The recent military operation in Sri Lanka has once again intensified the debate on the use of military power to attain ‘lasting or permanent peace’. This notion breeds on the assumption that insurgency can be curbed through military offensives; and it perpetuates on the perception of ‘destroy to rebuild’. The Sri Lankan government therefore has insisted that their “humanitarian intervention” is not just to crush the Tamil Tigers, but free the Tamil civilians from the LTTE.
The Tamil Tigers launched a persistent and bloody armed movement for over a quarter of a century for the realization of Eelam. From being a small group of revolutionaries fighting for the rights of the Tamil minorities in Sri Lanka, they emerged into a well-organised sophisticated armed group feared for its suicide missions and wanton use of violence. They managed to run a parallel government and controlled a substantial portion of territory, and was virtually a de facto state. The Tamil Tigers had the best opportunity to legitimize their power and attain the rights of the Tamils – even if it was in phases – with the Norwegian led peace initiative. This was however not to be; partly because of its own inability to conceive the future.
Subsequently, with the lack of progress towards a negotiated settlement and with Rajapaksa assuming political power in Colombo, the peace process began to falter. President Rajapaksa and his government with great resolve launched its new found military might to exterminate the Tigers by all means. Over 200,000 civilians were caught in a tiny coastal strip with none or very little access to flee the war zone. UN estimates that between January 7 and May 7, 2009 about 7000 was killed and more than 16,700 severely wounded. International Red Cross managed to evacuate about 10,000 wounded civilians from the no-fire zone. Despite strict media restrictions, the world saw that there was no regard for civilians.
The UN has said the conflict had killed between 80,000 and 100,000 people since erupting into full-scale civil war in 1983. About 300,000 Tamils are in government run refugee camps. Doctors who treated the wounded had to flee from the area due to indiscriminate heavy shelling of the area and the International Red Cross called the situation ‘unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe’. James Elder, the Unicef spokesman in Sri Lanka, said: “We are seeing a complete disregard for civilian life. It is hard to think of a worse place on earth to be right now than on that stretch of beach”. In his recent visit to the site, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon remarked, “this is the most appalling situation I have seen in my extensive experience and witness of war situation around the world”.
This latest military offensive by the Sri Lankan government for permanent peace has immediate consequences on Tamil-Sinhalese relations, and broader implications on how states in future will address political conflict. In this climate of suffering, humiliation, deprivation, collective sense of loss and trauma, the call for reconciliation seems rather premature, because the process of reconciliation demands a much more than just an end to violence. The questions of forgiveness, apology and political justice will need to be addressed if some progress is to be made towards the direction of reconciliation. Hence the repeated reminder by the Sri Lankan government on the need for a negotiated settlement with the Tamils in Sri Lanka and the necessity for devolution of power is a critical first step; that may create possibilities for a genuine reconciliation.
In the end, this war could prove to be far costlier than anticipated. While it emerged victorious in defeating the LTTE, the Sri Lankan government will still have to be held accountable for the loss and destruction meted upon Tamil civilians. Even though the LTTE was rightly condemned for the use of terror and violence, the organization did not exist in a vacuum; it was very much located within the Tamil community. And therefore, even as the Sri Lankan government celebrates the defeat of the LTTE, it may have on the other hand only further alienated the larger Tamil population who continue to articulate their rights for a Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka. The use of military force may have unwittingly created a greater sense of realization for the Tamils that their right to life may be protected only through a political settlement.
The Sri Lankan case here stresses the urgent need for a renewed global discussion on humanitarian intervention. The guile of the state to launch military operations in the guise of human intervention grossly undermines the commitment to work for protection and extension of human rights, set out in Chapter IX of the UN Charter on economic and social cooperation. Article 55 of the charter commits the United Nations to uphold the “universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” And accordingly, Article 56 reiterates that “all Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.
