How Sri Lanka defeated the LTTE

[Bill Moore]

Neil,

Outstanding article! One area where we may disagree on is the value of one of the factors listed, and that is the Chinese aid. As you mentioned the conflict ebbed and flowed over the years, and more than once in the 1990s the Sri Lankan forces "almost" defeated the LTTE militarily, but they were not able to sustain the fight and had to pull back allowed the LTTE to reconstitute its military organization. With the billion dollars Chinese aid (and the other factors you listed) the Sri Lankans were able sustain their assault until victory was realized.

Despite the claims of extreme left in Europe and the U.S. the LTTE was not a widely popular groups among the Tamils, as they tortured, terrorized and murdered their own people to garner support. If the West will get off its high horse and stop pushing for war crimes (based on tragic, but normal behavior during wars) and instead assist the Gov of Sri Lanka in providing humanitarian aid to the Tamils it may be possible to build a lasting peace.

The good governance argument has no merit there, as the LTTE would have been worse for the Tamils than the Sri Lankan government. This was a power struggle between leaders waged military, not a struggle over ideas of how to govern better. It is very naive in my view to think that if Sri Lanka changed their discriminatory behavior towards and offered additional financial aid to the Tamils that the LTTE would have stopped fighting.

The LTTE is one brutal organization I'm glad to see defeated, and wish would do the same elsewhere in the world. Not every insurgent/terrorist leader has the welfare of his people in mind, and it is western foolishness to believe that is the case.

Just like the defeated Germans and Japanese needed help at end of WWII, the Tamils need help now. We didn't apologize to the German people for all their civilians killed to defeat Hitler, or have to ward off silly claims of war crimes. We focused on doing what was right, and we need to help the Sri Lankan Government do the same for the Tamil people, instead of pushing for war crimes.

[Bob's World]

I sense my bow has been scorched by the shot fired across it! I do agree that this is a well researched, well written article. I won't however jump on the celebratory bandwagon just yet.

To be clear, I have never said that the insurgent offers "good governance" (though they will certainly promise it); only that they emerge to challenge "poor governance." The difference is significant, and clearly applies here, as the Sinhalese majority of southern Sri Lanka saw independence for Great Britain as their opportunity to create a Bhudist, Sinhalese homeland, banning the language and culture of the Hindu Tamil minority in the north. All to often it is a greater evil than the one in power that emerges to challeng poor governance. Too often good people will support the cause of change, but will not take the step to become outlaws to challenge the government directly.

I will not laud the LTTE, they were every bit as bad as Bill says; but that has little to do with what caused them to emerge, and what will in turn cause some new organization to emerge in due time; as I suspect that little has been done to address the conditions that gave rise to the LTTE in the course of the military defeat of the LTTE.

Celebrate the victory, but understand that it is merely a suppression of a particular insurgent movement, and that the grace offered is temporary unless the underlying issues are addressed as well. By understanding the role of governnce in insurgency it enables clear thinking. This defeat is an opportunity, but only if taken advantage of will it really mean anything in the long run. Hopefully the brutal tactics of the government did not dig a hole so deep that they can never climb out of it.

Now is the time to put pressure on the government to focus on true reforms that include the entire populace, not to believe that somehow the problem is resolved through military action alone. Also to engage the Tamil people to refocus as well, and to work with the government and if forced to act out illegally again to strongly consider the use of non-violent tactics that have worked so effectively for others in similar situations.

This is not the end, it is a beginning. Time will tell where this beginning leads.

[Bill Moore]

Bob, my shots are directed at your argument, not you. I think the argument that we "need" to always address the underlying root cause is dangerously misleading. Sri Lanka is another example of where the world is continuing to pay for bad British decisions (not unlike most of the Middle East). Tamils were imported to Sri Lanka to work the tea plantations and given some degree of preference. This gets at my opposition to the "its the tribe stupid" strategy (if you dare call it a strategy). When your policies drive a wedge between peoples, the underlying issue is hate and greed, not poor government (governments can contribute to the level of hate as Hitler's party did, but it can't extinguish the level of hate / greed, as we saw in our own reconstruction efforts in the south after the Civil War).

There was no amount of good governance after the conflict started that would bring the conflict to an end in Sri Lanka, and one side had to win, or the people would have continued to suffer for more years if the war continued to drag out without a decisive victory (no matter how short lived it may be).

War amongst peoples is rarely if ever rational, it is based upon emotion, not simply some government policy. Those colonized hated their colonizers. After the colonizers left there were (and many continue) many battles for power, but not so much over failed governance, it was just that some other group wanted to be charge so they could steal from the people.

The issue wasn't good governance and very few people are fighting for it, they're fighting for their tribe, group, religion, region, etc.

Every conflict is different, but I would argue in wars amongst people very few are about good governance for the collective whole, but rather what's in it for their group. We can support this baboon level of society by playing tribal games, or we can try to instill western forms of government, but I suspect both will backfire. What will work, has been proven to work, is defeating our enemies in battle, and we all know that victory (all victories) are short lived affairs.

[Dayuhan]

Might make sense to think less of "good governance", which carries with it our implicit assumptions about what is or is not "good", and think instead of "perceived good governance". I may define "good governance" as "governance by me", or as "that form of bad governance that is best for me", or as "governance by anybody but these &%$#@"... in each case, what I have to offer is unlikely to fit your definition of what's "good", but it might fit mine... at least until I get it, anyway!

[Bob's World]

Well, I will not argue against the hard cold facts of "might makes right," even a country like the U.S. that sees itself as a shining example goodness leans heavily on "or we'll destroy your economy or kick your ass." as the tag line when we engage others.

But what you offer is an endless cycle of bloody conflict without end; and I think we can do better than that by thinking more about why conflicts start rather than about how to suppress the next uprising. Taking your argument to the logical conclusion, an advisor to the government of Sri Lanka should tell them the current victory is a half measure, and that they will only have stability when they have killed or driven off the island every last Tamil. Of course that leaves 60,000,000 very pissed of Tamils just a few miles away in India...

But as you say, these things are complicated, and indeed, shaking off the disruptions caused by generations of Western Colonialism is at the heart of many of the insurgent conflicts we've seen since, oh, about the beginning of Western Colonialism. But in Sri Lanka there are two distinct groups of Tamils as I understand it: those who have lived there for centuries and those who were imported to work the tea; but regardless, the fact is that they are all there now and must learn to live together as a nation if they want the cycle of violence to end.

When I say "must" address conditions of Poor Governance (defined as perceptions from the perspective of the insurgent segment of the populace, and often irrational to the counterinsurgents perspective, and possibly quite disconnected from fact as well); I don't mean we are compelled to engage to fix it. Much of this type of conflict is really none of our business and we set ourselves up for international terrorist attacks when we take one side over the other. No, I mean "must" as in if one wants to see true resolution of the problem they must address the roots and not just attack the symptoms.

I suspect if I looked at the Sri Lanken Constitution I would find a document that allows or perhaps even drives the type of discrimination that fuels this conflict. I suspect that if I look at the laws and polices of the government in general I would find the same.

So, my perspective and advice to the government and people there remains the same:

"The current victory is just a suppression of the symptoms of insurgency. The true insurgency is not the LTTE who you have defeated, but rather lives in the hearts and minds of the Tamil people who perceive that the governance of Sri Lanka as applied to them is poor. They may not accept your legitimacy, so look hard at how you fill governmental positions and ensure that it is a process that all have an opportunity to participate in and shape. They may feel that the rule of law as applied to them is not just. Look to your justice system and assess it carefully as to if it is biased against or for some groups over others, or if it is untimely, or too harsh, or too easily manipulated, etc. They may feel that they do not receive equal respect and opportunity as a matter of status. Human biases are natural, so laws must be enacted and enforced that protect against such abuses, whereas many of the laws you have enacted since independence have actually codified them. Fix this. Lastly, build off ramps for insurgency. True insurgency is about politics, and while it is impossible to create a society where all is harmony and everyone agrees on the big issues, it is not impossible to create governmental systems that ensure that every segment of the society has an equal and fair representation in the government, and that change can be affected in regular, certain, and trusted ways. The Tamils are a minority, so pure democracy will always leave them out. Consider modifications such as we employed in the US to protect against the dangers of democracy, such as the balancing equal representation by region, as well as equal representation by populace to ensure that critical regional issues are not run over by a larger populace in another region. As to the Tamils, you need to push for these changes as well, but you will not likely succeed through violence. The LTTE elevated your cause and showed that you have the will and ability to fight, now it is time to take your argument to the media, to the courts, to the streets in peaceful demonstration. To employ a type of pressure for governmental evolution through non-violent tactics that history shows are more likely to yield the results you seek."

Yes, every insurgency manifests uniquely based on all of the many factors at work. But they all involve people, and they all involve some group that is grossly dissatisfied with their current lot under the current government; and there are indeed commonalities in that fact. I'm sure I don't have it exactly right, but I am equally sure I am digging in the right location.

Besides, even if I am wildly wrong, there are thousands of others out their selling threat-centric and population centric techniques for addressing the symptoms of insurgency, so that's pretty well covered. The fact is that the symptoms must be managed, and there is merit in both of those camps, so I am fine with the content of their work, I just don't think it can actually resolve an insurgency though. I think there is room for at least one to dig for the roots.

[davidbfpo]

I know very little about how Sri Lanka defeated the LTTE in Sri Lanka, so my comment is directed at the diaspora faraway - yes, in Europe.

The police in London appear to have been surprised by the numbers mobilised to protest outside Parliament, when the offensive reached a peak. See the BBC reports on the start: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8007858.stm and at the end: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8056441.stm

There remains the issue of fund raising within the diaspora, whether coerced or not is a moot point. An issue that affects other countries, even in places like Switzerland.

I do wonder how the diaspora will be effected by learning what has happened since the LTTE's military defeat. Can that feeling be transferred to non-LTTE activities?

A big snag is that the diaspora Tamil communities speak a language that few outsiders speak or understand and there is plenty of "room" for a knowledge gap.

[Dayuhan]

Yes, every insurgency manifests uniquely based on all of the many factors at work. But they all involve people, and they all involve some group that is grossly dissatisfied with their current lot under the current government; and there are indeed commonalities in that fact. I'm sure I don't have it exactly right, but I am equally sure I am digging in the right location.

I also think you're digging in the right direction, but there are some roots in the hole. For one... I think it's true that insurgency is almost always based on popular dissatisfaction and popular perceptions of bad governance. It would be a huge mistake, though, to assume that any given insurgent group or set of insurgent leaders represents popular aspirations, that their agendas have anything to do with the will of the people, that their leaders have the interests of the people in mind, or that they negotiate (if they do) on behalf of the people. More often insurgent leaders are trying to leverage popular anger to support their own agendas and their own desire for power.

In these cases addressing the governance issues may remove the incentive to fight and gradually erode the support base and rank-and-file fighter base of the insurgency. It will not convince leaders to modify their demands or agendas, because all the leaders want is power, not something easily compromised.

The case of Sri Lanka appears to represent something analogous to what we've seen several times in the Philippines: defeating an insurgent group does not eliminate the causes of insurgency, but it does open a window of opportunity for government to step in and produce some results, a window that probably cannot be opened any other way. If the government fails to exploit that window, more fighting is likely down the line, as has always been the case in the Philippines.

Military victory in these cases should not be seen as an end in itself, but rather as a necessary means to an end. It doesn't resolve the issues, but it creates space that government can exploit to achieve resolution. If government fails... back on the wheel, and the losers, as always, are the people.

[Bob's World]

The rise of an insurgent group should be seen by government primarily as a clear metric that they are missing the mark in major way. The government should then exercise the rule of law in a just fashion with the illegal actor (the insurgent), while as the same time focusing on what it is they are doing wrong and need to address.

In no way does the rise of an insurgent group mean that that group is the solution to the problem of poor governance. Too few George Washington's, and far too many Adolf Hitlers out there who emerge to take advantage of these situations. Again though, it is best I believe to see insurgency as a condition that exists within a populace, and not an organization that rises to take advantage of that condition. The organizations that rise may be worse than the current government. It is the condition that is important and must be addressed. A government that refuses to evolve, that refuses to recognize and address the condition of insurgency deserves what it gets; sadly it is the populace that loses out, as they are the ones caught in the middle, and often have one bad government defeated only to be made subject to one that is worse.