Bomb blasts, gunmen attacks and suicide bombings: These events seem to dominate news channels. The Middle East and South Asia, with crisis-ridden countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, make CNN and BBC headlines for terrorist or military attacks every other day. What surprises me when I read or watch these reports is not the number of causalities of terrorist attacks, but the number of civilian deaths and injuries caused by state-led military attacks. Terrorists, being agents of terror, attack innocent civilians to instigate fear among the general populace. Their ruthless aim of spreading terror turns them into an inhumane and brutal force. However, it is hard to comprehend why the military, a legitimate state agent put in place to protect the state's citizenry, would actually hurt them.
Recently, such civilian casualties of state military attacks have surged in Sri Lanka. Following the end of the 2002-ceasefire between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in January 2008, the state started a military offensive against the rebel group. Unlike in the past, this time the Sri Lankan army has intensified its attacks in all the northern regions of the country that have historically been rebel strongholds. In January 2009, the army captured the town of Kilinochchi, the rebel's administrative headquarters for the last 10 years and currently claims to have pushed the rebels out from their last remaining stronghold in the region. But amid this much awaited "victory," the army seems to have forgotten that these regions under attack are home to Sri Lankan civilians, mainly of Tamil ethnicity, who have no affiliation with the LTTE.
Human-rights groups and the United Nations have criticized the government for not taking enough measures to protect civilians during the attacks. According to Human Rights Watch, more than 2,700 civilians were killed in the attacks in this year alone. Furthermore, intense fighting has affected the supply of water, food and aid to the region. The lack of security prevents aid groups from helping those affected in the conflict zone. To make the situation even worse, the fighting is currently going on in a "safety zone," an area created only for civilians within the rebel region. After being pushed out from all of their territories, the rebels have taken refuge within a designated civilian area to possibly force the army to decrease its attacks. But the army's response has been brutal. The fighting within the safety zone is as intense as it was in other regions, and extreme war tactics, such as shelling, are being used.
Such inhumane strategies aimed at attaining "victory" are appalling. The government is not only taking innocent lives, but is breaking up families, creating orphans and definitely causing long-term trauma to those who have not done any wrong. It is dislocating families from their homes, and creating a sense of terror among civilians of Tamil ethnicity, who are of Sri Lankan nationality and are not associated with the LTTE. Surely, the LTTE needs to be blamed for taking shelter in civilian havens and using innocent people as human shields. But the government's end goal of defeating the rebels cannot justify the present forms of attack, which do not respect civilian lives. Moreover, given the historical tensions between the Tamils and the Sri Lankan government, increased attacks against innocent Tamils might only amplify their skepticism towards the Sri Lankan state's commitment to preserving Tamil rights.
Frankly, I don't understand the Sri Lankan government's strategy to end the civil war. Does the government really believe that just wiping out the LTTE or decapitating it will prevent it from causing any trouble again? In the short-run, a military defeat might leave the rebel group handicapped. But it's hard to believe that the LTTE will give up its fight for an autonomous Tamil state. The rebels have been actively demanding autonomy since the inception of the group in 1976. To date, they have been one of the most brutal separatist groups with an extensive external support network. The current military offensive has shattered their structure and capacity, but it would be naïve to believe that the many LTTE leaders, who have already gone underground, will not begin organizing again. Actually, other cases of military offensives against terrorist groups, like the U.S. military offensive against Al Qaeda, show that without peaceful negotiations, militants can still thrive and grow as an underground guerrilla force, even after their larger structures are shattered.
This leads me to believe that a military end to the conflict is only a temporary solution. Unless there is some form of peaceful understanding and reconciliation between the state and the LTTE, Sri Lanka's civil war will not come to a permanent close. It was after the peace accord in 2002 that the rebels gave up their separatist ideology and cut down on their demands for an autonomous state. I want to be optimistic and think that with further negotiations and talks, the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government can still come to a better understanding. Therefore, regardless of the bitter experience of the past, the Sri Lankan government should rise above the militants and initiate a peace accord with them, rather than create more bitterness between the two groups by using unrestrained military force.
If you are interested in learning more about this topic, come to the student-faculty discussion "Military Solutions for Political Conflict: The Case of Sri Lanka" today during open block (12- 1:20 p.m), in Cabot 102. The discussion will be led by Ram Manikkalingam, senior adviser to former Sri Lankan President Kumaratunga on the peace process with the Tamil Tigers.
--
Dhriti Bhatta is a senior majoring in economics. She is the chair of the South Asian Political Action Committee (SAPAC).
