indonesia. Nonetheless, military relation can secure U.S. transnational companies and large scale investments in Indonesia. Economic and geopolitical interest of U.S. has lot more interests in Indonesia than human rights saga. On the other hand, national integrity instead of slaughtering freedom fighters and economic support from U.S. for the reformation of Indonesian military are more important than to develop human rights standards.

References

Boone, Bruce (December 2001) ‘Indonesia after S11: Anti-Terrorism, Geopolitics and Counter-Revolution’, (http://www.marxist.com/indonesia/indonesia_after_S11.html), site visited on December 11, 2003.

Eldridge, Philip J. (2002) ‘International Human Rights; Theory and Practice’, The Politics of Human Rights in South East Asia, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 12-31.

Hallinan, Conn (June 12, 2002) ‘Supporting Indonesia's Military Bad Idea Second Time Around’, Foreign Policy in Focus. (http://www.selfdetermine.org/crisiswatch/0206indonesia.html), site visited on December 11, 2003.

Jetschke, Anja (1999) ‘Linking the Unlinkable? International Norms and Nationalism in Indonesia and the Philippines’, in Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134-71.
Kivimaki, Timo (2003), ‘Terrorism in Indonesia’, Terrorism in South East Asia, NIASnytt, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies: pp. 15-18.

Phasuk, Sunai (2003), ‘A Sketch of Human Rights Situation in Southeast Asia’, The paper was presented on October 14, 2003 at Human Rights Department, Mahidol University.

Ressa, Maria (2003), ‘Radical Islam recruits on U.S. distrust’, Monday, September 8, 2003 Posted: 0503 GMT, (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/09/08/indonesia.radicals/) site visited on December 11, 2003.

End Notes

[i] Universalist theories of human rights derive from western concepts of natural law originating from the Roman Empire, evolving in face of many challenges through the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods into the contemporary industrial and post-industrial age. (Vincent 1986: 19-36), quoted by Eldridge (2002: 1)
[ii] The information were picked up from Conn Hallinan’s “Supporting Indonesia's Military Bad Idea Second Time Around”, June 12, 2002, published in Foreign Policy in Focus. For more details see
(http://www.selfdetermine.org/crisiswatch/0206indonesia.html), site visited on December 11, 2003.

[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Bruce Boone (December 2001) has explained about corporate takeover and the huge investment of American companies in Indonesia. For detail see: Indonesia after S11: Anti-Terrorism, Geopolitics and Counter-Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/indonesia/indonesia_after_S11.html), site visited on December 11, 2003.

[v] Ibid
[vi] Maria Ressa, Jakarta Bureau Chief of CNN, has discussed about rise of radical Islamic groups like Jemaah Islamiyah and Laskar Jihad and their hatred and anti-Americanism message through terrorist activities in Bali that killed 200 people and loss of lives by fueling Muslim-Christian violence. For details see: (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/09/08/indonesia.radicals/), visited on December 11, 2003

[vii] Timo Kivimaki (2003: 18), Senior Researcher of Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, mentioned in his article “terrorism in Indonesia” that violent Indonesian Jihad could be targeted against financial institutions, international investments, companies, individuals and tourists.