PROMOTING PEACE, STABILITY AND COOPERATION IN ASIA

PROMOTING PEACE, STABILITY AND COOPERATION IN ASIA

Major General Dipankar Banerjee (Retired)

BACKDROP

The terrorist attacks on the USA on 9/11 brought the post-Cold War era to a dramatic close. With it ended the brief possibility of a more peaceful world at the end of the long and tense bipolar global confrontation. It also demonstrated the possibility and potential of asymmetric attacks by non-state actors utilizing the opportunities provided by globalization as well as exploiting its many discontents, to strike the most powerful country on the globe and challenge the international order. A situation which would be infinitely worse should such forces have access in future to weapons of mass destruction. This is the nature of the challenge that threatens prospects for peace and stability in the world and in the Asia-Pacific to which the world has to respond today.

These are entirely new threats to international security and hence require fundamentally new responses. Many countries have not quite responded to these changes and perhaps not yet internalized the implications of these dramatic developments. But, the US National Security Strategy of September 2002 provides one blue print for policy that merits careful deliberation. Would the parameters set out in this document provide a path for a peaceful, stable and cooperative Asia? How should regional institutions respond to these changes? What policy approaches might contribute to a positive outcome? How should regional and bilateral relationships develop in Asia that will facilitate achieving this desirable result? This paper is an attempt to address these issues from the perspective of South Asia.

It is important first to look back briefly on the last half-century in the Asia-Pacific and reflect on the broad contours of developments here. This period can be neatly divided in approximately two equal parts. The first roughly twenty-five years after the end of the Second World War was a period essentially of transition, characterized by strife and conflict and attempts at consolidation. A period when colonialism was ended, some post-colonial uncertainties and imbalances were redressed and resolved and communist expansion halted.[1] New states came in to being, such as Singapore, Bangladesh and Brunei Darussalam. Political arrangements came to be established in each country, according to its own genius but often with a bias towards authoritarian and even military rule under the pretext of maintaining stability.

The second period of the next approximately quarter of a century saw all-round development and economic growth in the entire Asia-Pacific. For a period of over two decades, the region including China, witnessed one of the most dramatic sustained economic growth for the largest number of people ever witnessed in world history. Developments in South Asia followed a slightly different pace. Soviet aggression in Afghanistan brought conflict to the door-step of South Asia introducing conflict in the region with its eventual fall-outs and exacerbating internal strife. Major effects of terrorism were felt in the region from the early 1980’s, first in the Indian Punjab and later in Jammu & Kashmir. As a result economic liberalization started later in South Asia[2] and its results were less than dramatic. But, throughout the 1990’s the region witnessed a steady growth in national economies of between 4-7 per cent. The region was also somewhat insulated from the adverse effects of 1997 in Southeast Asia.

Many conditions were responsible for this success in Asia. Most important was that during this last quarter of a century, peace prevailed generally throughout the Asia-Pacific. A peace that was possible due to three principal factors. The first is the presence of the US military. It may be argued that where this was not the case, such as in South Asia, turbulence and strife remained. When it was removed from the Philippines, tendencies of separatist violence increased. But, in all of the rest of Asia this military presence, sometimes within countries, but always in the vicinity, through mutual arrangements formal or otherwise allowing periodical presence for exercises, contributed enormously to ensuring that outstanding issues between countries did not lead to overt violence for their resolution. It also ensured that individual countries, particularly smaller ones, did not have to spend on defense an inordinate portion of state resources. This could instead be used to pursue economic growth. Overall it created the right politically favorable conditions for economic prosperity across the region.

The third factor was the simultaneous burgeoning of democracy. One by one most authoritarian regimes across the region with some notable exceptions, became democratic. Sometimes evolving steadily from within, but also at times through violence. For a period from 1991 to 1999 all seven countries of South Asia were democracies, the first time in its history.[3] A democratic world is always a more peaceful world, as Richard Haass noted in a recent policy speech in Asia.[4] “The pattern of established democracies not going to war with one another is among the most demonstrable findings in the study of international relations.” Democracy is also closely linked to prosperity as has been demonstrated so well in Asia. That is why “when it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world.”[5] With democracy also comes the rule of law, respect for human rights and the need for institutions that will safeguard these and ensure predictability and stability both internally and in international interactions.

With productive forces in the region enjoying the benefits of these developments and the opening of markets in the US and Europe, trade boomed and prosperity prevailed in the region, whose gains were shared by all countries that participated.

This period suddenly ended in the crash of 1997, questioning many assumptions that lay behind this remarkable phenomenon. Subsequent analyses have revealed that the causes for this setback lay not in the policies themselves, but in their implementation. Crony capitalism, corruption, nepotism, lack of transparency and others, were responsible and not the macro-economic policies of the states. This emphasized the need for structural changes to accompany economic policy shifts and evolving effective monitoring systems. In the interim it led to fairly traumatic consequences in affected countries and to a basic questioning of some of its assumptions. It exposed major infirmities in governance, but instead led many to blame the impact globalization for their sudden impoverishment. It is in conditions such as these that disaffection grows and terrorism finds roots.

This period of growth and progress in the last several decades and the recent turnaround has, according to a current US Ambassador in the region, again allowed “the return of Asia to center stage in the international system after almost five hundred years”. He went on to say, “For the first time since the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the single largest concentration of international economic power will be found not in Europe - not in the Americas - but in Asia”.[6] The potential and implications of this development is enormous. It also imposes responsibilities on the region and its leaders, to ensure that Asia remains peaceful and stable, the essential condition under which alone this will be possible. The challenge to all policy makers in the region is formidable.

IMPERATIVES OF A STRATEGY FOR THE ASIA-PACIFIC

In considering the imperatives of a strategy for the Asia-Pacific it is important to remember that even more than before, policies will be determined by values rather than narrowly defined national interests. That is why it is good to remember that values that succeeded in Asia in the last quarter century are the values that ultimately prevailed in the world – freedom, democracy and free enterprise. From the Republic of Korea to South Asia, countries that adopted these policies have prospered. The hold-outs, North Korea, the former Indo-Chinese states and Myanmar are prominent examples of states that failed. Countries that came half way, such as Indonesia, succeeded but partly. Continuing with these values and spreading its impact is what will determine that peace prevails in the region and prosperity follows. What challenges this today?

Authoritarianism at the level of the state or its institutions that thwart democracy are the principal culprits. Instruments that prevent freedom at the level of civil society, or based on narrow interpretation of religion and beliefs propagate a particular way to be adopted by all peoples, are major causes for disaffection. Where the rule of law does not ensure equal freedom to all and one that can be enforced by an independent judicial system, will there rise discontents that may seek violence to redress grievances. In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman asked the question; why was it that there was not a single participant in Al Qaeda from the second largest Muslim community in the world (India)? He answered this by postulating that probably it had something to do with democracy, representation and having legitimate means of addressing grievances and having these adjudicated fairly through an unbiased judicial system. There may well be merit in this argument.

A lot of the feeling of alienation among peoples is caused by poverty and deprivation. A world where some live in relative prosperity, while half the human race and many of them in Asia, live on less than US $ 2 a day, can be neither just nor stable. Time has come to accept that in a globalized world there cannot exist such enormous disparities. But, more important than this are other forms of discontent that arise due to perceived wrongs and the inability to correct them through legitimate processes in a democratic environment.

Where these discontents become acute, radicalism of one form or another often finds roots. The principal threat to the international community is the marriage of radicalism with modern technology, facilitated by globalization. Sustained by real or imagined grievances, often supported directly or indirectly by states, or by non-state actors with global reach, they are enabled to express their frustration with the world through extreme violence. This is a condition that the international community and particularly the leaders of the Asia-Pacific region will need to focus. What is it then about globalization that affects the world and particularly how does it impact on the Asia-Pacific region?

In an analysis at the Asia Pacific Center of Security Studies five elements of globalization were identified as having the most impact on the region.[7] First, was the unprecedented economic interdependence, driven by cross border capital movements, technology transfer and real time communication and information flows. Two, is the rise of new actors that challenge state authority. These may be non-governmental organizations, civic groups, multi-national corporations, global financial markets and cross border production networks. States are faced with the option of either attempting to constrain their activity, which is not likely to succeed or produce negative results, or to give up its own sovereignty and monopoly in critical areas; neither are attractive options to Asian governments. Three, is the pressure to conform to international standards of governance, in transparency and accountability and in meeting international norms in human rights and judicial oversights. The challenge is that as the state’s capability and influence reduces, pressures on it, to provide both human development and human security increases. Four, globalized and real time communication in turn leads to an international culture, encompassing food, entertainment, clothes and lifestyles. This tends to impinge on national identity and by threatening the uniqueness of states and their self-image challenge their identity and in turn security. Finally, is what may be termed as the rise of transnational problems, such as crimes across borders, regional pollution issues, spread of trans-border diseases, such as AIDS, sharing of river waters and others.

An approach that is likely to best address these emerging complex security issues is enhanced regional comprehensive security cooperation. This is where the role and effectiveness of regional organizations become important.

What has not changed are traditional ways to deal with violence or the threat of violence across borders. The means of preventing such violence has also not changed through history. Measures will lie as they have in the past, through deterrence, pre-emption and long term prevention. In the short term the threat of global terror can only be destroyed by determined action and counter-violence to root out its source and support. This has to be done before the terrorists themselves can strike. Given the nature and condition of the threat there can be no easy or sure way of identifying the timing of a future attack. No army has to be mobilized in advance and preparations for terrorist attacks can and will be made surreptitiously.

This is where the doctrine of preemptive strike becomes both legitimate and imperative. Preemption has always been an integral part of military doctrine. Indeed the ability to correctly anticipate enemy action and strike before the specific threat materializes, has through history been considered the acme of generalship. What has changed is the timing. Where preemption in the past may have been measured in hours and days and launched prior to an anticipated attack after the enemy had concentrated and were ready to strike, today it will have to be in anticipation of such a strike based on an assessment of capabilities. In today’s world where terrorists have already acquired, or likely to acquire or have the potential to acquire, weapons of mass destruction, any delay to strike will not be prudent strategy.

The other important response will lie in adopting long term preventive measures to deal with conditions where terrorism thrive. Actions will be required at least at two levels. One, is at the level of international consciousness, to delegitimize terrorism just as slavery, piracy and genocide have been delegitimized in recent times. Public opinion around the world has to be created where terrorism should be outlawed as a legitimate means of attempting to achieve whatever it is that a state, group or people see as a desirable objective. The other is to identify issues, people, conditions that produce terrorism and deal with those conditions and ensure that they do not thrive. Conflicts, or unresolved disputes within or between nations, that have been allowed to fester, that often lead to recourse to violence. Eliminating them must emerge now even more than before as an early priority for the international community.

It is important to accept that the spread of global terrorism has fundamentally changed some areas of international relations. Given the ability of a state or elements within a state to strike across the world without notice, state sovereignty cannot have the complete sanctity that it has had till recently. Though the means and mechanisms for such intervention too will need to be considered carefully.[8]

In addition to countering terrorism, it is equally important to ensure that economic disparities in the world are reduced. In the globalized world of today, free enterprise, free flow of goods and services alone will ensure that and is taking place today through measures under the World Trade Organization. This will need to be supplemented by regional trade and opening up of regional markets, particularly in Asia. But, in developing countries of Asia, without social security and other safety measures, economic inequities within states cannot be left to the turbulence of market forces alone. States have an important role to play to insure its peoples from poverty and provide meaningful support as required. Even more relevant, the responsibility of states to provide modern education, adequate health care and basic living environment, such as clean drinking water and sanitation, are today more necessary than before.[9]

Finally, is the strategy to deal with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its possible use by terrorists or rogue states. The non-proliferation regime needs to be reinforced. No further breaches to it can be accepted in the Asia-Pacific and this must remain a high priority. It is not in any body’s interest that proliferation occurs, but major powers in the region have a particular responsibility to ensure it. Security concerns of states that may lead them to adopt this course will have to be dealt with collectively through security assurances and meaningful measures. Collective, collaborative efforts will need to be made against states. Where there are signs of a breach or violation, proactive measures will be surely called for. Regimes that prevent the acquisition of precursors for weapons and technologies will need to be strengthened. Finally, a consensus should be attempted towards a goal of a world free of weapons of mass destruction and how to bring this about.

Approaches to deal with these situations have necessarily to be through cooperation among partners in this global war. The modality will have to be through multilateral approaches preferably through organizations within regions. No country or state today can deal with the challenges that complex situations such as these produce entirely on its own, even if it has overwhelming capability. Regional organizations too may need to be strengthened and restructured as necessary to enable these to be able to respond to these new challenges. Where these do not exist, or are not adequately effective, new ones may well have to be created.

MAJOR POWERS AND REGIONAL INSTRITUTIONS

Within the overall strategic framework described above, what are the interests of major powers in the region and how should they respond? What roles will the major regional organizations have in facilitating implementation of policy? While it will not be possible to deal with all issues comprehensively, the major aspects and their implications only are considered here.

With the end of the Cold War, the earlier hot spots had cooled in the Asia-Pacific and regional anxieties were replaced by prospects of stability and hope. Over the decade and more since then many security concerns of the past continue to be effectively addressed. Hong Kong has been incorporated within China peacefully and treaty safeguards of its autonomy continue to be respected. The ‘sunshine policy’ of President Roh Tae Woo appeared to be making headway, raising hopes of a peaceful resolution of the Korean question and end Asia’s longest war. There have been no new developments on Taiwan but in spite of political changes in Taipei, no serious tensions appeared with mainland China. The agreements over Spratlys Islands hold and tensions there have reduced perceptibly in recent years. South Asia continues as before, with Jammu & Kashmir as the major outstanding issue among others between Pakistan and India. With India implementing its ‘look east’ policy and its growing relationship with ASEAN, a stage of enhanced positive interaction is closer than before.

How has 9/11 impacted on these developments and what changes may be discerned? There has been a remarkable coming together with the US after this terrible attack. Asia was no exception to the spontaneous and total support the US received from around the world. All countries again expressed solidarity and supported Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Australia sent its combat forces and Japan and the Republic of Korea provided major logistics support. Both Pakistan and India were closely involved and indeed without Islamabad’s turn around and cooperation the operation may not have been as successful as it turned out to be. Operation Enduring Freedom demonstrated the possibility and potential of quick military action to eliminate rogue regimes and dismantling their terror networks within a country.

Much more work remains to be done to dismantle more permanently the infrastructure for terrorism that remain elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific and eradicate the basic conditions that have allowed this to flourish and take roots over the years. Along with this have to come measures to deal with issues that have a potential in the future to fuel regional tensions.

A brief mention of the current situation in North Korea is important as well as to suggest how this issue will need to be addressed. Accepting of course that others at the conference are better suited to address this and whose voice will have greater authority, let me make some suggestions. Looking at this even from a distance, the complexity of the situation is no less striking. North Korea is located in a vital region at the crossroads of major powers concerns and interests. With 37,000 soldiers in ROK close to the DMZ and its commitment to peace and security in the peninsula going back fifty years and more, the US is deeply involved and no resolution can be found without its commitment. Yet, other powers, such as Russia, China, Japan and the ROK are all linked with this issue intricately due to their history and geographic proximity. The nature of the regime in North Korea and its unique military capability makes it a special case in today’s world. Close and intimate cooperation will be required between these countries and a united front should be presented to counter this situation. Direct US-North Korea dialogue is neither the preferred approach nor will it be the solution, though as a process it may have to be considered at an appropriate stage. The final objective must be to ensure that Pyongyang rejoins the region as a normal pluralistic state, which alone will allow it to develop and prosper economically and eventually unite with ROK. In that transition it will have to assure the world that its nuclear capability remains entirely for peaceful purposes as it had committed when signing the NPT.

Another immediate issue is to address the growing Islamic resurgence in Asia. From the islands of Mindanao in the Philippines, the instabilities in Indonesia particularly at Aceh, the continuance of Islamic influences in northern Malaysia and an assertion of Islamism in Bangladesh with concerns of its potential as a failed state, all pose a challenge to the free world. Should conditions in any of these countries or areas deteriorate, each can pose a major challenge to a wider region.

There are perhaps fewer regional institutions in the Asia-Pacific than other areas of the world, but the few that there are, have shown resilience and effectiveness. that can A brief review may be in order. One is the Asia Pacific Cooperation (APEC) Forum and the other the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its security branch, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). The APEC was formed in 1989, though its roots go deeper. A network of economists had formed the Pacific Trade and Development (PAFTAD), which in turn led to a seminar sponsored by Australia and Japan in 1980 on the idea of a Pacific community. The launch of the APEC followed a period of remarkable economic growth and the engine for that was provided by growth in international trade. The APEC’s aim was then to regulate and enhance trade among members and increase and stabilize prosperity.

There is no need here to examine the effectiveness of APEC. As the only pan-Asian economic cooperation organization, it remains a very valuable institution. It should perhaps even more than in the past attempt to address concerns of nations that have suffered severe economic downturn. Also, its membership needs to be enlarged. To be more comprehensively Pan-Asian, countries of South Asia with significant economies can no longer be left out. When the membership is open for expansion, major countries of South Asia should be included one by one.

The ASEAN was formed in 1967 with a membership of five non-communist countries. It progressed steadily in the early years and developed strongly only after the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in 1976. This was the first attempt in the region at addressing conflict management and resolution by agreeing on a set of six basic principles. These principles of mutual respect of each other’s sovereignty, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, renunciation of the threat or use of force and active cooperation among members have served the community well. This can continue to provide the basis for future attempts to prevent conflict in the region. The ASEAN consists of ten members today including all countries of Southeast Asia, less Timor-Leste. More meaningfully it has expanded its membership and activity through its allied institutions, such as the Track 2 Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific (CSCAP) and after that the ARF.[10] Established first in 1994, the ARF provides for the first time in Asia a means to address security issues in a manner and pace at which members find most comfort.

There are a number of shortcomings and even contentious issues that have emerged within the ARF. Its slow pace in moving beyond mere confidence building and preventive diplomacy, the structure of the organization that does not allow quick response to situations and its rather informal nature, which leads to slow and late initiatives only after having obtained broad consensus among members. While a major change in the membership and structure of the ARF may not be necessary at this stage, the nature of its functioning and perhaps even its role may need to be examined. The inability of the ASEAN or the ARF to respond the East Timor situation perhaps reflected this weakness most starkly. It is debatable whether the ARF will be able to respond to complex situation such as terrorism in the region and deal with it in an effective manner. Should this indeed prove to be inadequate, a serious rethink of its role and method of functioning may be in order.

The question arises whether these institutions are adequate to deal with the current strategic problems facing the region. Is there need for another mechanism or institution to consider and focus more exclusively on issues that led to 9/11? Which should be able to examine deliberately problems of trans-border terrorism, both in the short and long term. Its task may be two-fold. First task may be to examine the current state of terrorism in the region and shape cooperative responses to counter them. The other being to examine collectively the conditions and situations that lead to terrorism and consider long term measures to prevent their occurrence.

A view from South Asia would suggest that problems of 9/11are with us to stay for a fairly long period. It is indeed the most serious security challenge of the new millennium. The world has to come to terms with the many changes that this new condition will impose on us in the future. Hence responses to this too need to evolve with great care and through cooperation particularly among major nations and those most concerned with its consequences. A definite and final view on this may not emerge early, but there should indeed be some examination of this possibility. As experiences with regional institutions in Asia goes, this will only happen through a process of preliminary dialogue and discussion at an informal level. Perhaps the time has come to make a beginning.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOUTH ASIAN ENVIRONMENT

The terrorist strike of 9/11 brought South Asia from the periphery to the center of global strategic concerns. The Peshawar terrorist network born in the 1980’s and which evolved into the Taliban and the Al Qaeda a decade later, was traced as its source. Sine the late 1980’s it had established links with the MILF in the Abu Bakr liberated zone in Mindanao in southern Philippines, with the Islamic groups in Aceh and Sumatra and fostered links with other groups in Malaysia and Bangladesh. It was from there that the first strike against the World Trade Center was planned and launched in 1994. It was also where other major terrorist operations were conceived, among others the attacks on US embassies in Africa in 1998. The foot soldiers of terrorist ranks are recruited from this very location, indoctrinated and trained and also from where some of their selected leaders are obtained. When hounded around the world, this is their preferred place of shelter and sustenance. The final battle against ‘global terror’ will be fought in the mountainous regions of Baluchistan and Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan and Tora Bora in Afghanistan. It is in the backdrop of this grim reality that policies for the region need to be shaped.

First, is the need and relevance of a regional organization that will facilitate cooperatively addressing security issues. South Asia’s own regional organization, the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985 at the initiative of Bangladesh. SAARC has had its ups and downs. There has been meaningful cooperation only when bilateral issues did not intrude and then only in limited areas, such as social and cultural interactions and building networks of professionals for informal meetings. There is disappointment among members on the performance of the organization. There are fundamental and structural reasons for this. With India dominating the region to the extent of comprising 75 percent of the territory, population and economic strength and the rest of the six countries comprising the rest. India’s position even geographically is central with all countries sharing a border with India and none with one another. This leads to a situation where the asymmetry between India and the rest appear overwhelming. The other countries then see SAARC as the organization through which collective pressure may be brought upon India to address their ‘grievances’ against a larger neighbor. In the long run it is in India’s interest as a potential great power, to manage its backyard and use the support of its neighbors for its own greater role in Asia and the world. In the interim, in conditions of strife and conflict and cross border terrorism, other arrangements will need to be sought.

India is slowly being incorporated and quite rightly in the wider Asian region. It already has a prominent role in ASEAN and the ARF. It is an aspirant for membership to the APEC, which is likely to materialize when the organization decides to expand. But, for other countries of South Asia their possibility of interaction with the Asia-Pacific is restricted only through the programs of the APCSS.

Attempts have been made to find other regional groupings for cooperation among specific regional countries. The examples are, the Indian Ocean Rim – Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC), the Bangladesh-India-Myanmar-Sri Lanka-Thailand Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and Ganges-Mekong Cooperation Project. None have evolved into a cohesive organization. To the west there is the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) between Pakistan and the Central Asian states excluding India. Broadening and widening the organization would help, as would bringing in actors from outside its geographic footprint. This should include the US and members of the ASEAN and in selected groupings China.

Such a process should preferably develop through a non-official dialogue mechanism, such as the CSCAP. An attempt was made for the first time to do so at a conference convened by me as the head of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, located at Colombo and the only South Asian strategic think tank. The meeting was held at Sri Lanka from September 12-15, 2003. Participants included fifteen heads of strategic studies institutions of South Asia and four heads of ASEAN-ISIS (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia). The possibility of initiating a CSCAP process in South Asia was explored and an excellent presentation of the founding of the Council was made by Dato Jawhar Hasan.[11] Structural limitations impose serious difficulties, but this idea too can be pursued as a possible option.

The next issue in South Asia should be an attempt to resolve the conflicts that continue in the region. Three situations in South Asia need early attention; the civil war in Sri Lanka, the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and the Kashmir question.

The Sri Lankan situation is being addressed very well, through international facilitation and engagement. Prospects for a settlement is good in the medium term, though there is every possibility that there may be road- blocks ahead. Civil society remains split and greater consensus among political parties in the south may be needed before a final solution can be reached. The Maoist insurgency in Nepal is yet in its early stages when it can be more effectively addressed. The issues are governance and making democracy work in an extremely hostile environment. Not an easy task in the best of circumstances but made worse by an unyielding monarchy and palace intrigues. Finally, is the question of Kashmir with its long history and deep interconnections with religion, state formation, competing nationalisms and intermittent conflict. Each of these situations particularly the last have wider regional security implications.

The present period provides an opportunity to move forward on Kashmir, even though apparently it may appear that time is not opportune. Pakistan under President Musharraf is attempting to initiate a bold turn around in its internal policies away from religious extremism based on Islamic madrassas towards a more democratic modern society. It is the only way that the country can once again return to a comity of democratic and modern states. The challenge is formidable. But, with international support and goodwill it might be able to make the transition, provided it is determined to do so. An integral part of this change will lie in a determined attempt to confront the fundamentalist forces, give up jehad and cross border terrorism in Kashmir and focus its efforts at fundamental restructuring of its government and society. Within the ambit of such a policy, a solution to Jammu & Kashmir can be found. It will essentially be through bilateral dialogue and discussion, but facilitation by outside parties or countries should be considered. Given determination among all parties to end this utterly futile conflict and some international goodwill, it should be possible to construct a win-win situation for all parties, so that the continuation of conflict will be seen for what it is; a criminal neglect of the legitimate aspirations of the peoples of the sub-continent.

CONCLUSION

The Asia-Pacific region is poised at the threshold of a new millennium, which holds enormous prospects of prosperity for the entire region and its peoples. Yet, there are serious challenges that remain, issues that have suddenly come to our attention and needs to be addressed successfully if this vision for the region is to be fulfilled. Asia-Pacific has to come together once again to address them through cooperation, dialogue and a comprehensive approach to security. This approach has to be based on values that we all share but which have to evolve in the milieu of Asia. Much has to be done to evolve common understandings and propagate them effectively. An effort that will require firm and determined action as well as strong and persuasive measures.