Summary: Working Group on Peace and Disarmament
Terrorism and Beyond
||17 July 2002, 14:00-15:30
Moderator(s):|| • Mr. Serge Enderlin, Le Temps|
Presenters/ Participants:|| • Ms. Claire Galez, Centre for South Asian Studies Geneva|
• Mr. Yunus Samad, Bradford University UK
• Mr. Daniel Warner, Graduate Institute for International Studies (IUED)
||Emmanuelle Diehl (International Peace Bureau), Ashleigh
Arledge (International Peace Bureau)
||terrorism, India, Pakistan, September 11th, Kashmir
Three speakers present topical examples and opinions of conflicts in the
post-soviet, globalizing world.
Mr. Daniel Warner, of the Graduate Institute for International Studies (IUED)
presented his own personal views of a post-soviet, globalizing world. For Mr.
Warner, the role of the United States in the current system seems disconcerting.
Warner urged that, in order to understand September 11th, 2001 we must
assimilate the geopolitical consequences of the end of the Soviet Union. After the end of the Soviet Empire, the United States remained the sole superpower and gave Americans the opportunity to express their supremacy over the world.
According to Mr. Warner, after the end of the communist regime, the US could promote their liberal democratic system as the unique and only
"valid" way of running a country. After 1989, the international scene changed from bilateralism to a unilateral superpower ruling.
Nevertheless, the consequences and the stakes of the 'new era' that emerged between 1989 and 2001
have not been fully understood.
The war launched against Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan was at first a war against 'terrorists', but has since moved to war against 'terrorism' worldwide.
According to Mr. Warner, sicnce the attacks of September 11th, three wars are currently going
- War against international terrorism
- War against the rogue states (i.e. those who are against the US democratic liberal
- War within the US to finalize the right-wing agenda (reflective of the MacCarthy era in the 1950's against communists), replacing 'communists' with 'terrorists'.
Mr. Warner asked, "Will post-September put us back to pre-1989? Is history repeating
Pakistan and India
According to speaker Mr. Unis of Pakistan, the United States and the West have a deep-seated belief that control can be maintained through long range force-
projection, and that discontent and opposition can be contained. This presentation examines the relationships between the US and Jihadi
Islam, the main enemy in the war against terrorism, and demonstrates that the present threat is a consequences of earlier US
interventions and the present war on terrorism will perhaps only lead to new challenges in the
Mr. Unis found it ironic that the question of "who is a terrorist?" is highly
debated. According to Mr. Unis, typically, one side's "terrorist" is another's
"resistance fighter"; rarely the same groups move from being
"heroes to zeroes". It was interesting to note that eighty-five percent of the this year's Pakistani budget was spent on military, while only 1% was directed towards education.
According to Ms. Claire Galez, of the Centre for South Asian Studies Geneva,
before the split-up between Pakistan and India in 1947, Pakistanis and Indians were the same people. But they've been fighting over the Kashmir region. The status of the state Kashmir is at the heart of Pakistan's bilateral relations with India, as well as
being at the heart of all its international relations.
According to Ms. Galez, the main problem is that both countries approach the situation from another angle and in the last few months they have been close to nuclear armed conflict. Pakistan views Kashmir as the central issue in the conflict while India does
She presented a rapid overview of the background and the dynamics of the present crisis and suggested approaches by which to defuse the most immediately threatening elements. For example, one solution could be pressuring India and Pakistan to present the Kashmiris with a democratic process to determine their future status.
Presenters felt that the United States must re-examine and improve its foreign relations and policies, and more generally, every nation must its national security policies: militarism security should be replaced with human security.
here for all available presenters' documents
here for all available summaries
read about the summaries