NL April 2004.pmd - Regional Centre for Strategic Studies

Vol. 10 No. 2
April 2004
The Role of the Civil Society in the Prevention of
Armed Conflict in South Asia
The India National Meeting on The Role of Civil Society
in the Prevention of Armed Conflicts in South Asia,
organised by the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies
(RCSS) in collaboration with The European Centre for
Conflict Prevention (ECCP) as part of the programme on
Global Partnership for Prevention of Armed Conflicts
(GPAC), was held at the Kohinoor Park Hotel, Mumbai,
India, January 18-19, 2004.
a UN conference or if there were further aims? He explained
that the objective of the programme is to extend the
initiative beyond 2005 to establish a global network which
can oversee further work on the area of Conflict
Prevention. Dr Van Tongeren further said that Catherine
Barnes has already presented a working paper clearly
setting its principal objectives and, subsequently, all the
regions will be invited to send in their recommendations.
An interactive session was also organized by RCSS in the
grounds of the World Social Forum to familiarize other
participants at the forum with the programme. (For an
impression of the WSF see an article by Prof Ariyaratne,
on Pg 5)
He emphasized that research is one of the most important
components of this exercise which has to be expanded in
the direction of understanding of what works best,which
programmes are useful, and what are the lessons learnt,
and what are the best practices. It will make possible, he
explained, to bring out research publications periodically,
and to develop a system, whereby perhaps every two or
three years, newsletters outlining short descriptions of
the work accomplished and the dynamics involved in the
conflict prevention process, which could provide publicity
to the programme activities. He held out the hope that
when some literature based on these experiences can be
(Contd overleaf)
A “Brainstorming Session” had been organized by the
RCSS at Marawila, Sri Lanka, on November 8-9, 2003 to
conceptualise the project. (See Newsletter January 2004).
Paul Van Tongeren of ECCP, opened the discussion in
Mumbai by explaining the objectives of the project. He
said that at some of the previous meetings questions were
raised as to whether the programme is just about holding
Participants at the Mumbai Meeting
distributed to the key people in the world dealing with
conflicts, and these will then go into the like minded civil
servants of the UN, thereby presenting our case more
clearly to international audiences.
Dr Van Tongeren concluded his speech by saying that “it
is one thing to convene a conference where you will
have prepared speeches and reports, but quite another to
disseminate information on practical recommendations
and to develop a regional action agendas. We in Europe
have asked Catherine Barnes to prepare a number of books
on lessons learnt from peace processes all over the world,
and, in particular, do a piece of writing on elements of an
action agenda for Western European Initiatives. She has,
already, prepared a four paged draft-Western European
Action Agenda. We have asked the other regions to do a
similar job in respect of their regions. All these action
agendas are to be discussed at the Dublin Conference,
and will then go to Brussels, and also later to New York.”
Next to speak was, Vasu Vaitla, a representative of
Initiative of Change, who based his contribution to the
theme: “How can the UN system be influenced?”. He went
on to say that, although, a lot has been done on conflict
prevention during the last ten years or so, there still
remains a tendency to restart the process again, again,
and again and not to take the process forward. The trend
has been to add regional nuances and the regional best
practices to this programme. On this issue, there are not
less than four studies at UN currently, attempting to give
a definition to civil society, i.e. by the Non- Governmental
Liaison Service (NGLS), the Department of Social affairs,
UNDP and Eminent Persons’Panel.
Maria de la Fonte of Japanese Peace Group dealt with the
importance of identifying regional differences and getting
the academic community and social workers together, in
Conflict Prevention. With her experiences, by working in
Japan with students and attending meetings in
Soesterberg, Philippines and Tokyo on this issue, she
emphasized the fact that the nature of the issues differ
from region to region.
Sridhar K Khatri, Executive Director, of RCSS,outlined the
work already accomplished and attempts at defining the
terms being used, in this field, and said that at Marawila
the consensus was, for example, to exclude what is, ‘not
civil society’, when defining what “Civil Society” is, and
“Armed Conflict” was defined as ‘contestation between
collectives in which armed violence is used as an
instrument for producing an outcome’. At Marawila the
issues prevailing in South Asia were prioritized and now
the need is to address these objectively.
O.P. Shah of Centre for Peace Progress, stressed the value
of lessening human suffering when dealing with conflict
prevention issues. Building consensus among conflicting
parties, bringing them to talk to each other, bring about
reconciliation, demonstrating sincerity of purpose is
necessary to achieve results, he said.
Vijayalakshmi of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, spoke
of the need to draw women into civil society’s role in
Conflict Prevention. When the perceptions on security
issues are broadening, when the need for inspiring trust,
transperancy, accomadating viewpoints, and non
partisanship is becoming, important, women’s role has
become paramount. Experiences like Naga
Mothers,’Association and the Association of Parents for
Disappearing People show their significance. Women had
been an inclusive group in conflict situations in South
Asia, but the whole conflict discourse had been male
oriented; from the commencement of military conflicts up
to the peace processes women had been marginalized.Even
the U.N. resolutions 1325 and 1366 had not helped women
to play an active role in conflict situations ; this should be
corrected by including them in the processes, forming
groups like daughters of Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir,
and making constitutional provisions, for political
participation of women at local, national, and regional
levels, and also peace processes.
Yoginder Singh Sikandh of International Institute for the
Study of Islam in the Modern World in his presentation
outlined the role of religion in conflict prevention
methodologies especially in India. The Kashmir Issue, for
example, although, projected as an Islamic Issue dominated
by extremists of Sufi faith, there are moderate Muslims in
other parts of India who want Kashmir taken out of an
Islamic prism, and treat it as a National Issue. They could
be organized to influence Kashmiri Muslims, which will
also, neutralize extremist Hindu Groups like RSS who use
it as a Islamic Issue .Similarly, alternative Hindu groups
and groups from other religious faiths should be called
into the resolution of this conflict.
Noor Baba, of Kashmir University, reflecting on the Kashmir
Issue said that Civil Society comprising the sum total of
people informally or formally, organized, has not been used
in India. For example, When in 1987 elections, people who
took to violence participated in elections, they were
punished whereas, they should have been rewarded. Both
in and out of Kashmir the civil society did not attempt to
infuse concepts such as freedom, democracy and
federalism as tools which could have been used to meet
such situations, and resolve this problem. Indian Civil
Society should intervene in the Kashmir Situation, both
when it is violent and also peaceful, to rehabilitate resettle
and reintegrate people.
Gul Wani, University of Kashmir, reposed the blame for
the exacerbation of Kashmir Problem on the State .From
the time of Nehru, not enough was done to establish civil
society, free elections and economic reforms, until
militancy took over. Nehru once said that Democracy does
not flourish in Kashmir, because, Kashmir Soil is not fertile
for it, Sheikh Abdulla once remarked, that Indian
Democracy stops at Patanpur, and a journalist said that
Indian Democracy has a problem with Kashmir because it
never travels by bus. Basically, the conflict is between
National Interest of Kashmir and Party Politics of
India.The Civil Society too is sandwiched between
Government and the militants. However, after the
Islamabad SAARC Summit, initiatives could be taken like
opening conflict resolution centers in Universities, in
Jammu and Kashmir and restoration of Kashmir Identity;
for example, Kashmir Pundits now called themselves as
Kashmiri Hindus, as against Kashmiri Muslims, whereas
both groups are Kashmiris. Two examples of mutual
concern, cited are of, Kashmiri Muslims renovating a Hindu
Temple during Amarnath yatra and Kashmiri Pundit
Prakash intervening in securing the acquittal of Delhi
University’s Rahman Gilani. He, referred to Sri Lankan
Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar’s statement that future of
South Asia lies with India and said that, he, too, endorses
Wasbir Hussain, of The Sentinel, Guwahati, dealing with
The North-east Scenario, outlined the various demands
of the 30 insurgent groups, spearheaded by the Naga
rebels, Assamese, Manipuris, Tripuris, their demands
ranging from secession, autonomy, to self-determination.
The attempts by the Government for talks through a mix
of political and military means have not been positive, but
the question now hinges on whether the Government will
agree to ULFA demands of a presence of a third party
supervision and a venue out side India. In any
negotiations, the role of the Church is important, for
example, in Nagaland, where the Christian population is
90 percent; the women, as represented by the Naga
Mothers’ association formed in 1984, have assumed a
peace making role by being in the legislature. On the
contrary, in Assam the rebel movement which started 30
years later than in Nagaland, the situation is worse as
11th Summer Workshop 2004
6 Winter Workshop 2004
Interested applicants are advised to check our
website regularly
for the announcement
there is no credible or structured Civil Society. Being a
multi-religious society, even a religious institution has
not got much of a say.
It is necessary, therefore, to build Civil Society structures,
identify and train peace makers in this region.
Ajrimand Hussain, Director, United Mission Foundation,
analyzing the role of Civil Society in the Prevention of
Armed Conflict in India and Kashmir, said, that people
should be empowered to prevent armed conflict. In
addition the governing circles should reach out to the
marginalized and vulnerable groups of the society, without
political bias, in reducing a conflict situation.
In the ensuing discussion, the participants arrived at a
consensus that conflict situations differ from one another,
and the application of one solution will not suit another.
The different Civil Society groups should analyze these
placing them in the correct perspective gathering the
support of all segments of the society.
Participants at the first India National Meeting were:
Prof Noor Ahmed Baba, Head, Dept of Political Science,
Kashmir University, Srinagar, India;
Ms Aditi Bahaduri, Calcutta Research Group,
Kolkata, India;
Ms Ashima Kaul Bhatia, Consultant, Women in
Security, Conflict, Management and Peace,
(WISCOMP), New Delhi, India;
Ms Maria de la Fonte, Japanese Peace Group, Japan;
Mr Wasbir Hussain, Consulting Editor, The Sentinel,
Guwahati (North-east India) & Associate Fellow,
Institute of Conflict Management, New Delhi, India;
Mr Karan Sawhny, Director, International Centre for
Peace Initiatives, New Delhi, India;
Mr O P Shah, Chairman, Centre for Peace Progress,
Kolkata, India;
(Contd in page 4)
Dublin Action Agenda
he above Conference was held in Dublin, Ireland ,
from March 31st to 2nd April. Professor Khatri, the
Executive Director participated in this Conference
as the Representative of South Asia in the Global
Partnership regional initiation for the Prevention of Armed
Conflict, the European Conference being a part of this
Global project, (GPPAC). The European Conference, is the
first of such 17 Conferences which will be held by different
regions under this Project. As reported in the previous
News letters, RCSS is the Regional Co-ordinator for South
Asia of Prevention of Armed Conflict Programme.
The Dublin Programme was done in different layers,
with the broad perspectives of the project being provided
by Mr. Paul Van Tongeren, (Executive Director, European
Centre for Conflict Prevention )Prof. Mari Fitszduff
(Director MA Program in Coexistence and Conflict,
Brandeis University) and Ms. Catherine Barnes
(consultant involved in the global process and co-editor
of the Action Agenda)
There were in depth discussions on different issues.
There were two panel debates on the, ‘War on Terrorism’
and responding to the new security threats, and
Interaction between Civil Society and the United Nations.
Ms. Sandra Melone , Executive Director Brussels Office
of Search for Common Ground, facilitated the first panel
while the members were Prof. Sridhar Khatri, Executive
Director of RCSS, Dr Cornelio Sommaruga , former member
of the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignity, and Mr. Dan Smith, Secretary General,
International Alert. The discussions centered on the War
(Contd from page 3)
Dr Yoginder Singh Sikand, Post-doctoral Research
Scholar, C/o International Institute for the Study of
Islam in the Modern World, The Netherlands;
Dr Paul van Tongeren, Executive Director, European
Centre for Conflict Prevention (ECCP), The
Mr Vasu Vaitla, Initiative of Change, Representative to
the UN;
Dr K P Vijayalakshmi, Associate Professor, Centre for
American and West European Studies,
on Terrorism and the resurgance of military responses on
promoting security, promotion of alternative security
paradigms like human security, the impact of war and
terrorism in the work towards Conflict Prevention. Prof
Khatri presented a paper in this panel.
The second panel debate facilitator was Mr. Jack
Patterson, Chair, NGO-UN Conflict Prevention Working
Group, while the panelists were Mr. Danilo Turk (UN
Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs), Ms.
Birgitta Dahl (Member of UN Secretary-General’s Panel of
Eminent Persons on Civil Society and United Nations
Relationships) and Ms. Felicity Hill (United Nations
Development Fund for Women). Their deliberations
covered the current mechanisms for interaction between
United Nations and Civil Society, in the field of peace and
security, areas where more cooperation is needed, and
what are the more effective mechanisms.
The meeting coincided with the Irish European Union
Presidency Seminar, on the concluding day, chaired by
Mr. Dermot Gallagher, Secretary General, Irish Department
of Foreign Affairs. The keynote address was made by
Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Brian Cowen T.D.
Among the other speakers, were the South African
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma,
and Mozambiqan Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Chairin- office of the African Union Mr. Leonardo Simao .
At the end of the two day meeting the Dublin Action
Agenda on the Role of the Civil Society in the Prevention
of Armed Conflict in Western Europe was formulated.
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India;
Dr Gul Mohammad Wani, Reader, Department of
Political Science, University of Kashmir (Srinagar),
Kashmir, India;
Mr Arjimand Hussain Wani (Talib), Director, United
Mission Foundation, Columnist, Greater Kashmir, India.
Prof Sridhar K Khatri, Executive Director, Regional
Centre for Strategic Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka; and
Dr R AAriyaratne, Member, Board of Directors, Regional
Centre for Strategic Studies.
Prof. R A Ariyaratne
nyone who visited the sprawling NESCO Grounds,
Western Highway, Goregaon, Mumbai, where WSF
sessions were held, would have occasioned some
surprise at the sheer multitude of people who poured into
the premises and kept wandering through dusty pathways
into and out of the makeshift canvas-canopied stalls,
exuding an air of déjà vu. A man, young, middle aged or old,
in formal Western attire was nowhere to be seen. (What is
a formal Western female dress is something beyond my
comprehension.) Apart from the ethnics and tribals sporting
their clourful traditional costumes, almost all were in casual
dress – trousers/jeans and T shirts/shirts with short
sleeveless. The few individuals in their national dress
looked out of place and they themselves were showing
signs of feeling uncomfortable.
In the food stalls, Indian rotties and masala paste had largely
displaced Western junk food, except for a few stalls serving
Chinese (of course, vegetable) mixed- fried rice. Beverage
bottles and Cola-cans produced by Western multinational
companies, though much sought after elsewhere in the city,
were conspicuously absent on the Grounds, and almost
everyone was religiously clutching on to his/her ‘sacred’
mineral water bottles. The seemingly never ending stream
of group demonstrations were punctuated by traditional
dances and slogan chanting in vernacular, but almost all
the hand-written and printed posters, hoardings, and
brochures were in English. Everywhere the seminar/
workshop/discussion sessions were conducted in English
so that anyone from any part of the globe, even with a
nodding acquaintance of the lingo of the former empire and
the remaining Super Power, could participate in them.
It seemed as though all those who trekked vast distances
to be there were shouting, separately, but, strange though
it sounds, in unison, “We Want Another World”. However,
whether or not “Another World is Possible” is something
that could not be gauged purely on the basis of the events
that took place on the NESCO Grounds on those eventful
six days. Instead, what WSF Mumbai effectively
demonstrated was that the multitude of ‘forsaken’ masses
all over the world are no longer content to remain as hewers
of wood and drawers of water for the rich countries, and
that they are now ready to prepare the way for an alternative
to the existing World Order.
As I have perceived it, the uncertainties, contradictions
and the lack of close coordination are part and parcel of
birth pangs of a deeply felt worldwide concern striving to
see the light of the day. Like so many similar collective
compulsions to end various aspects of socio-economic and
political anomalies adversely affecting the day-to-day lives
of people living in all nooks and corners of the globe, such
as the threat of armed conflict, misgovernance ranging from
constitutional majoritarianism to minority despotism, gender
discrimination, political hegemonism coupled with subtle
forms of neo-colonial exploitation, WSF could more aptly
be described as a movement in the making. Its Charter of
Principles calling people to oppose “new liberalism and
domination of the world by capital and any form of
imperialism” and to commit themselves to “building a
planetary society centered on the human person” is more
declaratory and exhortatory than action oriented. It is,
nevertheless a clarion call to come together to exchange
experiences and strengthening alliances between incipient
social movements, socio- economically marginalized people
and oppressed classes, and to create space for the
‘forsaken’ people in general to form a forum to speak for
themselves, rather than to wait in the sidelines to be
patronized by the well-established ‘do-gooders’, who have
all along been speaking for them but never with them.
From its modest beginnings at Porto Allegre in Brazil in
January 2001, WSF was primarily concerned about the
discriminatory trade practices and capital manipulation
against the world’s poor. Its first meeting was timed to
coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, a country where the world’s most affluential
transnational corporations transacted business deals
impacting on billions of people world over, the majority of
whom live below the poverty line.
Scampering its way through the annual forums held in
2002 and 2003, the WSF grew rapidly in terms of the number
of participants at each meeting, and social organizations
seeking registration under its umbrella and widening its
scope from economic woes to a broad range of social evils
flowing directly or indirectly from policies adopted by IMF,
World Bank and more recently by WTO. WSF opposes
their efforts to impose so-called free market practices in the
Third World countries while safeguarding the economic
interests of the Developed Nations through a network of
rigid protectionist policies under the guise of attempting to
make less uneven the standard of global Gross National
Product per capita. WSF activists argue that such policies
will further widen the rich-poor divide and facilitate the
powerful trade conglomerates in the West to tighten their
viselike grip on Third World economies.
Paradoxically, beyond challenging economic globalisation,
the Forum betrayed a growing trend in the direction of
globalising many other socio-economic and vaguely
political ills adversely affecting humanity. Its motive was
plainly evident: to bring to global focus anomalous
situations which had long been languishing as matters of
local interest and relevance. Thus adivasis, persons
displaced by violent conflict and inroads of development
projects, the disabled on crutches and wheel-chairs, poorlypaid labourers from Sri Lanka’s tea plantations, anti-war
groups from Latin America, human rights activists from
Africa, students and intellectuals from Asia, had a place in
the NESCO formation.
These issues formed the crux of the academic sessions that
took place in the makeshift stalls located adjacent to the
procession paths of dancers, drummers, percussionists,
youth bands, and the loudest of them all, lively slogan
chanting demonstrations. A cursory glance at the seminar
titles will show the diversity of subjects deliberated upon:
child abuse, women’s liberation, human rights; conflict
resolution and peace; ecology and environmental
protection, casteism and social marginalisation,
corporisation of agriculture, U.S. hegemony et al. As far as
these objectives are concerned, the strategies purportedly
being pursued seem to fall within a twilight zone between
globalization and anti-globalization; on the one hand, they
need to be focused at a global level to highlight their harmful
effects on society; on the other, they are either by-products
of the globalisation of a world economic system which
enthrones money and profit as the be-all and end – all of all
human activity, to the callous neglect of all else – social
welfare, culture, ethical norms and spiritual well being.
Such inconsistent and, sometimes contradictory, traits are
perhaps unavoidable since gobalisation is a pull and push
process operating simultaneously. Some, like the Mumbai
Resistance Forum, have critiqued WSF on this and other
counts. The crucial questions are, will this process in the
final analysis unwittingly subserve the purpose of global
imperialism?; Whether reflective thinking at the seminar
stalls and colourful parading would have a cathartic effect
on the discontent that is brewing at the grassroots level of
society? Figuratively, is this an exercise to push back the
protruding canine teeth of the unscrupulous and aggressive
capitalism? Could the WSF’s call for improving the
oppressive local conditions engendered by globalisation
through urgent socio-economic reforms be a part of the
subtle agenda to ensure a trouble free reign for transnational
capital mobilisation?
Similarly, eyebrows have been raised on the choice of an
Indian locality to host a meeting of this magnitude to
highlight the ill effects of globalisation at a global level
when it could be conducted more effectively to restrict the
scope to the South Asian Region. It could also be argued
that, since many of the objectionable facets of life
highlighted at Mumbai had an Indian flavour, the root cause
of the malaise is, partly at least, the spectacular expansion
of Indian capitalism, which sometimes moves hand in glove
with and sometimes operating independently of Western
capital formations. Alongside this development, a huge
middle class has come into being in the midst of the Indian
society, whose needs and exclusive life styles have as much
to do with the neglect and the alienation of common masses
as do the corrosive effects of gobalisation.
But the fact that it managed to attract a gathering of
approximately 100,000 local and interrnational participants,
mostly through self-support, is proof enough of its
organizational capability and demonstrative of the ‘mood’
of the common man. The ‘mood’ was resentful, but seldom,
if ever, verged on desperate rabblerousing, or romantic
quixotism. As reports of the nearly one thousand-odd
seminars held during the five days indicate, none had been
as brash as to call for the rout of capitalism, but rather
urged radical reforms in the existing World Order. A
noteworthy disposition underlining many of these
discussion sessions is the tacit understanding that it is
futile to expect the ruling elites to carry out the desired
changes on their own volition. Hence the loud and hoarse
call for civil society in each country to organize, interact
and coordinate its activities on a regional and international
level, and bring pressure to bear on the government decision
making processes to create a better World Order. If the
world community heeds the warning blared out at the
NESCO Grounds, there will be less demonstrations and
posters, but more positive and coordinated constructive
action at the next WSF sessions.
(The writer is Member, Board of Director, Regional Centre
for Strategic Studies).
Our New Publications
RCSS Policy Studies 25
Nuclear Risk Reduction Measures and Restraint Regime in
South Asia
Zafar Nawaz Jaspal
(Manohar Publishers, New Delhi, India, 2004)
The stockpiles of nuclear fissile material in India and Pakistan continue to
mount. Both countries are committed to strengthening their missile
programmes. The defence strategies of both India and Pakistan – together
with the problems posed by the unresolved Kashmir dispute, deep animosity
and distrust between them – make South Asia a conflict-prone region. The
nuclear deterrence versus non-proliferation debate does not mitigate the
situation in the ongoing strategic competition between India and Pakistan.
Nuclear Risk Reduction Measures and a Nuclear Restraint Regime in South
Asia between India and Pakistan are practicable solutions for limiting the
use of a nuclear conflict in the region. Both states have already signed some
agreements, such as non-attack on each other’s nuclear installations. But
new nuclear-related arrangements which may prove more effective in
promoting trust are imperative, while leaving the nuclear deterrence of both
states intact.
This book examines the prospects of “Nuclear Risk Reduction Measures and a Restraint Regime in South
Asia” which would minimize the risks of accidental, unauthorized, or inadvertent use of Indian and/or Pakistani
nuclear weapons. It recommends effective barriers against the danger of loose nukes and facility-related
problems. Furthermore, the book explains the nuclear perils in the South Asian strategic environment, along
with possible solutions for viable nuclear risk reduction measures and a nuclear restraint regime in South Asia.
Defence, Technology and Cooperative Security in South Asia:
Report on the Proceedings of the Tenth Summer Workshop
(RCSS, February 2004)
The Tenth Summer Workshop is the second of its kind to be held in China.
Like the earlier one in 1998, this workshop was organized in collaboration
with the Centre for American Studies, Fudan University, in Shanghai. This
is the first time that the proceedings of the workshop have been published
by RCSS. As the meetings always brings together a constellation of experts
on various security issues, it was felt that ideas which emerges from such
a gathering should be collated and shared with those interested in security
matters in the region. However, with the exception of the Keynote Address,
the summary that is presented here does not attribute any specific views
to individuals who participated in the meeting. This is in keeping with the
Chatham House Rules that has served as the basis of deliberation for the
workshops in order to encourage frank and open discussion among faculty
members and participants. We are grateful to the Nuclear Threat Initiative
(NTI) for supporting the workshop
RCSS’ Library Collection
... on Women in War and Peace-building
Violence Against Women: Its Causes and
Consequences.–Colombo: ICES, 1994, 116p.
Coomaraswamy, Radhika.
The Disrobing of Draupadi: Women, Violence and Human
Rights/ by Radhika Coomaraswamy. – Colombo: ICES,
2000, 26p.
Women and Armed Conflict: “Good Practices, Lessons
Learnt, Challenges and Emerging Issues” for
Implementing the Beijing Platform for Action. – A United
Nations Inter-agency Project, 1999, 47p.- (Online Working
Group on Women and Armed Conflict).
The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: A Guide
for Women and Women’s Groups, Pankhurst, Donna.
Mainstreaming Gender in Peacebuilding: A Framework for
Action - From the Village Council to the Negotiating Table:
The International Campaign to promote the role of women
in peacebuilding/ by Donna Pankhurst; edited by Sanam
Naraghi Anderlini. – Bradford University: Dept. of Peace
Studies, 42p.
Women, Violent Conflict and Peacbuilding: Global
Perspectives. – London: International Alert, 2000, 72p.
ISBN: 1-898702-06-3.
International Alert - Annual Review 2000 – London:
International Alert, 2000, 15p. Lindsey, Charlotte.
Women facing War/ by Charlotte Lindsey – Geneva: ICRC,
2001, 274p. Machel, Graca
The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children: A critical review
of progress made and obstacles encountered in increasing
protection for war-affected children/ by Graca Machel. –, 2000, 39p.
People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories from Around
the World. – Netherlands: ECCP, 1999, 411p. ISBN: 905727-029-3. Uyangoda, Jayadeva.
Sri Lanka’s Peace Process 2002: Critical Perspectives/ by
Jayadeva Uyangoda and Morina Perera. – Colombo: Social
Scientist’s Association, 2003, xiii, 286p. ISBN: 9-559-102540. Rai, Mugdha.
Women Reporting Conflict/ by Mugdha Rai and Niloufer
Afridi-Qazi. – New Delhi: WISCOMP, 1999, vi, 33p.(WISCOMP Working Paper: No. 1).
More than Victims: The Role of Women in Conflict
Prevention. – Washington: Woodrow Wilson International
Center, 2003, 56p. Johnston, Nicola.
UNSC Resolution 1325: South Asian Women’s
Perspectives - report of the regional consultation/ by
Nicola Johnston. – UK: International Alert, 2003, 56p.
Rehn, Elisabeth.
Women, War and Peace: The Independent Experts’
Assessment on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Women
and Women’s Role in Peace-building by Elisabeth Rehn
and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf., 2002
xii, 155p. ISBN: 0-912917-66-0.
Women, Peace and Security. –
daw/public/eWPS.pdf, 2002, xii, 179p. ISBN: 92-1130222-6
Bushra, Judy El.
Women Building Peace: Sharing Know-how/ by Judy El
Bushra. –
IAWBPKnowHowPaper.pdf, 2003, 88p. ISBN: 1-89870226-8
Journal Articles/Chapter of Books/Web Reports
Siddiqui, Tasneem(1999) Cross currents of Empowerment
and Marginalisation: Women of Bangladesh in Transition.
BIISS Journal. 20(4):524-549.
Karam, Azza M. (1997) Islamisms, the State and Women:
Violence and Counter-Violence in Egypt. Peace Initiatives.
III(III): 18-25.
Islamisms:power:legitimacy and violence:women’s
activism. Karki, Madhavi Basnet(1996).
Women’s Position in South Asia: A Socio-Political Aspect.
In: The Human Rights Community and Conflict
Resolution in South Asia-the Applicability of European
Examples.116-122, Malla, Sapana Pradhan(1996)
Law as an Instrument of Violation of Human Rights of
Women. In: The Human Rights Community and Conflict
Resolution in South Asia-the Applicability of European
Palmer, Nicola(2002) Women in War: Importance of Gender
in Humanitarian Responses. Pravada. 8(3):23-25.
Schmeidl, Susanne; Piza-Lopez, Eugenia(2002) Gender and
Conflict Early Warning: A Framework for Action.
Hill, Felicity, The Elusive role of women in early warning
and conflict prevention.
Sikoska, Tatjana; Solomon, Juliet Introducing Gender in
Conflict and Conflict Prevention: Conceptual and Policy
NGO_reports/inconflict/INSTRAW.pdf: 1-11.
Marshall, Donna Ramsey(2000)
Women in War and Peace: Grassroots Peacebuilding.
w w w. p e a c e w o m e n . o rg / r e s o u r c e s / O rg a n i z i n g /
RCSS’ Library Collection
... on Ballistic Missiles
De-Alerting Strategic Ballistic Missiles/ –US: Sandia National Laboratories, 1999, 54p.- (Cooperative Monitoring
Center Occasional Paper: 9)
Bermudez Jr., Joseph S. A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK/ by Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.– California: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 1999, 45p..(Center for Nonproliferation Studies Occasional Paper:
Wilkening, Dean A. Ballistic-missile Defence and Strategic Stability/ by Dean A. Wilkening.–London: IISS, 2000,
96p..- (ADELPHI Paper: 334;ISSN 0567-932X) ISBN: 0-19929004-0
Prospects for a European Ballistic Missile Defence System/ .– UK: Mountbatten Centre for International Studies, 2001iv, 32p..- (Southampton Papers in International
Policy: No. 4), ISBN: 0-85432-747-9.
Huisken, Ron. ABM vs BMD: The Issue of Ballistic Missile Defence/ by Ron Huisken.–Canberra: Strategic and
Defence Studies Centre, 2001, 44p..- (SDSC Working Paper. Australian National University. Strategic Defenc Studies Centre: No. 357), ISBN: 0-7315-5407-8
The Impact of US Ballistic Missile Defenses on Southern
Asia - Report No. 46/ edited by Michael Krepon and Chris
Gagne.–Washington, DC 20036: The Henry L. Stimson
Center, 2002, 95p.
Swaine, Michael D. NBR Analysis: Ballistic Missiles and
Missile Defense in Asia/ by Michael D. Swaine and Loren
H. Runyon.–Washington: The National Bureau of Asian
Research (NBR), 2002, 82p.
Dawn: The Challenges to Peace and Security,Chapter
Salik, Naeem Ahmad (2001)
Pakistan’s Ballistic Missile Development ProgrammeSecurity Imperatives, Rationale and Objectives. Strategic Studies. XXI(1):18-42 (2001) Defending the US (and
Allies?)from Ballistic Missile Attack. In: Strategic Survey
Kile, Shannon N.(2001) Nuclear arms control and ballistic
missile defence. In: SIPRI Yearbook 2001,Chapter 6.423456 (1999)
New Momentum for Ballistic Missile Defences: Strategic Survey 1998/1999.39-50
Smith, Mark (2001) The MTCR and the Future of Ballistic
Missile Non-Proliferation. Disarmament Diplomacy.
Dean, Jonathan(1998) Controlling Ballistic Cruise Missiles.
Disarmament Diplomacy (The Journal of the Acronym
Institute - formerly Disarmament Intelligence Review).
Our Forthcoming Publications
Studies 24
RCSS Policy
Spencer, Jack The Ballistic Missile Threat Handbook/ by
Jack Spencer.–, 2000, x, 90p. ISBN: 0-89195-251-9 623.5
Journal Articles/Chapter of Books/Web Documents
Valentino, Benjamin (1997) Allies No More: Small Nuclear
Powers and Opponents of Ballistic Missile Defenses in
the Post-Cold War Era. Security Studies. 7(2):215-34
Falkenrath, Richard A.(1994-95) Theatre Missile Defence
and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Survival. 36(4):140160
Ramachandran, R.(1999) Pakistan’s ballistic response.
Frontline. 16(9):29 Kartha, Tara(2000)
Ballistic Missiles: Challenges in Asia. In: Asia’s New
udies 24
RCSS Policy St
River Water Sh
Problem Betw
India an
e Indus
Case Study of th
Waters Treaty
Shaiata Tabass
Shaista Tabass
for Stra
Regional Centre
tegic Studies
udies 26
RCSS Policy St
ns in Foreign
Elite Perceptio
Print Media
Policy Role of
dia - Pakistan
Influencing In
Relations 1989
Smruti S Patta
Happenings @ Home
A meeting of the International Research Committee (IRC) of the
RCSS and a joint meeting of the IRC members and the Board of
Directors was held at the Ceylon Continental Hotel, Colombo
on April 23-24, 2004. RCSS also hosted a dinner to all its members
and partners in honour of the IRC members on April 23, 2004.
During the meeting, the committee undertook to assist the Centre
in all its programmes and future activities. Important
recommendations and suggestions were made for new projects.
The International Research Committee members present at the The International Research Committee members
meeting were: Dr Arzu Rana Deuba, SAMANTA, Kathmandu;
and the Associate Director of RCSS
Dr Meenakshi Gopinath, Principal, Lady Sri Ram College, New
Delhi; Prof Krishna P Khana, Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies,
Kathmandu; Shri IP Khosla, Former Secretary, Ministry of
External Affairs, New Delhi; Mr Ahmed Naseem, Director General
Investments, Foreign Investment Services Bureau, Ministry of
Trade and Industry, Male; Dr Amera Saeed, Senior Research
Fellow, Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad; Amb Teresita
Schaffer, Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Washington DC, USA; Amb Farooq Sobhan, Former Foreign
Secretary, Dhaka; Mr Bradman Weerakoon, Former Secretary
to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Colombo and Prof Sridhar K
Khatri, Executive Director, RCSS.
The IRC and BoD at the meeting
The Members of the Board of Directors participating in the joint
meeting were: Prof R A Ariyaratne, formerly from, University of Colombo; Dr Lorna Dewarajah, Director,
Bandaranaike International Diplomatic Training Institute, Colombo; Mr Dilip Kodikara, Managing Director, DutchLanka Trailers; Dr Tressie Leitan, Professor Emeritus, University of Colombo; Dr Vernon L B Mendis, Director
General, Bandaranaike International Diplomatic Training Institute, Colombo and Prof Sridhar K Khatri, Executive
Director, RCSS.
Some of the distinguished guests at the dinner
Views expressed in materials published in rcss newsletter are of contributors, and not necessarily of the RCSS.
The rcss newsletter is published quarterly. For copies, comments, contributions and further information please write to:
Associate Director
Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, 2, Elibank Road, Colombo 5, SRI LANKA.
Tel: (94-1) 2599734-5; Fax: 2599993 E-mail: [email protected]
Published by: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies
Printed by: Ceylon Printers Ltd. Colombo.