13 - 07 - 11
Terrorism is a loaded word that is defined as violent acts intended to create fear with disregard or deliberate targeting of civilians. The boundaries drawn are already very blurred, as any act of violence by a group will have some component of fear. The UN bombing of Gadaffi's palace has a component of fear the world hopes will discourage his supporters. The fear aspect of the definition I feel is therefore misleading, and in any case, is far too complicated to pigeonhole real world acts and circumstances into. The word itself has been and will be used controversially. As the saying goes; one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. State authorities have begun using the term to delegitimize opposition as the instant negative connotations associated with the word have been drilled into our brains throughout the last decade (even Gaddafi has been using the word against those that disagree) as buzzwords that are said to provoke a “feeling” in us. Don’t fall for it…
Terrorism is a loaded word that is defined as violent acts intended to create fear with disregard or deliberate targeting of civilians. The boundaries drawn are already very blurred, as any act of violence by a group will have some component of fear. The UN bombing of Gadaffi's palace has a component of fear the world hopes will discourage his supporters. The fear aspect of the definition I feel is therefore misleading, and in any case, is far too complicated to pigeonhole real world acts and circumstances into. The word itself has been and will be used controversially. As the saying goes; one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. State authorities have begun using the term to delegitimize opposition as the instant negative connotations associated with the word have been drilled into our brains throughout the last decade (even Gaddafi has been using the word against those that disagree) as buzzwords that are said to provoke a “feeling” in us. Don’t fall for it…
As someone who does not prescribe to a deity, I hold the opinion that not all life is equal. Humans, I believe are more important than other animals, just as a cow is more important than a fly. Even such proponents of the 'all life is sacred' philosophy such as a Buddhist or Hindu would save the life of a human child over a pup. Within the homo sapien sapiens species, further classifications on importance can be dictated by the moral character of a person. Put simply, I believe the life of a good person is worth more than of a bad person. While I hold that opinion, I would never condone the murder of any innocents. Terrorists kill innocents and for that reason I will never back a terrorist organisation. With that said, people have to look at causes and whether there are any real justifications for actions. Painting everyone with the same ignorant brush is not an accurate analysis of a situation nor is it an effective way to resolve the issues. It is also a naive Bush-like (his administration came up with the phrase 'War on Terror' and classified an enormous variety of violent groups together under the label 'terrorist') way to deal with a problem that will elevate simple earthly conflicts to grand universal arenas as if there is some eternal fight between good and evil that terrorists are on the wrong side of. In the real world, there are shades of grey, in fact thousands of shades of thousands of colours, some of which are impossible to compare. Some 'terrorists' want insane, ridiculous ends while others want something legitimate that they may be entitled to. If we first take a look at actually insane terrorists, these are generally (in today's world) extremist Muslims with unrealistic demands like the total eradication of infidels. They are willing to throw their lives away not because they are brave men with a personal stake in the fight through years of injustice (they believe they will be rewarded when they die - not bravery) but because they are weak-willed and indoctrinated. They fight their cosmic wars because of their interpretations of out-dated sacred texts (the only thing that differentiated middle-class, westernised Osama Bin Laden from his siblings was his religiosity…). If those texts never existed, neither would they. They are not fighting for any worldly reason that can be justified to any objective observer. On the other hand of the debate are groups like Hamas and the Tamil Tigers. Do they kill innocents? Yes, and that is wrong. Do they have any sort of worldly justification? Again, yes. If you take a group's land away or treat them as second class citizens in their own countries, you are asking for trouble. Would you corner and beat a lion only to blame it for biting your hand off?
Last week Channel 4 aired their documentary on war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan government in the final weeks of an epic 26 year old civil war as well as atrocities committed by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). The horrible wrong-doings on the government's part are the second large unpunished acts of minor genocide (I hesitate to use the word) in the last 30 years carried out by the Sinhalese majority on the Tamil minority. Those not versed in Sri Lankan history, the first occurred in July 1983 (known as Black July). As with a lot of conflicts worldwide, it was a result of colonial rule and the inevitable departure. The Europeans preferred Tamils and would have them in positions of power (universities and politics were English dominated and due to missionary camps being set-up in the North and East of Sri Lanka, the Tamil-heavy areas, Tamils rose disproportionately to importance), which with independence was subsequently reversed to make Tamils legally and socially unequal to the Sinhalese. They could no longer get a decent education or job and Sinhalese was made the only national language with the 1956 'Sinhala Only Act'. From independence onward, there were countless reasonably minor explosions of tension including mob attacks, ethnic riots, arsine, etc. The real start of the conflict can be traced to an attack on and death of 15 army soldiers in 1983. Over the course of July that year, the retaliation from the Sinhalese civilian population was astronomical, with thousands of Tamils rounded up and murdered, while hundreds of thousands were left homeless as they had to flee the violence (the reason there are so many Tamils in the UK, Canada and other parts of Europe). Essentially, government support was unofficially given to the mobs as they were equipped with voter registration lists to identify the location of Tamils. Weak-willed actions such as unforced curfews were declared which were seen as more a partial face-saving tactic that actual deterrent. Can you imagine a government sitting back while one ethnicity of citizens slaughtered another? From that point on, the relationship between the two language ethnicities has been bloody and brutal with the rise of a number of Tamil militant groups.
Even that simplified version of history shows why such groups as the LTTE exist. More importantly, it shows that addressing the problem will require more than the disbanding of the LTTE. If your son hits your daughter for throwing his toy at him and breaking it, you don't only just discipline your son. He reacted to the situation. In the real world, he reacted out of necessity or perceived necessity. I'm not saying what the son did was right, just that to resolve the issue, both parties need to make fundamental changes. Even until today, not one person has been charged with any crimes relating to Black July 1983 or the war crimes outlined by Channel 4. It is easy to see why some Sri Lankan Tamils may become angered when their home country and country of ethnic origin (at least for a few hundred years) is complacent and even the cause of destroying large portions of their own people. So much so that they would openly wave the flags of and associate themselves with those that kill innocents (LTTE). Every son of a murdered Tamil in 1983 grew up with an intense hate and desire for independence. A counter argument may take the form of 'peace is always the better option', but if you look throughout history, the number of battles won by peaceful means is outnumbered by the battles won involving violence by probably 10,000:1. Peace is the better situation to exist in, no doubt, but not really an effective tool to get to such a state for most conflicts (at certain times in history). In fact, peace really only works (in pre-communication boom history) as a tool when you have majorities (i.e. most Indians wanted independence from the British, all African-Americans wanted equal rights, most Libyans and Egyptians wanted their leaders out). Things have to be brought to a standstill to achieve any form of substantial change (see tube strikes, etc). When it is 10% of a population, the other 90% will go on living their lives or quell the noise and it will be totally ineffective in showing up on the international radar. Unless the world is looking at you, the majority can do and post-fabricate any story they want. I do not see a peaceful march on August 1983 making any difference or receiving any global attention.
It is looking hopeful that with communication as it is nowadays, the effectiveness of peaceful dissent is increasing. Although the world is watching closer, people have a tendency to become desensitised to and disinterested in distant struggles (as we've seen with Libya). There are still further steps that need to be made to increase peaceful change, but there can be no violent resolution to this conflict anymore. I do not see any future where the army after becoming overwhelmed by the violence, decide to surrender to the LTTE's demands. I fear the exposé by Channel 4 (during the final weeks, hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils were marching against these atrocities in London alone. For them, the Channel 4 documentary was not really revelatory. People wonder why groups lean towards violent methods when hundreds of thousands marching with the number stretching into the millions world-wide barely registers as a blip in the news cycle while one targeted bomb attack can fill the headlines for weeks) will probably add some fuel to the flame on both sides and push back chance of peace and prosperity a number of years. Despite this, justice is fairly important, even if the previous massacre is perceived as too long gone to prosecute (though they're still rounding up Nazis....). Legal bodies have a much higher code to live by, which is why situations with governments engaging in vulgar acts are infinitely worse than those perpetrated by private groups. Under the definitions of terrorism, both the Sri Lankan government and LTTE have engaged in actions used to create fear with total disregard for civilian lives, yet only side is legally named as 'terrorists'...
Last week Channel 4 aired their documentary on war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan government in the final weeks of an epic 26 year old civil war as well as atrocities committed by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). The horrible wrong-doings on the government's part are the second large unpunished acts of minor genocide (I hesitate to use the word) in the last 30 years carried out by the Sinhalese majority on the Tamil minority. Those not versed in Sri Lankan history, the first occurred in July 1983 (known as Black July). As with a lot of conflicts worldwide, it was a result of colonial rule and the inevitable departure. The Europeans preferred Tamils and would have them in positions of power (universities and politics were English dominated and due to missionary camps being set-up in the North and East of Sri Lanka, the Tamil-heavy areas, Tamils rose disproportionately to importance), which with independence was subsequently reversed to make Tamils legally and socially unequal to the Sinhalese. They could no longer get a decent education or job and Sinhalese was made the only national language with the 1956 'Sinhala Only Act'. From independence onward, there were countless reasonably minor explosions of tension including mob attacks, ethnic riots, arsine, etc. The real start of the conflict can be traced to an attack on and death of 15 army soldiers in 1983. Over the course of July that year, the retaliation from the Sinhalese civilian population was astronomical, with thousands of Tamils rounded up and murdered, while hundreds of thousands were left homeless as they had to flee the violence (the reason there are so many Tamils in the UK, Canada and other parts of Europe). Essentially, government support was unofficially given to the mobs as they were equipped with voter registration lists to identify the location of Tamils. Weak-willed actions such as unforced curfews were declared which were seen as more a partial face-saving tactic that actual deterrent. Can you imagine a government sitting back while one ethnicity of citizens slaughtered another? From that point on, the relationship between the two language ethnicities has been bloody and brutal with the rise of a number of Tamil militant groups.
Even that simplified version of history shows why such groups as the LTTE exist. More importantly, it shows that addressing the problem will require more than the disbanding of the LTTE. If your son hits your daughter for throwing his toy at him and breaking it, you don't only just discipline your son. He reacted to the situation. In the real world, he reacted out of necessity or perceived necessity. I'm not saying what the son did was right, just that to resolve the issue, both parties need to make fundamental changes. Even until today, not one person has been charged with any crimes relating to Black July 1983 or the war crimes outlined by Channel 4. It is easy to see why some Sri Lankan Tamils may become angered when their home country and country of ethnic origin (at least for a few hundred years) is complacent and even the cause of destroying large portions of their own people. So much so that they would openly wave the flags of and associate themselves with those that kill innocents (LTTE). Every son of a murdered Tamil in 1983 grew up with an intense hate and desire for independence. A counter argument may take the form of 'peace is always the better option', but if you look throughout history, the number of battles won by peaceful means is outnumbered by the battles won involving violence by probably 10,000:1. Peace is the better situation to exist in, no doubt, but not really an effective tool to get to such a state for most conflicts (at certain times in history). In fact, peace really only works (in pre-communication boom history) as a tool when you have majorities (i.e. most Indians wanted independence from the British, all African-Americans wanted equal rights, most Libyans and Egyptians wanted their leaders out). Things have to be brought to a standstill to achieve any form of substantial change (see tube strikes, etc). When it is 10% of a population, the other 90% will go on living their lives or quell the noise and it will be totally ineffective in showing up on the international radar. Unless the world is looking at you, the majority can do and post-fabricate any story they want. I do not see a peaceful march on August 1983 making any difference or receiving any global attention.
It is looking hopeful that with communication as it is nowadays, the effectiveness of peaceful dissent is increasing. Although the world is watching closer, people have a tendency to become desensitised to and disinterested in distant struggles (as we've seen with Libya). There are still further steps that need to be made to increase peaceful change, but there can be no violent resolution to this conflict anymore. I do not see any future where the army after becoming overwhelmed by the violence, decide to surrender to the LTTE's demands. I fear the exposé by Channel 4 (during the final weeks, hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils were marching against these atrocities in London alone. For them, the Channel 4 documentary was not really revelatory. People wonder why groups lean towards violent methods when hundreds of thousands marching with the number stretching into the millions world-wide barely registers as a blip in the news cycle while one targeted bomb attack can fill the headlines for weeks) will probably add some fuel to the flame on both sides and push back chance of peace and prosperity a number of years. Despite this, justice is fairly important, even if the previous massacre is perceived as too long gone to prosecute (though they're still rounding up Nazis....). Legal bodies have a much higher code to live by, which is why situations with governments engaging in vulgar acts are infinitely worse than those perpetrated by private groups. Under the definitions of terrorism, both the Sri Lankan government and LTTE have engaged in actions used to create fear with total disregard for civilian lives, yet only side is legally named as 'terrorists'...
When you hear words like terrorist or communist, please look a little further than the programming we're all wired to react with. The real world is not a Frank Miller graphic novel with morally absolute characters and black and white extremes. Everyone has a reason for their actions, no matter how terrible and while those reasons rarely justify extreme violence, they are symptoms of a deeper problem. The American kids who walk into schools and kill other students, no matter how awful, had their reasoning. If we just see them as pure evil entities, we will never address the issue of what caused them to act in such a way in the first place. It all depends on what you wish to achieve; if you need someone to point the finger at, carry on with the blanket definitions, but if you wish to prevent such actions in the future, a little more thought will be needed. To move forward, we need to evaluate validity of reasoning and analyse what needs to changed….on all sides.
PS. Personally I do not see the benefit of a two state solution. As every country world-wide is becoming more globalised and integrated with each other, forming gigantuous legislative bodies (EU, NATO, etc), does Sri Lanka really need to be one of the few backtracking? Whether two state or not, Tamils and the Sinhalese still have to live side by side, and exclusive nationalism on either side will only complicate the situation. There needs to be heavy repercussions for any racially motivated crimes. There needs to be more integration between the two peoples until if people wish for an ethnic battle, they will have to be willing kill their neighbours or their own son's wife, etc. Tamils closing themselves off with a separate country will only help to stir the feelings of injustice that any Tamil with a memory that goes back to the 1983 or 2009 will have, into manifesting as violent thoughts. Two countries with a very recent history of ill-will and violence, with two separate ethnicities and languages inhabiting the same island will never end well...
PS. Personally I do not see the benefit of a two state solution. As every country world-wide is becoming more globalised and integrated with each other, forming gigantuous legislative bodies (EU, NATO, etc), does Sri Lanka really need to be one of the few backtracking? Whether two state or not, Tamils and the Sinhalese still have to live side by side, and exclusive nationalism on either side will only complicate the situation. There needs to be heavy repercussions for any racially motivated crimes. There needs to be more integration between the two peoples until if people wish for an ethnic battle, they will have to be willing kill their neighbours or their own son's wife, etc. Tamils closing themselves off with a separate country will only help to stir the feelings of injustice that any Tamil with a memory that goes back to the 1983 or 2009 will have, into manifesting as violent thoughts. Two countries with a very recent history of ill-will and violence, with two separate ethnicities and languages inhabiting the same island will never end well...
