Sheikh Mutahir Ahmed, Lecturer at the Department of International Relations of Karachi University talked on the Role of CBM in the two peace processes. The abstract from his talk is given below.

The concept of CBM is very significant in the post Cold War era. The process has been institutionalized in Middle East and South Asian regions. The problems and hurdles in these two peace processes can be analyzed from various aspects, i.e. Kashmir dispute, Nuclear issue, religious extremism, role of ruling establishment, and the absence of nuclear deterrence in the Middle East. The CBM provide an opportunity to establish a mutually beneficial relationship. Unfortunately, the policy makers of the two regions have failed to identify in locating their interests and positions. They have taken a very hard line position on different issues which have nothing to do with the genuine problems of the people and thus keeping aside the interests of the people which is necessary for the development of society.

The end of ideological conflict has changed the dynamics of international political system. In this scenario, the process of CBM can play a very vital role. CBM is an institutional process and it may take decades to provide positive results. The process needs political will and meaningful co-operation and patience. In order to eliminate misperception, mistrust and suspicions, emergence of dialogues, training research exchange programmes has been initiated in the two regions. Presently in South Asia, there are more than 40 channels of CBM operating in the two regions which is a very positive sign. But the process of dialogues in the two regions has been facing several major obstacles. The most basic is the prevailing atmosphere of mistrust in the two regions, both on state-society level. Second, geo-political asymmetry of the regions. Third, political fragility makes difficult for the governments to take initiatives.

The while purpose is to identity all these obstacles and suggest recommendations in order to institutionalize the process of CBM in the two regions.

Mr. Farhan Hanif Siddiqui, Lecturer at the Department of International Relations, University of Karachi talked on Moderates and Hard-Liners in the Middle East and South Asia peace process. An abstract of his talk is given below.

Any new initiative towards peace gives rise to groups who actively support the peace process and those who oppose it. The former may be termed as moderates' and the latter as hard-liners'. For purposes of the present study, moderate' elements may be defined as pragmatic and those who believe that the policies of the past need to be corrected if a settlement is to be reached for the issue under question. On the other hand the hard-liners' seem to concentrate on the tragedies of the past and propagate that any peace initiative should in the first place guarantee a radical transformation of the status quo. Thus the point of difference between the moderates' and the hard-liners' is that the former advocate a process of dialogue and a gradual solution of the problem through negotiations while the latter propagate a die-hard attitude which entails the destruction of the enemy and upholds the futility of negotiations.

The present study concentrates on the above stated theme and tries to analyze the role of the moderates' and the hard-liners' in both the Middle Eastern and South Asian perspectives. However, it is recognized that in order to have a fuller account of the two regions under study, a broader conception is necessary. This broader conception entails the study of the national, international and the historical context which has had a definite impact on the rise of disputes in the two regions as well as an influence on the policies, strategies and ideologies of the two elements under study.

One must try to identify the moderates' and hard-liners' in both Middle East and South Asia, and the dominant arguments propounded by both these elements in order to substantiate their claims regarding peace both in the Middle East and South Asia. In the end one must ascertain as to whether the conceptualisation of moderates' and hard-liners' defined above is sufficient in light of the present realities and whether or not any strict line could be drawn between the two schools of thought.

Ms. Salma Malik, Research Associate at the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad discussed the Role of Moderates and Hard-Lines in the Arab-Israeli and Indo - Pak peace process. An abstract of her talk is given below.

For a process of rapprochement to be launched, there have to be factors conducive and favourable enough. The topic under discussion is Role of moderates and hard - liners in Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pak peace processes. As mentioned above; unless we have a certain percentage of decision makers or actors, linked to the issue willing to negotiate with the belligerent, the very purpose of the exercise fails.

In general, the term Hard-Liner equates a person vehemently opposed to a (Peace) process, very hawkish in his stance etc. Whereas a Moderate appears less hawkish, peace loving and pragmatic in his approach.

If discussing individual case studies, in both contexts, we find two extremist view points but then there is also a portion of individuals who hold a middle stance. These postures are heavily influenced by politico-socio-economic indicator parties, opposition or pressure groups etc. Thus an individual's personal view point does not qualify as to being a hard-liner or moderate but the whole gamut of the prevalent socio-political environment plays a major role in the formulation of a policy or stance.

Mr. Amitabh Mattoo, Professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, was of the view that governments should take interest and educate the people. The governments should also have the political will.

Ghazi Salahuddin, Editorial Director, Daily Jang, Karachi discussed the Role of Media in peace process. An abstract of his talk is given below.

I would like to focus on how the media can promote a more open as well as a realistic approach to establishing peaceful coexistence between India and Pakistan. We should explore the theme in the historical perspective of the past 50 years, with a particular reference to the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Simultaneously, we should look at the state of relations between India and Pakistan as perceived in the media. Here, the impact of satellite television in providing a more intimate access to each other's society should also be taken into account. Will satellite TV eventually soften the barbed wires along the frontiers or encourage a different kind of competition or isolationism?

The 50 years perspective is important because the reviews timed with the golden jubilee of independence, coming in the wake of 59 years of the end of the World War II and coinciding, roughly, with similar anniversaries of some major developments in the Middle East, have generated a new awakening as to the waywardness of our polity and the price that both India and Pakistan have paid for their confrontational stance. It is important to seek ways of exploiting this awareness by supporting non-official dialogues. A stress on what is called public journalism, mainly the assumption that a newspaper should be a catalyst for change, is also to be taken into account. What will happen if the media turns into a player rather than a chronicler?

Challenges that are posed by the social backwardness of the South Asian societies have to be reviewed in the context of the limitations of the role the media can play. The literacy and civilisational weakness have influenced, in South Asia, the capacity of free press in projecting new ideas and it will be interesting to measure the Israeli and Arab societies with the same yardstick. In South Asia and mainly in Pakistan, change has been slow because of lack of progress and openness in intellectual areas. This has implications for the media in the sense that its responsibility has become greater.

Mr. Richard Ponzio, Fulbright Fellow, at the Human Development Centre in Islamabad, talked of the need for mediation in the Indo-Pak dialogue and the human and economic costs of South Asian militarization. He discussed the roots of the Kashmir conflict and past attempts at mediation and the heightened U.S. interest in South Asia. He talked of the possibility of mediation in the Kashmir dispute as was done in the Middle East. As he felt there were limitations to the Simla agreement and the process of bilaterlism.

Dr. Moonis Ahmar, Associate professor, department of International Relations, at the Karachi University and the director for the research project on Peace by process : Lessons for India and Pakistan was the last speaker and talked on lessons to be learnt from the Arab-Israeli peace process. An abstract of his talk is given below.

Can India and Pakistan learn lessons from the Arab-Israeli peace process? Is there a need for New Delhi and Islamabad to seek direction from the successes and failures in the Middle East peace process? Both these questions have to be responded keeping in mind the similarities and contradictions in the historic, security, strategic, political and economic realities in the Middle East and in South Asia. Given past experiences, present realities and future prospects, India and Pakistan can learn following lessons from the Arab-Israeli peace process.

a. Marginalized role of people in the peace process. In case of the Middle East, the peace process had the blessings of the power elite but the non-conformist and other groups having reservations about the normalization process were not taken into confidence by the governments concerned. India and Pakistan need to make sure that any agreement reached to settle their outstanding disputes should have substantial support from the majority of public opinion. The absence of the participation of people in a peace process will promote hard - liners and cause an irreparable damage to the agreements reached.

b. Dismissal of war as an option is another lesson which India and Pakistan can learn from the Arab-Israeli peace process. Israel and Arab countries have not gone to war in the last 25 years and India and Pakistan have also not been to war in the last 27 years. However, the absence of war in the two regions doesn't mean the existence of peace. Despite having a peace treaty, Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel are in a state of cold peace. It is true with India and Pakistan because the absence of war between the two countries has not ensured peace. One can see the role of proxy wars in the two countries as a major impediment for peace in South Asia.

c. The role of third party mediation is the third lesson which India and Pakistan can learn from the Arab-Israeli peace process. For years, the European and American mediation between Israel and its Arab neighbours continued ultimately leading to the signing of the Camp David. This is not the case with India and Pakistan because except the Soviet mediation in the post-1965 Indo-Pak War leading to the signing of Tashkent declaration, we don't see any substantial role of third party mediation for the management and resolution of conflicts. Third party mediation is not termed as a forthcoming possibility in the Indo-Pak normalization process because of New Delhi's insistence on following the bilateral track. But the present stalemate in their relations could be broken if there is some credible regional or extra-regional initiative having the support of both New Delhi and Islamabad.

d. Non-implementation of agreements signed between the PLO and Israel is the fourth lesson for India and Pakistan from the Middle East. Even if the parties concerned reach an agreement, the non- implementation can discredit the peace process. So intentions and political will of the parties concerned for the normalization process cannot be ruled out as important requirement for peace in South Asia.

e. The feeling of superiority and compulsion present in the PLO-Israeli relations is the fifth lesson for India and Pakistan. The fact that the Palestinians resent the manner in which Israel has used its superior position to minimize gains for them in the September 1993 PLO - Israeli accord and the subsequent violation of that accord by Israel should provide enough idea to New Delhi and Islamabad about the disaster if any party tried to impose things on the other party. There has to be a fair deal.

f. Persistence and commitment to negotiate despite difficulties is another lesson which India and Pakistan can learn from the Arab - Israeli peace process. Given the complicated nature of the Kashmir dispute and other conflicts between India and Pakistan it is not easy to seek favorable results in a short span of time.

g. Discussion on less contentious issues than the most difficult or the core issue could be another lesson for India and Pakistan from the Middle East. Egypt and Israel, PLO and Israel, and Jordan and Israel began their peace dialogue by focusing on resolving less intricate issues.

Lastly, the need for urgency and the hope of incentive is the sixth lesson for India and Pakistan from the Arab-Israeli peace process. Because of strategic reasons, South Asia enjoys marginal attraction for the extra - regional powers to engage themselves in a peace process. In case of the Middle East, events like the wars of 1967 and 1973 , the Iran-Iraq war, the Israeli attack over Lebanon, the Palestinian Intifada, the Gulf war and the Soviet disintegration justified urgency and also incentive in the PLO - Israeli and Jordanian -Israeli agreements. We don't see the feeling of urgency in New Delhi and Islamabad for resolving their conflicts and because of that reason, there is no question of incentive.

It was a good workshop conducted by eminent professors of Karachi University. Some important and relevant points have been brought out in the open and discussed in a frank manner. A dialogue is essential for any peace process to have a chance of moving ahead. In a dialogue different points of view must be put forward and frankly discussed.

There is an urgent need for a dialogue leading to a peace-process between India and Pakistan. There has been confrontation and strife in South Asia for the past 50 years and now the people of the region desire peace and economic development.

The present government of Pakistan is committed to improving relations with India and resolving all outstanding issues including Kashmir by peaceful means without resort to arms. The new government in India has responded positively to Pakistan's offer of a dialogue.

An important point of outside help or mediation was brought out. India has not been too keen on this, and prefers bilateral negotiations. Although on two previous occasions, after the Rann of Kutch dispute and the 1965 Indo-Pak war mediation was used for the benefit of both sides. Bilateral negotiations have not been successful so far and it is felt that an American initiative in the peace process would go a long way in solving the outstanding disputes, between India and Pakistan.

Economic incentives are also important. In the case of India and Pakistan it would be mutual reduction in armaments resulting in a reduction in expenditure. Added to this would be an increase in regional trade and commerce provided it is not dominated by India to the detriment of her small neighbours.

It has also been brought out that peace to be lasting must be with honour and justice. It should not be negotiated from a position of strength or superiority. Peace has to be pursued from a position of sovereign equality of nations of the region and national commitment to bilateral and regional agreements.

Such workshops and open discussions will surely help to clear the air and focus on the requirements of lasting peace in South Asia. It is now a desire of the people, to find some solutions to outstanding issues and the governments of India and Pakistan must face up to the issues and the new realities.