Category Archives: War and Peace

When silence is immoral

By Zubaida Mustafa

Have you heard of Cindy Sheehan? She is an American woman whose son Casey was killed in the war in Iraq in April 2004. You may well ask what is so extraordinary about Sheehan when more than 1850 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and many must have left behind grieving parents.

Casey’s mother is different. She has been drawing headlines on page one of the American newspapers and receiving plenty of coverage on television channels since August 6, when she decided to camp outside the ranch in Crawford, Texas, where President George W. Bush is on his vacation.

She describes her mission to persuade President Bush to meet her and answer her questions about why the Iraq war that took her son’s life was started. She also wants to know why it is being continued as more American soldiers continue to die. This way, Sheehan believes, she will be able to stop the war and prevent more deaths.

Since President Bush, who is said to have had cursory meetings ritually with the aggrieved families of soldiers killed in the war, has not acceded to Sheehan’s request. She has drawn behind her many other parents who are in a similar situation as she is. Now there is quite a crowd gathered in Camp Casey, as it is called, on a neighbouring ranch whose owner is sympathetic to Sheehan’s cause.

The people assembled there have put up crosses on an empty plot with the names of their dead sons/husbands/brothers inscribed on them. On the night of August 18, as many as 1627 vigils were held all across America in support of Cindy Sheehan, drawing 50,000 people.

Analysts believe that this protest night will go down in history as the movement which led to the end of the Iraq war, just as the campus troubles in 1968 after the Tet offensive drove the Johnson Administration to pave the way for an ultimate withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975. It is known that the support for America’s war in Iraq has been falling. Only 34 per cent of the Americans now support the war. More than half of the American adults now question the wisdom of going to war in Iraq and the president’s popularity rating has been falling.

In a situation where there is a diffused sense of discontent, a person who is loud and articulate and can voice the opposition of the dispersed and diverse elements is able to rally the crowd behind him/her. That is precisely what Cindy Sheehan is doing.

It is, therefore, unlikely that this crowd will melt away. As more and more body bags arrive from Iraq, the discontent is bound to grow. This phenomenon represents what in modern parlance has come to be known as ‘people power’. It was first used in the Philippines where the autocratic ruler Ferdinand Marcos was forced to step down when his people took to the streets in a massive demonstration of protest in 1983 in support of Senator Benigno Aquino.

So persistent and sustained was their protest that it could no longer be brushed aside. Even though the Senator was shot dead, his wife Corazon went on to become the President in 1986.

People power generally comes into play when a government turns a deaf ear to the demands of a substantial section of its population and refuses to respond constitutionally to them. People are then left with no option but to come out in protest.

The main characteristic of this protest is that it is peaceful. Any demonstration that turns violent immediately loses the public’s sympathy. If people are killed or injured in the course of the protest, then the public’s sentiments become divided. Many who had supported the original cause start wondering if they are right in doing so. Nobody wants lives to be lost because some people are protesting.

Many of the people who have lost their sons in the Iraq war and have joined Sheehan’s protest have also expressed sympathy for the Iraqis. They know that the war was started by President George W. Bush and they hold him responsible for all the deaths that have been caused.

Cindy Sheehan’s protest carries weight though history alone will tell what the outcome of this exercise will be. But it carries a message for all of us.

If an injustice is being done and people are aware of it, those who stand for civil liberties and human rights must raise their voice to register their protest. If the response is silence, it is assumed by the oppressors that there is nothing wrong in what they are doing and their deeds are generally acceptable to the public.

Besides one man’s protest may not have the impact which the collective expression of opinion can have. But someone has to make the first move to act as a catalyst. Thus others, who hold similar views but have not been courageous or vocal enough to be the first one to speak out, should also join in.

Cindy Sheehan was alone when she went to Crawford. Within days, a big crowd had collected in Camp Casey. The movement demanding an end to the war in Iraq has begun.

Source: Dawn

REVIEWS: Enter the peace actors

Reviewed by Zubeida Mustafa

As the nature and style of warfare has changed over the years with the development of new technologically advanced weapons, the concept of security has also changed. If nations are now fighting total wars, they are also seeking to achieve total security. Hence peace now focuses on multifarious issues in addition to ceasefires, conflict resolution, disarmament and military deterrent. Security experts are also taking a hard look at social and economic factors causing conflicts and a new academic discipline termed peace studies has come up.

In the present context, when India and Pakistan have teetered on the brink of war and then moved on to a peace dialogue, Manjrika Sewak’s book is of special interest to specialists and lay readers alike. She succinctly defines the modern concept of security, which she writes has to be sustainable to be effective, and the role of multi-track diplomacy in promoting peace.

Security is today understood to be more than simply the strategy to protect the territorial integrity of a state. It envisages a sense of security in the population, the participation of the people in the governance of the state and international relations being the interaction between the people of different states and not institutions alone. This approach makes it equally important for a government to invest in its human resources and strike a balance between its defence spending and development of the people. With India 127th and Pakistan 144th in UNDP’s human development ranking, the two countries cannot hope to enjoy any security in spite of the fact that in terms of their military spending’s ratio to GDP they rank fourth and seventh respectively.

The author, who is a peace activist, is categorical in her statement that nuclear weapons do not add to security. If anything the non-transparency in the chain of command and the limited knowledge of political leaders about nuclear weapons enhance the sense of insecurity of people.

The feminist approach to security takes a broader perspective since women are the ones most affected by conflicts. They feel that an over emphasis on military security increases the sense of insecurity of people. Genuine security entails not just the absence of war. It also envisages the elimination of social injustices and economic inequities.

Security can, thus, be made sustainable if it involves plural approaches and diverse actors — academicians, policy analysts, media persons, business leaders, NGOs — that is civil society itself. The significance of this can be understood if one remembers that in the 1990’s protracted civil conflicts which are not even viewed as wars killed five million people worldwide and created 17 million displaced persons. The governments lack the tools to resolve these conflicts that can be addressed more effectively by peace building initiatives of the civil society outside the government. These are termed as track-two diplomacy.

Coined by an American diplomat, Joseph Montville, the term refers to non-government conflict resolution efforts embracing a variety of actors ranging from diplomats, academics, businessmen, educationists and media persons. In the Cold War years the United States and the Soviet Union launched many such exercises, such as the Dartmouth conference, the Pugwash conference, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and other disarmament groups.

A number of similar initiatives have been launched by India and Pakistan too in the nineties, such as the Neemrana Dialogue, the Balusa Group, India-Pakistan Soldiers’ Initiative for Peace, and the Pakistan-India Forum for Peace and Democracy.

The main criterion for track-two diplomacy to yield results is its ability to interact with and influence track-one (diplomacy at the government level) policies. Track-two contacts cannot possibly take place without the tacit support of the governments which provide visas and facilitate the meetings of the participants. Conversely, track-two offers a deeper insight into the causes of conflict and can suggest a variety of solutions because of its unofficial status and therefore its flexibility.

Although cynics have criticized track-two for not being institutionalized, being too elitist and being outside the mainstream, one must recognize the support given to peace by the track-two actors in the case of India and Pakistan. The fact is that track-two diplomacy in the last few years has paved the way for the cordial and congenial climate that has been created in South Asia. It is track-two that has made it possible for the Indian and Pakistani governments to break the ice and open composite dialogue. It has facilitated the adoption of many confidence building measures and the exploring of various options for resolving the Indo-Pakistan disputes.

The main role played by the track-two actors in India and Pakistan has been to facilitate social change and establish a new pattern of behaviour in the people and then sustain it. For that it is important that a mechanism be created to sustain the change. Multi-track diplomacy plays a useful role by instituting a web of actors whose job it is to ensure that the change does not lapse.

Manjrika Sewak, a programme officer with Wiscomp (Women in Security, Conflict Management and Peace), has made a great contribution to peace studies by producing this excellent book — probably the first of its kind. The point she drives home is that security and change of behaviour have to be sustained if they are to produce a long-lasting impact.


Multi-Track Diplomacy between India and Pakistan: A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Security
By Manjrika Sewak
Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, 2 Elibank Road, Colombo-5, Sri Lanka
Email: edrcss@srilanka.net Website: www.rcss.org
ISBN 81-7304-621-2
138pp. Sri Lankan Rs255

Source: Dawn

APHC’s message to Pakistan

By Zubeida Mustafa
Source: Dawn

THE All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leaders’ visit to Pakistan came as a watershed in the protracted dispute between India and Pakistan on the status of Kashmir. In the bonhomie and euphoria that met the APHC leaders in every city they visited, some basic implications of the political strategy adopted by the Hurriyat leaders and the Pakistan government’s handling of the situation have been missed.

They indicate U-turns by Pakistan and the moderate Kashmiri leadership and a partial turn around by India. What is most important is that this turnabout is the best thing to have happened to South Asia — termed as the most dangerous spot in the world by President Clinton in 2000 — as it can now at long last hope for peace.

Taking a look at Pakistan we find that it had since independence pinned its entire foreign policy on Kashmir. We don’t have to argue whether it was the dispute on Kashmir which vitiated Pakistan’s relations with India or realpolitik compulsions of the two governments that pre-empted a solution to Kashmir. Whichever it may be, the fact is that India and Pakistan remained locked in a vicious dispute that cast its shadow on all other aspects of their bilateral relations.
Continue reading APHC’s message to Pakistan

Nonproliferation: failure yet again

By Zubeida Mustafa
Source: Dawn

THE NPT review conference which collapsed with a whimper at the end of May went practically unnoticed in Pakistan. This indifference can be attributed to the fact that Islamabad, along with New Delhi and Tel Aviv, was not present at the conference which brought 188 NPT signatories together in New York for their five-yearly exercise.

Another reason for not taking note of the event is the apathy in this country towards nuclear weapons. The conference ended a day before the seventh anniversary of Pakistan’s own nuclear tests at Chaghai. It might seem rather strange that apart from a few peace activists no one even remembered that catastrophic day when Pakistan opted for the road which can prove to be self-destructive.
Continue reading Nonproliferation: failure yet again

Non-proliferation dilemma

By Zubeida Mustafa
Source: Dawn

THE non-proliferation treaty review conference being held in New York since May 2 is the biggest hoax in the history of nuclear disarmament negotiations. There is a lot of sound and fury that is being generated at the moot. But it seems strange that the thrust of the nuclear club’s attack is against the supposedly aberrant states in the Third World.

At the same time, a blind eye is turned to the inherent inequity envisaged in the treaty that was concluded in 1968 and came into force in 1970. What is more, the haves of the nuclear world appear to be acquiring greater privileges and power while the have-nots are being pushed further against the wall. This inequality in their relationship has been growing with the passage of time causing greater discontent globally.
Continue reading Non-proliferation dilemma