|
|
||||
The K-2-Siachen Peace Park |
||||
|
|
The Challenges and How to Overcome Them First, let us consider the physical challenges of the establishment of the peace park and its subsequent management. It is important for the initiative to have certain palpable impact on visitors in order for it to truly be a peace park. Thus the park should be accessible to visitors from all countries and should also have a sound conservation management plan. Since much of the terrain is at extraordinarily high altitudes, it will be exceedingly difficult to enforce conservation plans without ongoing logistical support and resources. This is where the army’s experiences on both sides may be put to valuable use as discussed below.
Military imperativesIdeally, a peace park would be a demilitarized zone where weapons of any sort would not be allowed. However, absolute demilitarization maybe unrealistic in the Karakoram case. Rather, a possible approach would be to have existing military establishments on both sides lend their logistical support for conservation management of the park. Soldiers thus would serve as park rangers and help in managing the park. This approach would serve two purposes: first, it would allay fears on both sides about border security; second, it would provide a means for militaries on both sides to work together for a constructive purpose – thereby building camaraderie and friendship. Most of the proposals for a peace park in the Karakorams begin with the outline of the existing Central Karakoram National Park in the area of Kashmir held by Pakistan. Officially established in 1993 and provided with an official management plan prepared by the IUCN in 1999, though it is actually a park on paper only. The military controls all management of the region. Adjoining this park to the west is the Khunjerab National Park, which has within its boundaries a portion of the Karakoram Highway and road access to China. This region, which was part of the ancient Silk Route has also been proposed for World Natural Heritage site status but because of ongoing tension in the region the proposal was stalled at UNESCO. On the Chinese side of the border is the Taxkorgan Conservation area, established under the leadership of the conservationist, George Schaller. Border delimitation for the proposed peace park would best be undertaken in phases to promote trust between the parties to the process. The initial phase would extend the boundary of the Central Karakoram National Park eastward in the area north of grid reference point NJ9842 to encompass the Siachen Glacier area. Thus, a substantial majority of the park area in its initial phase would be within territory occupied by Pakistan, with the smaller eastern portion in areas occupied by India. While this asymmetric arrangement might be viewed as problematic by India, there are compelling reasons why both India and Pakistan would find it advantageous. Demilitarization of a large part the of the Karakoram region would enhance the security of both countries; and the joint peace-building measure would greatly reduce military expenditure in a very costly and essentially pointless military struggle. Later phases of the park might include further expansion into Ladakh to the east, and the Khunjerab region to the west. Additionally, China would be a natural partner to the north, where the Taxkorgan Conservation area could be extended to include the Shaksgam Tract, thereby forming a trinational peace park. However, the later phases of the park can only be developed once the initial phase proves successful with regard to visitor access and security. Visitor access to an international peace park should ideally not require conventional visa documents – as is the case with locations such as the Sharm-al-Shaikh region of Egypt. However, this is again not practical here, since such a mechanism requires direct international airport access to the region. While Skardu and Leh could potentially provide such access, the prospects for such a high level of internationalization at this stage are remote. Instead a more realistic approach would be to allow visitors from either India or Pakistan to be able to enter the peace park on their entry visas from either country, while not allowing for crossover into the other country beyond the borders of the peace park (an arrangement similar to that for the internal border maintained by China in respect to Hong Kong and Macau). Over time these restrictions could be eased. A joint commission to monitor the impact of tourists and also to provide a mechanism for approving research projects within the park boundaries would be needed. Involving China in a commission of this kind would be advisable even at the outset, given the strengths of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the access that researchers and visitors may need from the Chinese side of the border. Such a commission would also provide a forum for direct collaboration among scientists in India, Pakistan and China. While management plans have already been prepared for the CKNP by the IUCN, broader international guidelines for managing a highly diverse and potentially contentious assemblage of stakeholders will be needed. Such plans call for collective ownership by the concerned governments as well as by local population in the surrounding tracts in order for the initiative to be successful. The K-2 peace park would probably be categorized as a Category-V conservation area under the World Commission on Protected Areas categorization Scheme, indicating that it is a “protected landscape, managed mainly for landscape conservation and recreation.” Various methods for managing such areas provide a role for local communities in decision-making. Recent work by Adrian Phillips for IUCN could be instructive in further developing management.[1] |