[Reader-list] Sri Lanka: The dilemmas of peace activists, still strangled by simplistic rhetoric

[Vivek Narayanan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/15/sri-lanka-demonstration-tamil-tigers
Sri Lanka's divided demonstrators

Sri Lankan peace protesters, at home and abroad, are caught between the 
government and the Tamil Tigers
Comments (67)

* Malathi de Alwis


The mass protests of diaspora Tamils across the globe have drawn 
attention to the current state of the 30-year civil war in Sri Lanka. 
The routing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) by government 
(GoSL) forces has led to thousands of Tamil civilians being trapped in a 
"no-fire zone" along with the LTTE.

The vocal protests of the diaspora contrast sharply with the deafening 
silence of peace activists within Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan conflict is 
a complicated one with an extremely complex history. The divergent 
responses to the current situation must be understood in similarly 
nuanced ways.

The well-organised and orchestrated public demonstrations belie the fact 
that many diaspora Tamils have been coerced into marching under LTTE 
flags. Many wishing to carry placards appealing to both the GoSL and the 
LTTE have been beaten and intimidated into marching only under anti-GoSL 
slogans. This has resulted in a one-sided protest campaign that ignores 
the fact that civilians trapped in the "no-fire zone" are held hostage 
by the LTTE, who shoot those seeking to escape, plant suicide bombers 
among escapees and conscript civilian children to fight alongside them. 
This has made it impossible for Sri Lankan peace activists to declare 
their solidarity with the demonstrators.

Sri Lankan activists have also had to contend with an authoritarian GoSL 
which, like all modern regimes, only allows embedded journalists access 
to war zones and displacement camps, and also intimidates, arrests, 
disappears and murders those who question the legitimacy of the war. Nor 
does it have a clear set of political proposals that address Tamil 
grievances.

On the first two counts, this regime is no different from its 
predecessors. On the third, it is a lot worse. Nevertheless, previous 
political proposals acceptable to peace activists have been rejected by 
the LTTE, leading to growing support for a military option among the 
general populace. This is also the only regime that has been able to 
make steady and successful inroads into LTTE ranks and territory. There 
is a desperate thirst among Sri Lankans for an end to the war and the 
decommissioning of a liberation organisation turned fascist.

The possibility of an end to the war has created fissures among 
activists in the south and a re-defining of political stances. Some 
celebrate GoSL victories and argue that the LTTE should surrender 
without further jeopardising civilian lives. Others seek to mitigate 
war's effects through humanitarian ventures or pushing the GoSL to 
demilitarise IDP camps. Some denounce GoSL's recourse to militarism and 
continue to call for a ceasefire, despite this possibly prolonging the 
war. Others are too scared to speak because they will be construed to be 
partisan, either towards the LTTE or the GoSL. Such a context is not 
conducive to massed street protests.

Sri Lanka seems to have reached an impasse. Though the GoSL declared a 
two-day ceasefire in honour of the New Year, a festival shared by both 
communities, the LTTE has refused to honour it and prevented civilians 
from leaving their areas of control. The LTTE, in turn, has requested a 
longer, internationally-moderated ceasefire, which the GoSL rejects on 
the grounds that they will use such an opportunity to re-arm and 
re-group, as they have done during previous ceasefires. The real need is 
for the formulation of a set of political proposals that will be 
acceptable to democratic elements in all three communities – Sinhala, 
Tamil and Muslim (a crucial component of this conflict, who are too 
often ignored). This seems like a viable challenge that can be taken up 
by peace activists, even if we are unable to agree on the legitimacy of 
the war.