WHAT ARE THE TAMIL TIGERS SUMMARY;
On Tuesday the death of The Sri Lankan separatist movement, the Tamil Tigers, was announced dead
Velupillai Prabhakaran has lead the Tamil Tigers for almost quater of a century. Tamils form 10-15% of Sri Lanka's population, the majoriy being Sinhalse.
In 1972 when the Sinhalse government announce Sinhala as the official language and Buddhism as the official religion Velupillai Prabhakaran began a separatist movement which was estimated to have anywhere between 5000-10000 rebels. the group has fought for an independent stat called Eelam. "We are freedom fighters, not terrorists, seriously committed to peace." stated their leader. however it seems post 9/11 consensus is insurgent groups using terror tacics can no longer call themselves freedom fighters (Guardian) the US for example lists them as a terrorist group (but thats not surprising)
The Tamil Tigers tactics are described as brutal (by the likes of the Time magazine)and according to one article they are the only group to assinate two world leaders and invented the suicide vest.
"The Tamil Tigers taught terrorists everywhere the finer (or more savage) points of suicide bombing, the recruitment of child soldiers, arms trafficking, propaganda and the use of a global diaspora to collect resources. The Tigers "were the pioneers in many of the terrorist tactics we see worldwide today," says Jason Campbell, an Iraq and Afghanistan analyst at the Brookings Institution." ..."
the regime is known for its use of suicide bombing in particular the use of women and children. Soliders wore capsules of cynide around there neck and a reccent military raid on a Tamil camp 75 soliders blew themselves up rather than be taken by the Sri Lankan government.The leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is quoted saying ""I started the movement with the firm resolve that I will never be caught alive by the enemy. That has spread down the ranks." — on the wearing of cyanide capsules by his followers, a tradition he began himself (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 20, 1992)"
SRI LANKA'S GOVERNMENT FIGHTING VIOLENCE WITH MORE VIOLENCE...(AND WAR CRIMES)
what we are left with after the defeat of the Tamil Tigers is the questionable tactics used by the Sri Lankan government. Last week's Guardian contained an article in which Ban ki Moon called the military tactics of the government "war crimes"
In the last few months of intense fighting journalists and international observers have been kept away. Last week an international journalist was sent home for reporting on Sri Lankan government soliders raping women in villages...the reporter was told he could repor on Sri Lanka all he wanted but from his own country. Sri Lanka has made the clear decision to put rule of law, human rights and democratic freedom of press under rifts of violence.
Sri Lanka rejected the UN's calls for a ceasefire and pulled out of a ceasfire agreement in 2008 after it was constantly broken.
the government. the government has ruthlessly bombed and attacked with complete disregard for the safety of citizens
the government has used an endless military campaign with has displace many (250000 approx)and cost many civilian lives.
I will be interested to see how the "success" of Sri Lanka plays out...
considering ethnic resentment still exist and the high cost of civilian lives. Quater of a million refugees are now said to have to remain in camps for two years to ensure they are not Tamil Tigers (Guardian)
another good article to read! http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/19/tamil-cause-global-awareness
hopefully the world will speak out against these military tactics, but the problem with that is self-interest is unlikely to be set aside.
Sri Lamka has fought violence with violence. Terrifyingly governments around the world my try to learn from Sri Lanka's "success"
one can only hope other countries dealing with insurgencies (Pakistan, Sudan) do not follow suit...
[side note!! did anyone see Chavez has taken over more oil firms to "liberate the country from capitalism" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/10/venezuela-chavez-oil-industry-property]
While there is no justification for war crimes like rape and unnecessary violence I think it is far too easy to simply condemn the Sri Lankans military operations as being entirely immoral without a few qualifiers. What I think we forget all too easily are the very real practical difficulties of war.
ReplyDeleteFor example the killing of uninvolved civilians is undoubtedly a tragedy, but when faced with an enemy who has gone to great pains in order to place these civilians between themselves and you, and then itself is trying to attack you, it puts you in a situation where there is no real 'good' outcome. The choice isn't between good and bad but between really bad and less bad.
What I mean is that groups such as the Tamil Tigers and Hamas in Palestine aren't playing by the same rules. Terrorism almost by definition involves the explicit targeting of innocents in order to ignite, well, terror. That is essentially the point. The messier it is, the more effective it is. Terrorists in general are not bound by the conscience to prevent civilian casualties, that is what they are aiming for. They don't have the same responsibility and it is no consequence to them to be held accountable for this. Especially if they can justify it as both the Tamils and Hamas have done by painting themselves as the victims of some greater evil like imperialism.
On the otherside, the military does have a set of rules and is held accountable. Any civilian casualties are highlighted and the governments are condemned for it, no matter that the opposition is doing the exact same thing but deliberately and consciously. To me this is analogous to a boxing match where one competitor can only use his fists and punch his opponent above the belt while the other can punch and kick him anywhere, use weapons and do whatever without the judges or referee objecting.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in anyway saying that rape, the unnecessary death of civilians or any other sort of war crime is justified and I'm not even taking a particular stance on the Sri Lankan militaries operations. All I am saying is that we generally have to have a little bit more perspective on these and all similar situations and at the very least hold each side to the same moral code. Two wrongs do not make a right of course, but this never justifies constructing a simplistic fairytale of oppressed and oppressor just for convenients sake if the real story is far more complicated than that.
My conclusion is simply to hesitate, gather more evidence, read a wider variety of articles on the subject before you make a moral judgement on either the Sri Lankan military OR the Tamil Tigers, because things are seldom as simple as they appear.
Tamil supporters demonstrating in Britain don't accept the war is over. Their protests in London demand action from the governnment. 19/5/09
ReplyDeleteLink: http://stuff.co.nz/world/2423120/Tamil-protesters-refuse-to-believe-Tigers-defeat
it has been seen time and time again that violence should not be used to curb violence. As this ultimately leads to a downwards spiral...
ReplyDeleteMany tamils do not believe the war is over and do not belive the Sinhalese government will not grant them equal rights. \
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/outside-sri-lanka-tamil-diaspora-not-ready-to-surrender/ This is a really interesting blog about the views of Tamils who love outside of Sri Lanka
This is certainly an interesting post and I do agree with much of what 'TheRothmanator' had to say. The unfortunate fact is, there is probably little non-violent action the government could have taken to sucessfully halt alot of the Tamil action. The reality is the UN can advise but there is not much else they can do quickly.
ReplyDeleteThe Tamils have had a certain degree of decent motivation behind their actions in wanting some independence and sepeartion in order to fully recognise their separate beleifs. However, the tactics they have used have been atrocious- the shame is that the Sri Lankan government has taken so long to take such a big action in supressing them. If they had targeted and tried to compromise with them earlier, realising they had reasonable claims, this might have prevented such extreme 'terrorism' by the Tamils and it is likely that the government would then have been able to use less violent or non violent tactics. We see this problem all around the world, all the time, where action is not taken sooner to try solve problems that often then become bigger and bigger problems which cause harm to more and more innocent people.
Overall, I think some degree of negotiation may be necessary between the government and the suggested remaining Tamil supporters that have been mentioned.
Ahhhhhhh. Ahhhhh. More perspective when it comes to looking at terrorism? You are absolutely right.
ReplyDeleteHowever. There are a horrendously large amount of layers that need to be looked at. The military may be accountable in NZ, but it is less accountable in the USA and even less so in Sri Lanka. A peaceful solution in Sri Lanka was possible, however aggression by parties on both sides lead to a violent renewal of the conflict.
This, and the conflict in Israel and Palestine are giant multifaceted issues. Any undergraduate university level student who feels that they have an adequate grasp of these conflicts is, to be blunt, wrong.
I will say this though. Armed conflict will never solve issues like these. Human life is far to valuable to be thrown away because some people whose lives are not at risk are feeling bullheaded.
Youre right, Mr. Rothmanator.. the I dont think we can simply blame the Tamil Tigers as being evil, or just label them 'terrorists' without hesitating and thinking throughly. But are we really qualified to be able to make moral judgements though? Arent we just judging them on our terms anyway?
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to note what happens though.. cause yknow when we studied whether a violent revolution can ever lead to a proper democracy? This might be a good case for it.. to see how they as a country can rise above the tragedies that have occured.
Hehe but this is not exactly a case study for a a violent revolution succeeding...
ReplyDeleteSome valid points Rothman. Many commentators are quick to adopt that simplistic, dualistic approach to armed conflict. I do think however that arguments such as ‘terrorists place civilians between them and us’ or ‘terrorist don’t play by the same rules’ are too often used as justifications for state terror. For example, if the United States invades and occupies another country against the will of the international community, uses torture, and slaughters 1.2 million people, that is justifiable. If Iran wants to supply Hamas and Hizbollah to push the United States out, the Iranian National Guard becomes a ‘terrorist’ organisation. In fact, one of the largest terrorist campaigns of the 20th century was carried out by the US in a CIA operative known as Operation Mongoose, as a means of collapsing the Castro regime internally. But that’s not called terrorism, its called strategic operations.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that terrorism is just a word for those that oppose United States and Western imperialism. How can you win a War on Terror with terror? If you truly consider it, that war can never be won. You can’t wake up one day and say we killed all the terrorists. It seems that when the US kills a teenage boy’s entire family in a bombing raid, there’s your next terrorist. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle.