ALI FAISAL , 17735 ,12A

MEP PROJECT

Peace and Conflict

Aim and purpose of this research work

 The aim of this research work is to make the student understand the
consequences of conflict
 Conflict could be of various kind
 Conflicts could be resolved if both sides or parties come together for a
discussion

Introduction

A contention is a battle and a conflict of interest, assessment, or even standards.

Struggle will constantly be tracked down in the public eye; as the premise of
contention might fluctuate to be private, racial, class, standing, political and
worldwide. Struggle may likewise be personal, scholarly, and hypothetical, in
which case scholastic acknowledgment may, or may not be, a huge thought
process. Scholarly clash is a subclass of social conflict, a contention that will in
general develop after some time because of various social qualities and
convictions.

What is conflicts?

Conflicts result from disagreement, viewpoints, or even philosophical concepts. The

basis of conflict can be personal, racial, class, caste, political, or even international,
thus it will always exist in society. Academic recognition may or may not be a
significant motivator in conflicts that are emotional, intellectual, or theoretical.
Cultural conflict is a subclass of intellectual conflict, which tends to intensify over
time as a result of various cultural norms and ideas.

Conflicts can be resolved by the following method

· Acknowledgment by the gatherings included that an issue exists.

· Shared consent to resolve the issue and discover some goal.

· A work to grasp the point of view and worries of the restricting individual or
gathering.
· Distinguishing changes in mentality, conduct, and ways to deal with work by the two
sides that will reduce pessimistic sentiments.

· Perceiving triggers to episodes of contention

The types of conflict resolution styles

The 5 conflict management styles

1. Accommodating-The accommodating style of conflict resolution is where one party

focuses on the needs of the other, and not the importance of the goal.

2. Avoiding- avoiding style of conflict resolution is one where one has low concern for
his or her ultimate goal and low concern for his or her relationship with the other. In
this situation
 3. Compromising- compromising style of conflict management. In this style. Concerns
for others and moderate concern for the ultimate goal are carried out , and a focus is
placed on achieving a reasonable middle ground where all the parties can be happy.

4. Competing- The competing style of conflict resolution is defined by one party

pushing ahead with his or her own mission and goals with no concern for the other
party in the conflict.

5. Collaboration- collaborating style is one where there is high concern for

relationships and high concern for achieving one’s own goal. Those with a
collaborating style look to put all conflict on the table, analyze it and deal openly
with all parties.

What is war? And causes of war

War is a furnished struggle that unfolds between at least two gatherings. War has
existed since basically the dawn of history, almost quite a while back. No age has at
any point genuinely been

liberated from the danger of endlessly war stays one of the world's most huge issues.
The vast majority partner battles with weapons, battling, enduring, and annihilation.

The main Definition of war = War is an extraordinary furnished struggle between

legislatures, states, paramilitary gatherings, clans, civilian armies, or others.

The battling of wars typically unfolds by troopers or hired soldiers (individuals

recruited to battle for another country).

Why do wars start?

Wars as a rule start because of a debate among countries and break out in light of
the fact that legislative pioneers can't take care of their concerns calmly. Many
nations try to resolve a conflict that could lead to war through peace and discussions.
However in many cases their could be other hostile nations or the conflict would
eventually lead to war.

The causes for war

The causes for war are practically interminable. Contest over assets has been the
reason for some conflicts before. Government: the control of a civilization utilizing
socio-political military power, struggle over domains, strict contrasts, and patriotism:
the ethnocentric conviction that a country state character supplants all others in
sway. These causes have generally totally been significant rousing elements for wars.

Present day essayists using mental methodologies underline the meaning of mental
maladjustments or buildings and of bogus, generalized pictures held by chiefs of
different nations and their chiefs. A few clinicians set a natural forcefulness in man.
Others concentrate upon general assessment and its impact, especially in the midst of
pressure. Others stress the significance of leaders and the requirement for their
cautious choice and preparing. Most accept that a better friendly change of people
would diminish dissatisfaction, uncertainty, and dread and

would lessen the probability of war. Every one of them have confidence in the
significance of exploration and schooling. In any case, the impediments of such
methodologies get from their actual consensus. Additionally, whether the mental
premises are hopeful or skeptical about the idea of man, one can't disregard the effect
upon human way of behaving of social and political establishments that offer man the
chances to practice his great or fiendish affinities and to force restrictions upon him.

The Second Great War and The Second Great War, the two most critical conflicts in
current history, were battled about the issue of patriotism.

Evolution of theories of war

Reflecting changes in the global framework, speculations of war have gone through a
few stages over the beyond three centuries. After the consummation of the wars of
religion, about the center of the seventeenth 100 years, wars were battled for the
interests of individual sovereigns and were restricted both in their goals and in their
extension. The specialty of move became conclusive, and examination of war was
framed appropriately concerning methodologies. The circumstance changed generally
with the flare-up of the French Unrest, which expanded the size of powers from little
expert to enormous recruit armed forces and widened the goals of war to the standards
of the transformation, beliefs that spoke to the majority who were dependent upon
induction. In the overall request of post-Napoleonic Europe, the standard of
hypothesis got back to war as a levelheaded, restricted instrument of public strategy.
This approach was best expressed by the Prussian military scholar Carl von
Clausewitz in his popular exemplary On War (1832-37).
Case Study- The 1965 Indo-Pak WAR

The 1965 war between India and Pakistan was the second conflict between the two countries
over the status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The clash did not resolve this dispute,
but it did engage the United States and the Soviet Union in ways that would have important
implications for subsequent superpower involvement in the region.

The dispute over this region originated in the process of decolonization in South Asia. When
the British colony of India gained its independence in 1947, it was partitioned into two
separate entities: the secular nation of India and the predominantly Muslim nation of
Pakistan. Pakistan was composed of two noncontiguous regions, East Pakistan and West
Pakistan, separated by Indian territory. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had a
predominantly Muslim population but a Hindu leader, shared borders with both India and
West Pakistan. The argument over which nation would incorporate the state led to the first
India-Pakistan War in 1947–48 and ended with UN mediation. Jammu and Kashmir, also
known as “Indian Kashmir” or just “Kashmir,” joined the Republic of India, but the
Pakistani Government continued to believe that the majority Muslim state rightfully
belonged to Pakistan.
Conflict resumed again in early 1965, when Pakistani and Indian forces clashed over
disputed territory along the border between the two nations. Hostilities intensified that
August when the Pakistani Army attempted to take Kashmir by force. The attempt to seize
the state was unsuccessful, and the second India-Pakistan War reached a stalemate. This
time, the international politics of the Cold War affected the nature of the conflict.
The United States had a history of ambivalent relations with India. During the 1950s, U.S.
officials regarded Indian leadership with some caution due to India’s involvement in the
nonaligned movement, particularly its prominent role at the Bandung Conference of 1955.
The United States hoped to maintain a regional balance of power, which meant not allowing
India to influence the political development of other states. However, a 1962 border conflict
between India and China ended with a decisive Chinese victory, which motivated the United
States and the United Kingdom to provide military supplies to the Indian Army. After the
clash with China, India also turned to the Soviet Union for assistance, which placed some
strains on U.S.-Indian relations. However, the United States also provided India with
considerable development assistance throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
U.S.-Pakistani relations had been more consistently positive. The U.S. Government looked
to Pakistan as an example of a moderate Muslim state and appreciated Pakistani assistance
in holding the line against communist expansion by joining the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization (SEATO) in 1954 and the Baghdad Pact (later renamed the Central Treaty
Organization, or CENTO) in 1955. Pakistan’s interest in these pacts stemmed from its desire
to develop its military and defensive capabilities, which were substantially weaker than
those of India. Both the United States and the United Kingdom supplied arms to Pakistan in
these years.
After Pakistani troops invaded Kashmir, India moved quickly to internationalize the
regional dispute. It asked the United Nations to reprise its role in the First India-Pakistan
War and end the current conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 211 on September
20 calling for an end to the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir
problem, and the United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by
cutting off arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both belligerents, but
Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in comparison to
India. The UN resolution and the halting of arms sales had an immediate impact. India
accepted the ceasefire on September 21 and Pakistan on September 22.
The ceasefire alone did not resolve the status of Kashmir, and both sides accepted the Soviet
Union as a third-party mediator. Negotiations in Tashkent concluded in January 1966, with
both sides giving up territorial claims, withdrawing their armies from the disputed territory.
Nevertheless, although the Tashkent agreement achieved its short-term aims, conflict in
South Asia would reignite a few years later.

Pakistan Air Force support helped turn the tide of the battle. Before a counter offensive by 6 Armoured
Division on 22 September could be launched, Indian asked for cease-fire in the United Nations. India's
aggression against our international borders without a formal declaration of war had cost it, apart from
heavy personnel, material land economic losses, 1617 sq. miles of territory as compared to 446 sq. miles
of our open and undefended territory. Pakistan Army captured 20 officers, 19 Junior Commissioned
Officers, and 569 Other Ranks.
The Pakistan Army launched a number of covert operations to infiltrate and sabotage
Indian airbases. On 7 September 1965, the Special Services
Group (SSG) commandos were parachuted into enemy territory. According to Commander-in-
Chief of the Pakistan Army General Muhammad Musa, about 135 commandos were airdropped
at three Indian airfields (Halwara, Pathankot and Adampur). The daring attempt proved to be an
"unmitigated disaster Only 22 commandos returned to Pakistan as planned, 93 were taken
prisoner (including one of the Commanders of the operations, Major Khalid Butt), and 20 were
killed in encounters with the army, police or civilians. The reason for the failure of the
commando mission is attributed to the failure to provide maps, proper briefings and adequate
planning or preparation.
Despite failing to sabotage the airfields, Pakistan sources claim that the commando mission
affected some planned Indian operations. As the Indian 14th Infantry Division was diverted to
hunt for paratroopers, the Pakistan Air Force found the road filled with transport, and destroyed
many vehicles.[120]
India responded to the covert activity by announcing rewards for captured Pakistani spies or
paratroopers Meanwhile, in Pakistan, rumors spread that India had retaliated with its own covert
operations, sending commandos deep into Pakistan territory,] but these rumors were later
determined to be unfounded.

What is major role of United nation

The Unified Countries (U.N.) is a worldwide discretionary and political association

devoted to global harmony and security. The U.N. was formally settled in 1945
following the horrendous occasions of The Second Great War, when worldwide
pioneers proposed making another worldwide association to keep up with harmony
and stay away from the maltreatments of war. The U.N. at first had only 51 part
states; today, the association, which is settled in New York City, has 193 individuals.
Major U.N. drives incorporate forestalling struggle by investigating choices to
guarantee harmony, giving food and clinical help with crises, and offering
philanthropic help to a large number of individuals all over the planet. While the
Assembled Countries is at times censured for its arrangements, administration and
spending, the association has achieved many effective peacekeeping missions.

United Nation’s Four Main Goals

The organization’s purpose and principles are outlined in the U.N. Charter. According
to the document, the United Nations’ four main purposes are to:

· Maintain international peace and security;

· Develop friendly relations among nations;

· Achieve international cooperation in solving international problems; and

· Be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these
common ends.

The United Nations on the India – Pakistan tensions.

India and Pakistan have fought multiple times which has also led to the united nations
intervening and setting up various peace treaties and agreements to reduce the
tensions between the countries.

On 20 September, after the hostilities had spread to the international border between India and
West Pakistan, the Council adopted resolution 211 (1965), by which it demanded that a ceasefire
take effect at 0700 hours GMT on 22 September 1965 and called for a subsequent withdrawal of
all armed personnel to the positions held before 5 August. The Council also requested the
Secretary-General to provide the necessary assistance to ensure supervision of the ceasefire and
the withdrawal of all armed personnel.

Establishment of UNIPOM
In Kashmir, the supervision called for by the Security Council was exercised by the established
machinery of UNMOGIP. For this purpose, its observer strength was increased to a total of 102
from the same contributing countries as before.

Since the hostilities extended beyond the Kashmir ceasefire line, the Secretary-General decided
to set up an administrative adjunct of UNMOGIP, the United Nations India-Pakistan Observation
Mission (UNIPOM), as a temporary measure for the sole purpose of supervising the ceasefire
along the India-Pakistan border outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The function of UNIPOM was primarily to observe and report on breaches of the ceasefire as
called for by the Security Council. In cases of breaches, the observers were to do all they could
to persuade the local commanders to restore the ceasefire, but they had no authority or power to
order a cessation of firing. Ninety observers were assigned to UNIPOM.

The Mission was closely coordinated both administratively and operationally with UNMOGIP.
The Chief Military Observer of UNMOGIP, General Nimmo, was initially also placed in charge
of UNIPOM. After the arrival of the newly appointed Chief Officer of UNIPOM, Major-General
B.F. Macdonald (Canada) in October 1965, General Nimmo was asked by the Secretary-General
to exercise oversight functions with regard to both operations.

Further Security Council action

On 27 September 1965, after learning that the ceasefire was not holding, the Security Council
adopted resolution 214 (1965), by which it demanded that the parties urgently honour their
commitments to the Council to observe the ceasefire, and called upon them to withdraw all
armed personnel as necessary steps in the full implementation of resolution 211 (1965).
As ceasefire violations continued to occur and there were no prospects for the withdrawal of
troops, the Security Council met again in November and adopted resolution 215 (1965) of 5
November. By this decision, the Council called upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to
instruct their armed personnel to cooperate with the United Nations and cease all military
activity.

The Security Council further demanded the prompt and unconditional execution of the proposal
already agreed to in principle by India and Pakistan that their representatives meet with a
representative of the Secretary-General to formulate an agreed plan and schedule of withdrawals.
In this connection, the Secretary-General, after consultation with the parties, appointed
Brigadier-General Tulio Marambio (Chile) as his representative on withdrawals.

On 15 December, the Secretary-General reported that the two parties directly involved, India and
Pakistan, had informed him of their desire that the United Nations should continue its observer
function after 22 December 1965, which was the end of the first three months of the ceasefire
demanded by the Security Council in its resolution 211 (1965) of 20 September 1965.

In the circumstances, the Secretary-General indicated his intention to continue the United
Nations activities relating to the ceasefire and withdrawal provisions of the resolution by
continuing UNIPOM for a second period of three months and maintaining the added strength of
the Military Observer Group.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the vital legal body of the United Nations.
The job of the ICJ is to settle, as per international regulation, lawful debates submitted
to it by States, and to offer warning viewpoints on legitimate inquiries alluded to it by
approved United Nations organs and particular organizations.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) works in two unique ways. To start with, it
can go about as a debate settlement body between two part States in what are
designated "combative cases." Second, it can acknowledge solicitations to give a
warning assessment on a lawful inquiry alluded to it by a United Nations body or
concentrated office.

The International Court of Justice is arranged at the Harmony Royal residence in The
Hague, The Netherlands. It is the main organ of the United Nations not situated in
New York City, New York, in the United States.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is made out of 15 adjudicators who serve 9-
year terms subsequent to being chosen by the United Nations General Gathering and
the United Nations

Security Committee. The adjudicators of the ICJ are helped by the ICJ Library, the
authoritative arm of the ICJ. Moreover, the ICJ Rule permits a State party to a case
before it which doesn't have an adjudicator of its nationality on the seat to select an
individual to sit as judge impromptu in that particular case. Article 2 of the ICJ Rule
directs that the Court will be made out of "people of high upright person, who have
the capabilities expected in their particular nations for arrangement to the most
elevated legal offices, or are jurisconsults of perceived ability in international
regulation."

Peace operation and Activities of UN

Peacekeeping, nonetheless, is political and its prosperity relies upon dynamic and
economical political cycles or the genuine possibility of a harmony interaction.
Peacekeeping can't fill in for the political will and determination of the gatherings to
end the contention and safeguard their kin, nor the host state's sovereign obligations.

The Security Gathering plays a crucial part in getting this responsibility and
collaboration, while furnishing missions with sensible and clear commands.

Peacekeepers safeguard regular people, effectively forestall struggle, decrease

savagery, reinforce security and engage national specialists to take on these
obligations. This requires a cognizant security and peacebuilding methodology that
upholds the political system. UN peacekeeping aides have nations to turn out to be
stronger to struggle, laying the foundation to support long haul harmony, including by
tending to main drivers of contention.

A solid a powerful organization between the UN Secretariat, the Security Chamber

and the nations that contribute formally dressed faculty, has made feasible for 55
peacekeeping tasks all over the planet to have, as the years progressed, effectively
finished their command. This organization is fundamental as we keep on advancing,
endeavoring consistently to turn out to be more nimble and adjust to the unpredictable
conditions we work in. UN peacekeeping is additionally dedicated to working more
brilliant and involving present day innovation as well as different developments.

Peacekeeping has shown to be one of the best instruments that anyone could hope to
find to the UN to help nations to explore the troublesome way from struggle to
harmony. The present multi-layered peacekeeping tasks are called upon not
exclusively to keep up with harmony and security, yet in addition to work with
political cycles, safeguard regular people, aid the demilitarization, grounding and
reintegration of previous warriors; support established processes and the association
of races, secure and advance basic freedoms and help with reestablishing law and
order and broadening genuine state authority.
The International relation of UAE with other countries

The United Arab Emirates and its partners seek to establish an “agenda of regional
moderation” targeting two perceived threats: the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. As the
Emiratis see it, the Muslim Brotherhood interpreted its 2012 victory in Egypt’s elections
as a mandate to replace the state with an Islamist order that it would then expand across
the region. The UAE fears that Tehran interpreted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA) on its nuclear programme as a signal that world powers would accept
Iranian regional hegemony.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, and Morocco have formed an
alliance to counter the challenges that Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood pose. As the
nucleus of this alliance, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have the opportunity to create a new
regional order. They are intent on restoring an Arab-led security architecture, free from
interference by outside actors, and on fighting extremism and terrorism.

The alliance sees arguments that Iran or political Islam could have a constructive role in
the region – put forward by the previous US administration and several European
countries – as naïve. As many events since 2011 indicate, Islamist political movements
that gain power through elections often fail to respect democratic norms or to cut their
links with terrorist organisations. Arguably, the JCPOA has failed to strengthen
moderate voices in Tehran, let alone end Iran’s subversive activities in the region.

Indeed, almost three years after the deal was signed, Iran appears to have intensified
efforts to support its proxies in the region, fuelling sectarian tension and undermining
the integrity of the nation state. The Yemeni Houthis’ attacks on Saudi Arabia using
Iranian-supplied ballistic missiles fit this pattern, undermining Iran’s claims that its
missile programme is defensive in nature. For the UAE, the strategic threat from Iran
has three main elements: the enlistment and support of sectarian militias; the pursuit of
missile capabilities; and the possible restoration of its nuclear programme.

Thus, the UAE strongly supports US President Donald Trump’s proposals to counter
Iranian activity across the Middle East. Arguably, this is the first time since the
establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in 1979, that the US has declared a clearly
defined strategy towards Tehran. The UAE hopes to build a broad international
consensus to support this approach, and values Washington’s recognition of the risks
associated with the growth of Iranian influence.

As part of this, the UAE believes that there is still a chance for Iraq to resume its
historical role in containing Iran. It is eager to help Baghdad overcome sectarian conflict
and bolster its Arab political identity. In Yemen, the Arab coalition’s military campaign
has started to bear fruit in undermining the Iranian-backed Houthis. However, in Syria,
the UAE has little opportunity to push back against Iran, and remains concerned that
Islamists would gain power if the Assad regime fell.

This regional approach needs to be paired with a renewed focus on the nuclear deal. The
UAE shares European concerns about the deal’s potential collapse, but wants the
agreement to include strict limitations on Iran’s regional role and ballistic missile
programme. The UAE is also intent on ensuring that members of the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) have a seat at the table in any future negotiations. The UAE is prepared
to work with its allies in imposing further economic sanctions on Iran, which would
increase their leverage in negotiations with Tehran.[1]

However, efforts to establish a regional consensus on Iran face several challenges.

Perhaps most importantly, Saudi Arabia and the UAE need to gain greater support from
GCC states and other Sunni powers, such as Turkey and Egypt. At the GCC level, Qatar
continues to express solidarity with the other members of the organisation in opposing
Iranian meddling in the region, but it also supports Islamist groups that the UAE cannot
accept. The UAE will continue to oppose Turkey’s and Qatar’s ongoing support for the
Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups as strongly as it opposes Iran. It is still
unclear whether Ankara will back attempts to rein in Iran. Qatar is likely to maintain a
close relationship with the US to benefit from American protection, while
simultaneously avoiding direct confrontation with Iran.
The UAE faces a dilemma in that it wants to push back against Tehran’s regional
expansion but also recognises that Iran is its second-largest trading partner – and is
particularly important to Dubai. For many years, the UAE has sought to expand
frameworks of economic cooperation with Iran (as well as Turkey and Qatar) in the
hope that the logic of common interests would overcome that of ideology, helping create
a regional climate centred on collaboration and mutual benefit. However, the success of
this approach has been modest at best.

Ebtesam Al-Ketbi is a founder and president of the Emirates Policy Center. She is a
professor of political science at United Arab Emirates University and a member of the
Consultative Commission of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

However the UAE also faced many international issues which were recognized by the
UN aswell

The UAE was in controversy for violating many human right laws.

In January, the UAE announced it was ending an economic and travel

blockade on Qatar, and restored trade links in subsequent months. The UAE
continued to be involved as a party to the conflict in Yemen, which saw a
range of egregious violations of international humanitarian and human rights
law (see Yemen entry). It also continued its involvement with the conflict in
Libya through its support for the Libyan Arab Armed Forces, which committed
violations of international humanitarian and human rights law (see Libya
entry). Following the previous year’s controversial deal, UAE trade with Israel
reached over US$500 million.

Arbitrary detention
The UAE continued to arbitrarily detain Emirati and foreign nationals. In
January, authorities transferred the arbitrarily detained Syrian national
AbdelRahman al-Nahhass to al-Wathba prison in Abu Dhabi emirate after
holding him incommunicado in pre-trial detention in an unknown location for
13 months. The Office of Public Prosecution and AbdelRahman al-Nahhass’s
government-assigned lawyer refused to give the charges in writing to his
family.

The UAE continued to hold detainees past completion of their prison terms
based on court orders under its “counter-extremism counselling” law which
cannot be appealed. Four out of 11 such prisoners were released under
Ramadan pardons in April: Faisal Ali al-Shehhi (three years, 11 months after
the end of sentence), Ahmed al-Molla (three years, 11 months), Saeed
Abdullah al-Buraimi (three years, one month) and Mansoor Hassan al-Ahmedi
(one year, five months). The other seven remained in prison, despite having
completed their sentence.

Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment continued in prisons. Human rights
defender Ahmed Mansoor remained in solitary confinement since 2017
without any bedding other than two thin, dirty blankets and without adequate
personal hygiene items. In September, the European Parliament called on the
UAE to end Ahmed Mansoor’s cruel and inhuman treatment.

In a rare move, in terms of scale, the authorities arbitrarily detained at least

375 African male and female migrant workers and took them to al-Wathba
prison overnight on 24/25 June. They were held incommunicado for up to six
weeks in overcrowded cells without enough beds or toilets, and deported
without due process or legal representation. Police and guards mistreated at
least 18 of these detainees, including with racist insults and forced nudity.
Police beat and used tasers against detainees who resisted arrest, and placed
leg shackles for a week on women detainees who refused to eat. They were
deprived of their property upon deportation, including personal identity
documents.
Conclusion
In conclusion I think there are many levels of conflict and the intensity and effect of the conflict
depends on it size. For example, small conflicts could be family problems , school conflicts etc,
while larger conflicts would be wars, political disagreements etc.
However I also believe that conflicts are easily solvable also if the parties involved come
together to discuss the issue and solve it through peaceful methods.

Ali Faisal , 17735, 12A