OPINION

SAARC and New Paradigm of Security

Columnist Dr S M RAHMAN   analyses the new parameters of relationship in SOUTH ASIA.

Regional Cooperation in South Asia (SAARC) was conceived by the founding fathers, with very laudable objectives and its launching in 1985 did augur well for South Asia, which by any reckoning, is the most pitiable region, both in terms of economic and demographic indices and the lingering morbidity of inter-state tension, conflicts and prejudices, resulting in four wars within a span of half a century between two of its arch rivals — India and Pakistan, and running battles on the lines of control (LOC) in the wake of colossal insurgency in the Indian occupied Kashmir. This has intensified during the past decade to a proportion which has all the dangerous portents to escalate into a worst possible conflagration in the region, particularly keeping in view the stark reality that both India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers. The relations between the two estranged neighbours — ever since the Kargil episode have gone from bad to worse, and the ‘nuclear deterrence’ concept is losing its credibility to avert conventional or what is termed ‘limited war’.  Should that happen, giving credence to ‘human restraint’ not to push the nuclear button would amount to taking too naively a ‘rational image’ of man, when all wars in history — ancient, medieval or modern — have essentially been triggered due to ‘irrational’ impulses. The idea to highlight is that prudence demands concerted efforts to get out of ‘nuclear complacence’ and pay heed to what Burns Weston contends: ‘with the possible exception of ozone depletion, global warming, and related environmental concerns, nothing is more menacing to the long-term well-being of our planet than the sincerely communicated threat to use nuclear weapons if and when sufficiently provoked.’1  South Asia happens to be a highly volatile and provocation-prone region.

Apart from the nuclear dread, conflicts are endemic, and all the SAARC members — India, Pakistan, notwithstanding — have varying degrees of conflict with their neighbouring states. The efforts to resolve conflicts have not been without success. For instance, between India and Bangladesh, a major diplomatic breakthrough was made when India handed over Tin Bigha enclave to Bangladesh and disputes over border demarcations are practically resolved. There are, however, the lingering Ganga water dispute, besides some very minor ones. Similarly between India and Nepal, the ‘transit treaty’, in December 1990 was a major bilateral achievement. There are some issues which still remain unresolved, but given the political will, these would not pose any major obstacles. Between Sri Lanka and India, the major cause of tension is the former’s perception that Tamil insurgency for independence is being fuelled by the latter. There exists a conflict between Bhutan and Nepal on the issue of separatist movement among people of Nepalese origin demanding political autonomy in the southern districts of Bhutan, who want to be part of what is known as ‘Gorkhaland’, by carving out territories from Nepal, Bhutan and India. But these conflicts, pale into insignificance, if one sees the magnitude of antipathy and mistrust that exists between India and Pakistan on the inflammable issue of Kashmir.

There are ofcourse issues like Siachin, Wuler Barrage and Demarcation of Sir Greek etc., to be resolved, but it appears peace in South Asia primarily hinges on the resolution of Kashmir imbroglio. How to achieve it, ought to be the central focus of SAARC, which unfortunately has evaded, pooling ‘collective insight of the member countries, to arrive at a consensus to act as moral force on both India and Pakistan to start a dialogue, with the explicit commitment on both sides, that taking a rigid stance would only unleash violence and catastrophe. Sumantra Bose, rightly maintains: ‘Resolving the Kashmir issue will require restraint from, and dialogue between, New Delhi and Islamabad...on searching for such a framework, it is worth looking at other peace process models, as in Northern Ireland, which derive from similar historical partitions and are characterized by similar intersection of internal and external conflict’2 His message is indeed worth listening: ‘Ultimately, any peace-building process in the subcontinent is bound to be even more difficult and tortuous than its Northern Ireland counterpart, and chronically prone to crisis and breakdown. But the alternatives are grimmer still, and the forbidding obstacles may in the end seem trivial in comparison to the likely costs of not trying at all.3

To keep political issues out of bound of the SAARC, was ‘shrewd diplomatic manoeuvring’ by India, according to Mahindra Lama, in his very interesting article: SAARC: Shallow Regionalism, Political Abstinence, and Economic Advocacy. Pakistan, in contrast, has been harping on bringing political issues, for deliberations and consequently awareness has emerged that ‘by constantly evading political issues, SAARC has pushed itself to a farcical corner and rendered itself to an unrealistic and disoriented forum.’4 When problems are pushed under the rug, they have a tendency to assume greater notoriety and complexity, and thus increasingly becoming resistant to solutions. But when they are faced boldly and squarely, they are rendered relatively soft and malleable. SAARC, must transcend from the narrow confines of bilateralism to the open space of multilateralism, and keeping all options open including mediation and arbitration as mechanisms to ensure peace with justice. Even in family feuds, and disputes, mediation and arbitration sometimes become necessary and when nations develop severe acrimony, bilateralism, often accentuates obduracy and closed-mindedness. It goes to the credit of Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga, who in the 10th SAARC Summit underscored the need for discussing political issues, as they pose attitudinal impediments towards building a climate of cooperation in the region. Without getting contentious issues out of way, or substantially diluting their impact, a whole-hearted commitment to the lofty goal of ‘promotion of the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and improvement of their quality of life, acceleration of economic growth, social progress and cultural development,’5 would remain a wishful proposition.

The Article X (General Provision), which prohibits ‘bilateral’ and contentious issues being discussed, ironically has a built-in brake, which has not allowed SAARC to really take-off in the real sense of the term. Had the 11th Summit, scheduled in November 1999 been held and not allowed to be postponed at the insistence of India, which incidentally has performed a hat-trick in this respect, perhaps, the concept of political issues to be included for discussion in the SAARC Charter would have made some headway. By imposing the decision of postponement, without regard to the feelings of other members, is a gross violation of democratic values of consensus and also robs SAARC of its ‘peoples character’, and a render it a club of heads of states, bureaucrats and officialdoms.

The argument advanced by India that as ‘democracy’ was toppled in Pakistan, and the Chief Executive happened to be a serving General, the situation was not conducive to holding of the Summit, was utterly illogical on several counts. In the first place, it is a semantic issue, whether the ousted government was really ‘democratic’. In the very first session of the SAARC, Pakistan’s participation was through President Zia ul Haq, who was a military ruler, and so was the host — General Irshad from Bangladesh. Moreover, what type of governance comes in the wake of exigencies of a situation is entirely within the realm of internal dynamics of a country. Respect for sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, is the sacrosanct imperative as contained in the UN Charter, which all nations must adhere to.  But the most compelling one is that had the two heads of states, Attal Behari Vajpayee and General Pervez Musharraf come face to face in the post-Kargil emotionally charged atmosphere, the intensity of subcontinental heat could have subsided to an appreciable extent, favourable to the initiation of dialogue.

The legacy of  ‘mistrust’ between India and Pakistan is the basic impediment to peace and cooperation. South Asia, unfortunately was a great victim, of the old Cold War rivalry as India largely served the Soviet interest, whereas Pakistan played to the tune of USA, particularly in fulfilling its objective of ousting USSR from Afghanistan, ultimately leading to the dismantling of the Soviet Empire. But the reward Pakistan extricated for such an eventual role was ironically much too meagre. Neither the economic debt burden was negotiated to be written off, as in the case of Egypt (US$ 750 million) etc., nor was Pakistan treated at par with India on the nuclear issue, i.e., ‘acceptance of our nuclear expertise as necessary deterrent to India’s overwhelming numerical superiority in conventional weapons and equipment, almost a 4:1 ratio at places’.6 To top it all Pakistan even could not steer support for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, despite USA’s recognition of Kashmir’s right of self-determination.

As a hot bed of Super Power rivalry and their power influence in the region, both India and Pakistan remained mortgaged to the senseless dialectics of ideological supremacy. The cost of the total US military expenditure for the entire Cold War was around $7 trillion.7 The anguish and sufferings to one fifth of the world’s population (nearly 1.2 billion people live in South Asia), by way of deprivations of basic amenities of life, are indeed incalculable. India and Pakistan were spending nearly $ 19 billion per year on militarilization, and the defence sector. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have very dismal literacy rates, and practically in all social indices of development, they lag far behind the developing countries, what to speak of the developed world. It is a very sad reflection that in Human Development Index Ranking, as per Human Development Report 1994, India ranks 135, Pakistan, 132, Nepal 149, Bhutan 162 and Bangladesh 146 among the countries of the world. (It is only Sri Lanka, which ranks 90). Taking into perspective the Syndrome of Poverty-Culture, South Asia is a ghetto of the world.

If the region (notably India and Pakistan) could have resisted the pressure to be sucked into the Cold War power struggle, and divert their resources in social sectors, it could be an abode of peace and prosperity, India’s assertive and hegemonic ambitions, undoubtedly resulted in accentuating the sense of insecurity, which compounded with the historical legacy of deep seated antipathy against the very creation of Pakistan, led to an action-reaction vicious pattern of arms acquisition. The only beneficiaries of course, are the world traders of arms. Large resources of the governments of these two countries are consumed on military expenditures alone. It is, therefore, no surprise that nearly 430 of their people live below the poverty line. The heavy debt burdens are the major source of the drainage of their finances flowing out of the countries. The pace of economic development is hardly beyond  4% per annum, in contrast, China and South East Asian Countries (ASEAN) are respectably high. With such sluggish GNP growth rate, India and Pakistan cannot generate employment opportunities thus contributing to internal dissensions, strife and turmoil. Prof. Ziring rightly says: ‘History repeats itself when populations are insecure and hence seek release from the anguish by brutalizing their neighbours. It is cardinal rule of international politics that societies programmed to agree with others, initially raise havoc among their own.’8 He further says ‘Precisely, this is what is happening, in the so-called world’s largest democracy, where presently, as many as one freedom struggle and five secessionist movements are going on’.9

Despite such an abhorring economic profile. India’s recent overtures to acquire sophisticated ballistic missiles, is only indicative of her compulsive urge to be a global power. According to Wisconsin Project — Risk Report — India’s single Prithvi missile with a range of upto 250 km, and nuclear capable mobile launcher, can deliver a 1000 kg warhead over a 2400 km range thus capable of targeting Beijing. The four stage polar satellite launch vehicle (PSLV), successfully tested last October, could be made into an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of hitting London, Tokyo or New York city.10

Flirtation with extra-regional power, therefore, has considerably crippled the prospects of co-operation in the South Asian Region, thereby, undermining both security and prosperity. To view security in the narrow perspective of settling issues through war, is an outmoded and preposterous proposition. Based on the calculations of the cost of 1991 India-Pakistan war in ammunition, fuel and attrition, in the event a war of similar nature occurred (lasting 14 days), at today’s prices would come to a total of Rs. 1058 crore — a horrendous expense that neither side can realistically afford’.11

India, as a responsible big power in the region has to re-orient its attitude so that economic transformation of South Asia could be effected and security is achieved through a sense of ‘togetherness’, a resilience built on regional economic cooperation. Sagacity would not demand that South Asia, should break its relations with USA — the unipolar power in the world, or any prospective Super Power like Russia. This is not possible. Extending a hand of cooperation to them would be beneficial provided ‘tags’ of conditionalities are not attached in the bargain. In other words, containment of China, or Iran and for that matter any country labelled fundamentalist or otherwise, should not be the precondition. South Asia, must exhibit tolerance for all nations of the world. After all moral imperatives cannot be sacrificed for building international relationships. Mikhail Gorbachev makes a very thoughtful observation:

‘The future of human society will not be defined in terms of capitalism versus socialism. It was that dichotomy that caused the division of the world community into two blocs and brought about so many catastrophic consequences. We need to find a paradigm that will integrate all the achievements of the human actions, irrespective of which ideology or political movement can be credited with them. This paradigm can only he based on the common values that humankind has developed over many centuries. The search for a new paradigm should be a search for synthesis, for what is common to and unites people, countries, and nations, rather than that divides them’.12

A very perceptive point has been made: ‘India-Pakistan through nearly half a century of independence have yet to firm up their borders, in other words, establish national borders rather than military frontiers. National borders are there to stay and be respected. Military frontiers must always remain tentative and open to violations by aggressive military action. National borders offers transit to commerce, tourism and exchange of goods and services’.13

One very profound book was written by Paul Kennedy — Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in 1988, in which he had established through extensive research that the real source of power of any nation lies in its economic strength and he doubted if USA, could maintain its clout in view of the fact that nations like Japan and Germany defeated in the Second World War, had emerged as great economic giants, through their innovative technology, hard work and commitment14. But unfortunately very soon, the wisdom which had dawned upon USA, got lost in the euphoria of triumph of capitalism and defeat of communism, at the end of the Cold War. This was the thesis of the book by Francis Fukuyama — ‘End of History’. According to him Western liberal democracy had established itself as the final form of known government.15 It was undoubtedly an ethnocentric view of history and very soon it was repudiated due to emergence of conflicts in Bosnia and the Republics of the former Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, the controversial article written by Huntington, somehow has had greater impact on the Western mind, as it fulfilled the need to create a new enemy after the collapse of Soviet ideology. The Western World, he forewarned, would come into conflict for power with Confucian and Islamic States ‘Fault lines’, he said between civilizations will be fault lines of the future.16 Huntington, by profession is a military sociologist but in propagating his thesis, he had catered more to the requirement of the ‘military’ rather than ‘sociology’. After all, military establishments can only be rationalized if conflicts can be accentuated, sensationalized and even contrived. Moreover, the colossal armament industries of the West would collapse if there were no ‘conflicts’ in the world.

Vaclav Havel, propounds an alternative paradigm. ‘We must recollect our original spiritual and moral substance, which grew out of some essential experience of humanity. I believe that this is the only way to achieve a genuine renewal of our sense of responsibility for ourselves and for the world. And at same time, it is the only way to achieve a deeper understanding among cultures that will enable them to work together in truly ecumenical way to create a new order for the world.’17  He further pleaded ‘A better alternative for the future of humanity, therefore, clearly lies in imbuing our civilization with a spiritual dimension. It is not just a matter of understanding  it is multicultural nature and finding inspiration for the creation of a new world order in the common roots of all cultures. It is also essential that the Euro-American cultural sphere — the one which created this civilization and taught humanity its destructive pride — now return to its own spiritual roots and become an example to the rest of the world in the search of a new humanity’.18

If South Asian Nations, could steer a relationship based on accommodation and tolerance for each other’s cultural aspirations, the region would indeed be free from Cold-War-fixation. A new paradigm of development, is needed which ‘puts people at the centre of development, regards economic growth as a means and not as an end, protects the life opportunities of future generations as well as the present generations and respects the natural system on which all life depends.’19 ‘This paradigm will help build society where the right of food is as sacrosanct as the right to vote, where the right to a basic education is as deeply enshrined as the right of free press and when the right to development is considered one of the fundamental human rights.’20

The ‘Security’ concept in the 1990s,  has graduated to incorporate a four-fold extension. In the first, the concept of security is extended from the security of nations to the security of groups and individuals, it is extended downwards, from nations to individuals. In the second: it is extended from security of nations to the security of the international system, or of a supra national physical environment; it is extended upwards, from the nation to the biosphere. In the third operation, the concept of security is extended horizontally ... from military to political, economic, social, environmental and ‘human’ security. In the fourth operation, the political responsibility for ensuring security is itself extended; it is diffused in all directions from national states including upwards to international institutions, downwards to regional or local government, and sideways to non-governmental organizations, to public opinion and the press, and to the abstract forces of nature or of the market.’ Human security is the emerging ethos of the time, and as Vaclav Havel contends, ‘the sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state, makes sense only if it is derived from one genuine sovereignty that is, from the sovereignty of the human being.’21

The international commission on global governance, (1995) has quite unequivocally brought to focus that global security must be broadened from its traditional focus on the security of states to include the security of the people and the planet.22 The compilers of this Report by men of vision-drawn from several parts of the world, in their distilled wisdom, have pointed to a very poignant reality, to which South Asian political pundits, must take a special note of. ‘Rivalry has always been inherent among sovereign states. In the past, states’ efforts to increase their own security by expanding their military capabilities and forming alliances with other military powers invariably threatened the security of other states. The struggle for national security was a perpetual zero-sum game in which some states won and others lost. To continue on this path is to court disaster.’23

Security is also inherently linked with the concept of social capital, as propounded by Putnam in his book, Bowling Alone. In his article earlier he expressed a worry: ‘while the United States had seen record growth in physical and human capital, its stock of social capital had fallen dangerously low.’24 Social capital is present when individuals are able to work together according to a set of rules developed through consensus. Social capital is absent when individuals are disconnected.25 Putnam thus maintains that ‘Socially disconnected individuals neither supported by dense social networks nor contributing to them are unhealthier, unhappier and commit more crimes.’26 If a nation is only a conglomeration of groups, without being interconnected in dense social networks, it does not develop the robustness to withstand ‘social viruses’, which render a society weak and vulnerable. It is this dimension what must receive utmost attention by the SAARC Community. Burki rightly points out: ‘India has a higher proportion of its population living in poverty than Pakistan. Income desparity among its states is growing and is much more significant than is the case with the provinces of Pakistan. In spite of all this, India is considered a success, while it has become quite fashionable to describe Pakistan as a failure on many counts. Why this difference in perceptions?27 It is not intended to take pride, but to highlight that the region as whole must lower the distance between the ‘rulers’ and the ‘ruled’, in order to become affluent in ‘social capital’.

 

The poverty syndrome, which renders the landscape of South Asia, so utterly deplorable, is a legacy of the European conquest, when in 1600, the English East India Company, through a royal charter issued by Queen Elizabeth, got the monopoly of Commerce in eastern Waters (Bay of Bengal, which practically provided an open general licence to ‘make war, conclude treaties, acquire territories and build fortresses’.28 The so-called ‘trading companies’ have used all coercive means to fleece the wealth of the Third World nations, who were once the torch-bearers of great civilizations in the world. The historical loot and plunder, of the colonialists has transformed the Third World to look abysmally impoverished. In other words, why ‘they’ are rich, is essentially because ‘we’ are made poor. The SAARC nations introspectively cognizing the determinants of their economic backwardness, should have mobilized their collective ‘will’, towards rectification of the gross injustices made to them, rather than dissipating their energies towards inter-state rivalries, tension and even engaging in war with each other.

It is not only economy which has gone into shambles, but the pattern of governance, was debased due to rigid adherence to a legacy which favoured authoritarian leaders as they served the US interest. In the wake of the victory in the Second World War, the West and specially USA, suffered intense paranoia against the former Soviet Union and practically the entire Third World was transformed into ‘Anti-Communism Garrison’, as pointed out by Jafri. He illustrates: ‘Dulles and Senator Joe MaCarthy let loose what was a cold blooded reign of terror all over the Third World. Civilian responsible governments established by law were subverted to make room for military juntas committed to join the cold war against the Soviet Union, with only three notable exceptions (Nasser in Egypt, Soekarno in Indonesia, Nehru in India)  most leaders and governments with Third World countries agreed to be rounded up to become the camp followers of the Anti-Soviet Cold War. They were to be paid for that. That was the beginning of a culture of bad governance in the Third World’29 In Pakistan such leaders were never in short supply — Ghulam Mohammad, General Iskendar Mirza, General Ayub Khan, General Yahya Khan and General Zia ul Haq, in succession.

Militarism has thus become a strategic fixation. This finds expression in grandiose military doctrine propounded by India — with its overly ambitious component a Triad force. There is an irony implicit in its concept of ‘minimal deterrence’. Shireen Mazari rightly points out, ‘India is now seeking to move beyond South Asian Geopolitical framework to what it is trying to define as ‘Southern Asian’ framework. And, the nuclear doctrine with its focus on Agni II and submarine-based nuclear missiles as well as the eventual development of ICBMs and space-based systems, is aimed at this Southern Asian geopolitical milieu. Within the framework of Southern Asia, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, Oman, South Asia, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the northern Indian Ocean! So effectively India is moving into ASEAN and ECO regions also.’30 It is a power game of global dimension and consequently is a frightening scenario. The SAARC countries, in view of the increasing nuclearism, on the part of India, and in turn, Pakistan’s desperation to maintain a credible and legitimate nuclear deterrence, must cohesively move to expand the SAARC framework, and seriously debate how best to achieve Strategic Security Regime for South Asia, rather than relying on a simplistic assumption that the two nuclear powers of South Asia, would somehow exercise nuclear sobriety and follow what euphemistically is called Nuclear Restraint Regime. To keep over a billion people of the region, perpetually under such a high risk, would be a colossal blunder. Pressures must mount to free South Asia of nuclear dread, and to start with, there ought to be a moratorium on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the nuclear weapons must not be deployed in that ready a position, that an inadvertent mistake may prove harbinger of ‘Greek tragedy’ for South Asia. In fact, the insight must dawn upon the military planners of both India and Pakistan, that military balance could still be maintained, if conventional force and high cost weapons, particularly of offensive nature are gradually reduced, as it was made possible for Europe through Paris Treaty.

The over-emphasis on the military dimension of power, must be dispensed with to put South Asia on the road map of economic prosperity. Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan had proposed a way out: ‘Issues such as resources, the environment, refugees and arms control are by their very nature trans-national, and must, therefore, be addressed collectively. This includes not only the regional players, but the international community at large. For any one player to attempt to exert military, political or economic hegemony in the region can lead to stultification throughout the region, and the perpetuate of the material disparities that currently fuel the political economy of despair.31 This precisely is the South Asian predicament. True to the dictum of H.G. Wells,: human history is in essence a history of ideas, SAARC sensibility has to be nurtured on the idea, that we have to replace the ideological antagonism of the Cold War, with a new reference system based on universal values and consensus.

Peace and security in South Asia demands that SAARC is galvanized to transform the region into a community of achievers, and regional cooperation becomes the catalyst to change, and a coordinated perspective make it as respectable and effective as is ASEAN and EU. SAARC, therefore, is a fulfilment of implementation of an idea whose time has come. It is a great dream which must not be allowed to fade away. Alexis de Toeqnvilles dictum is worth taking note of: ‘Claim too great freedom, too much licence and too great subjection shall befall you.’32 The power of globalization is grossly exaggerated. A perception has emerged that the power of money speculator is so enormous that when countries, such as East Asian, have tried to ‘take off’, pressures are mounted so that they are pushed back to a level that they do not cross the threshold, which is the domain of the developed world. In a typically stratified economic order, no financial institution from the developing countries could aspire to gain the status and clout of a multi-national, operating from the developed sections of the world.33

Ajami, brings the appalling rich-poor dichotomy into focus: ‘There is a zone of peace, to be sure, but it is in the main in the industrialized world. There is an American primacy that underpins this new order, but there is no proof that Americans would willingly expend their blood and treasure to defend it. The market has triumphed over the command economy but the verdict is neither sacred nor necessarily permanent.’34 Kofi Annan makes a perfect assessment: ‘It has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the law of gravity. But that does not mean we should accept a law that allows only  heavy weights to survive. On the contrary; we must make globalization an engine that lifts people out of hardship and misery, not a force that holds them down.’35 SAARC must mobilize strong moral force against exploitative globalization and contribute to a new paradigm of knowledge utilization. Will and Ariel Durant pose a basic question — Is progress real? ‘How inadequate now seems the proud motto of Francis Bacon, ‘Knowledge is power’! Some times we feel that the middle Ages and the Renaissances, which stressed mythology and art rather science and power, may have been wiser than we, who repeatedly enlarge our instrumentalities without improving our purpose.’36 The purpose must be geared to promoting the human face of SAARC.

Notes and References

  1. Burns H. Weston, Alternative Security (editor) by Westview Press, Sanfransisco, p.78.

  2. Sumantra Bose, Kashmir: Sources of conflict, Dimensions of Peace Survival Vol. 41 no. 3, Autumn 1999, p.149.

  3. Ibid.

  4. Mohendra P. Lamo: SAARC: Shallow Regionalism, Political Abstinence and Economic Advocacy, BIIS Journal (Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies) Vol. 21, No. I, 2000. P.9.

  5. Ibid. P.5.

  6. Ikram Sehgal, Hash Brown, The Nation Islamabad, Nov. 16, 1995.

  7. Seymon Melman quoted in War I a Dying Business. Keith Suter, Adamantive Press U: 1992. P.31.

  8. Professor Ziring, quoted by Jahangir Khattak, ‘South Asia, a Potential Flash Point’ The Frontier Post (Pakistan), June 20, 1994.

  9. Ibid.

  10. Wisconsin Project/Risk Report February 1995.

  11. Brig (Retd) A. R. Siddiqui ‘India Pakistan: an agenda for Peace. The Nation, 13 November 1993.

  12. Mikhail Gorbachev, The Search for a New Beginning: Developing a New Civilization, Harper, San Fransisco, 1993. Pp. 59-60.

  13. Brig (Retd) Siddiqui. Op. Cit.

  14. Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of Great Powers, Random Home, New York: 1988.

  15. Francis Fukuyama, End of History of Triumph of the Last Man, Hawish Hamiltons London: 1992.

  16. S.P.Huntington The Clash of Civilization, Foreign Affairs. Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer 1993.

  17. Vaclav Havel, Civilizations - Thin Vener, Harvard Magazine Vol. 97, Nov. 6, July/Aug. 1995. P.33.

  18. Ibid. P.34.

  19. Human Development Report, 1994, Published for the United Nations Development Programme, Oxford University Press 1994. P.11.

  20. Ibid. P.6.

  21. S.M. Rahman, ‘Report on Culture of Peace in Central South Asia’, UNESCO Sub-Regional Workshop. Nov. 20-22, 1995. P..28 (FRIENDS Publication) ‘quoted from Emma Rothsetild, what is Security, Daedalus, Vol. 24, No. 3, Summer 1995. P. 53.

  22. S. M. Rahman, Ibid. Quoted from ‘Our Global Neighbourhood: The Report on the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford University Press (1955) p. 78.

  23. Ibid.p. 14.

  24. Shahid Javed Burki, Pakistan needs Social Capital. The Daily Dawn (Pakistan). 26 September 2000.

  25. Ibid.

  26. Ibid.

  27. Ibid.

  28. A.B.S. Jafri, Return of Colonial loot, The Daily Dawn, Pakistan, 26 September 2000.

  29. Shireen Mazari, Developing a Paradigm of Comprehend Security for Pakistan and the Region in the book Globalization: Geo Economic World Order, Ed. By S. M. Rahman, FRIENDS Publication, 2000 - p.121.

  30. El Hassan Bin Talal, The Future of the Middle East in the book Visions for the 21st Century. Ed. By Shila Moor Craft Admantur Press Ltd. 1992. P.51.

  31. Ibid. p. 50.

  32. Quoted in A Case for damage limitation by Tanvir Ahmad Khan, The Daily Dawn (Pakistan), 25 September 2000.

  33. S. M. Rahman, Globalization: Geoeconomic World Order, FRIENDS Publication 2000, pp. 1-2.

  34. Tanvir Ahmad Khan. Opt. Cit.

  35. Quoted in Globalization: Geoeconomic World Order, FRIENDS Publication. Opt.cit.

  36. Will and Ariel Durant. The Lessons of History, Services Book Club 1988. P. 95.

previouspagebackhome