In the News: NY Times and South Asian Media on India-Pakistan Negotiations

According to the New York Times, “an attempt by India and Pakistan to agree on resuming either open or back-channel negotiations over the full range of their differences stalled on Sunday.” Read the story here.

Read the Times of India story here and the Dawn story here.

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on September 27, 2009. Respond »

Guest Post: Nansiri Iamsuk on Civilian Displacement in Mindanao

The following is a guest post by Nansiri Iamsuk of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Manila.

Endless civilian displacement in Mindanao

The conflict in Mindanao between the Government and the Muslim Moro separatist movement in the Philippines has lasted for four decades. Although there have been several peace process achievements between the conflicting parties, the conflict has continued. Given the prolonged high cost in terms of human development and security, there is a need for the Philippine government, as well as the international community, to redouble efforts to resolve this long running conflict and pay close attention to the issue of civilian protection.

The “all-out-war” policy against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in 2000 forced almost a million people into internal displacement in Mindanao. Then there was a cease fire which included guidelines for providing protection for internally displaced persons (IDPs) signed by the two parties. However, many of these IDPs had not returned to their homes before another round of fighting between the two sides erupted in 2003, which resulted in further displacement. The fighting in 2003 generated around 400,000 IDPs scattered all over Mindanao. Then another ceasefire was signed in late 2003 and in 2004 the Malaysian-led International Monitoring Team (IMT) was established to closely observe ceasefire violations. This international monitoring presence allowed some of the IDPs to return to their communities. When the IMT was withdrawn in the beginning of 2008, the rehabilitation of those IDPs was consequently disrupted.

Then in August 2008, the conflict erupted again after the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) which was about being signed by the Philippine Government and the MILF in Malaysia. The collapse of the MOA-AD immediately provoked fighting between the Philippine army and MILF forces in Mindanao. The clash forced approximately 700,000 people into displacement. Based on the National Disaster Coordinating Council of the Philippines on July 14, 2009, 254,119 persons remained displaced in Mindanao, particularly in the area of Region X, Region XII and ARMM. Of that number, 118,907 people were in some 147 evacuation centers. Another 135,212 were home-based IDPs staying with their relatives or friends.

It has been already a year since the last attack, and the IDPs still cannot resume their normal lives. A lot of them are living in severe physical conditions. A number of deaths in evacuation centers are attributed to the conditions they live in. A number of humanitarian organizations offer relief and aid for the IDPs, however the lack of coordination among them results in the oversupply of provisions. Thus, the IDPs end up selling their aid to local businesses for very low prices to get cash to buy what they really need for their survival. In addition, the protection provided for the IDPs is relatively weak. A number of human rights violation cases in and outside of the evacuation centers are found but not filed.

The two parties have now resumed talks, however, the issue of protecting civilians from forced displacement is an ongoing humanitarian crisis and the parties need to negotiate it quickly, unhindered by larger, more complicated final resolution issues. Therefore, it is necessary for both parties to set up a dialogue process to find solution for the IDPs. The guidelines on the rehabilitation for IDPs which the two parties signed in the Tripoli peace agreement in 2001 should be seriously considered as a model.  Most importantly both parties have to affirm their declarations on suspension of military operations agreed upon at the end of July as they greatly impact on the safety of IDPs.

Moreover, the protection of the IDPs in Mindanao should not be only led by the Philippine government; the international community also needs to take stronger action. The idea of reconstituting the IMT or inventing a similar operation would help enhance protection for displaced people in the region. Also the newly created ASEAN inter-governmental human rights mechanism should take the issue of displacement in the region as one of its priorities.

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on September 11, 2009. Respond »

“Displaced Afghans”: Crisis Group Recommendations

Great power invasions, intermittent civil wars, and recently, war on terror   forced millions of Afghans to flee their homeland over the years to the neighboring Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere in the region. The latest International Crisis Group report (Afghanistan: What Now for Refugees? ICG Asia Report, No. 175, August 31, 2009) has addressed this humanitarian crisis in length and breadth with recommendations primarily for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, the goverments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. The report also charted out the role for the international community.

This in-depth report urged Afghan government to promote sustainable refugee repatriation by creating viable livelihood opportunities in the country itself. Also, it proposes steps to improve regional cooperation and enhance the protection of Afghans living in Iran and Pakistan. Admitting that the UNHCR cannot resolve the mammoth crisis on its own, the report suggests that the UN agency should support a safe, dignified and sustainable refugee return and ensure continued refugee protection in Iran and Pakistan.

What should the international community do about it? The report suggests:

Enhance the capacity of Afghanistan’s police, customs and documentation-issuing authorities to deliver travel documentation in an efficient and impartial manner. Make investment in rural development and agriculture a major priority for economic development. Recognise Iran as a legitimate stakeholder in Afghanistan, and assist in the creation of a framework that improves the capacity of Kabul, Tehran and Islamabad to manage population movements in a way that is internationally acceptable and is consistent with the reality of historical Afghan mobility.

For a complete report, Read Here.

Posted by Animesh Roul on August 31, 2009. Respond »

We live here too!

Stephen Walt, National Security Heats Up, Foreign Policy Blog, August 10, 2009.
David Rothkopf, Actually, global warming is a major national security threat, Foreign Policy Blog, August 11, 2009.

A recent think-tank report provoked Stephen Walt to blog his view that climate change is really not a national security threat. He dismisses this view arguing—and who would contest this?—that crying ‘national security’ is simply a way to channel more money to your favourite cause. Military operations could be affected and this should be factored into planning. Climate change might tip the balance in “volatile” areas, but that’s not a US ‘national security’ concern. Most interestingly, he writes:
“It is entirely possible that climate change could provoke major refugee movements in certain areas (e.g., Bangladesh), and that such a development could have powerful effects on neighboring countries (e.g., India). But instead of immediately concluding that American interests are at stake, isn’t this first and foremost India’s problem? And if the United States starts devoting a lot of time and attention to figuring out how to mitigate such developments, won’t that reduce India’s incentive to reach a meaningful climate change agreement? “

David Rothkopf agrees that India and others should pay more attention to these issues, but points out threats closer to the US mainland and also reminds Walt (and their readers) that more conflict erupts around scarcity than anything else. He disputes Walt’s contention that these are not national security issues but humanitarian or philanthropic causes.

I wanted to flag this debate for several reasons—some observations and questions:

1. The fact that Bangladesh and India feature as examples of states that will be affected, should do more and whose burdens should not be assumed by the US. South Asians should reflect on why they continue to be the first examples that come to mind when people write about misery and miserable lives.
2. The debate is really about what national security means in this day and age, and it illustrates the many limitations of thinking solely or even primarily in “nation-state” terms.
3. The idea that concern over a global issue is tantamount either to instruction or assumption of responsibility. Could it not have to do with guilt?
4. The suggestion that resource scarcity, economic deprivation and hunger happen only in India, Bangladesh, the Middle East, the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America.

I am deliberately overstating threads in these two posts; I am sure these are very nice people with no condescension at all towards the rest of the world. Moreover, I am pretty sure that the same ‘tone of voice’ is to be found in writings by Indians, Chinese, Brazilian.. other scholars from large states. The problem, I would like to suggest, is in privileging a ‘national security’ mode of thinking. It forces a distinction that every human experience proves artificial, between human beings and societies on the basis of arbitrary national-state borders. The result is a thus-far and no-further view even of the crises that literally, engulf us all.

I think Walt and Rothkopf have started a debate that is both old and new. This is a debate for Asian scholars (and those elsewhere) to join and enrich. Perhaps the ASI blog could provide that larger platform? This might be the opportunity to move beyond apportioning blame, drawing tight lines around ourselves and thinking collectively; after all, as Walt points out, the ‘securitization’ of a problem gives it access to the best of resources.

Posted by Swarna Rajagopalan on August 11, 2009. Respond »

How many crows in Agra?

How many people died in the Sri Lankan conflict? 65000? 35000? 20000? 120000? 200000?

The only possible answer and then, not really one, is: Depends. What is the start point? Are we counting bodies on a battlefield? Bomb blast victims? Those who died while in flight? Those who died because refugee camp conditions were dreadful? Elderly parents who died of grief? And are we counting deaths on both sides? What is the methodology of our body-count?

Some ethical questions too. The emphasis on a head-count suggests that death is the primary measure of the intensity of a conflict. By such a reckoning, life-altering injury, separation from family, displacement, loss of property and loss of citizenship do not count. There is also the suggestion that the “horrible-ness” of a conflict is in direct proportion to its death-toll. The long-term systematic systemic destruction wrought by protracted conflict is just what happens along the way.

Of course, no sane person would suggest any of these things. Nevertheless, we spend an awful lot of time debating and quoting numbers that cannot possibly be accurate, either in and of themselves or as a measure of a conflict’s horrors.

These three links are about an emerging controversy over how many died in the last campaign in Sri Lanka. Check them out:

Over 20,000 died in S.Lanka rebels’ defeat-paper, Reuters, May 29, 2009.
Sri Lanka Denies Report on Civilian Deaths, VOA, May 29, 2009.
Sutirtho Patranobis, World may never know Sri Lanka death toll: UN, May 30, 2009.

Suppose they were to pinpoint the exact number, what would we be able to do? Declare the war truly grave at a certain threshold? Restore a percentage of the dead to life? Provide everyone with compensation (but can we actually compensate them)? Will we actually prosecute those who did the killing on both sides? And how would we even begin with that? More useful to try and ascertain who died, how, to make sure their families have a way to go on. More critical, to make sure there is no reason for the conflict to be revived.

There is a story about the Emperor Akbar and his wise and witty minister Birbal that I always think of when numbers take over the human story. On a leisurely stroll, Akbar wondered aloud how many crows there must be in Agra. Birbal instantly replied: 18407 (or pick your favourite number). Akbar was startled: Really?
Birbal was confident. Birbal’s confidence annoyed the Emperor. He thundered: If you are wrong, I will have you beheaded.
Unfazed, Birbal suggested that the Emperor commission a crow census. It would prove him right. After all, he said, if there are more crows than the number I have quoted, it is because they are visiting their Agra relatives. Fewer suggest that Agra crows have left town to visit their relatives elsewhere.
What could the Emperor do but laugh at his minister’s wit, and the subtle way in which he pointed out that it was really a futile quest?

This obsession with numbers that characterizes conflict reportage is misplaced. It is not the aggregate that counts as much as the lost individuals that make up that aggregate.

A final word this Sunday morning on life after Prabhakaran.
 
P.K. Balachandran, Split wide open among Tigers, New Indian Express, May 30, 2009. (Unfortunately, this link will be good for only about a week.)

The LTTE has been extraordinarily good at fundraising and now after Prabhakaran, there is a predictable rivalry to control the organization’s future, its constituency and most important, its treasury. Will the LTTE’s remaining leaders destroy themselves and what is left of their dead leader’s aura among supporters by fighting over the spoils?

Will we see Oliver Goldsmith’s words play themselves out in this organization as it copes with changed—and straitened—circumstances:
“Ill fares the land, to hastenings ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.”

Posted by Swarna Rajagopalan on May 30, 2009. Respond »