« Prev Page

War is the Answer

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

International pressure is also mounting on Colombo to end the offensive and return to the table. U.S. economic aid to Sri Lanka has been curtailed over concern for human-rights violations in the war, and the EU may soon follow suit.

Achieving victory is still possible, analysts say. "If somehow [the government] can kill Prabhakaran, that would change the picture dramatically," says one senior analyst for a Western NGO in Colombo. Barring that, if the Army can deliver a few significant victories before January, it may buy Rajapaksa enough good will among the Sinhalese to allow him to continue the fight. For that reason, security experts expect another major push before the rainy season begins in June.

But the best chance for peace, analysts agree, involves combining the military campaign with a political strategy to empower moderate Tamil politicians and deprive the LTTE of support. Most Tamils on the island oppose the Tigers' calls for independence, though they do want more autonomy. Under a 1987 accord brokered by India, Sri Lanka passed a constitutional amendment that was supposed to transfer some powers to the provinces. But the Tigers refused to disarm as called for under the accord, and the amendment was never implemented in Tamil areas.

Rajapaksa has promised to correct this, but many doubt his sincerity. In the country's ethnically and religiously mixed east, which held provincial elections last week, the president's party has joined forces with the political wing of Karuna's former LTTE faction, which is unpopular with many mainstream Tamil groups. Many suspect Rajapaksa hopes to set up Karuna's party as a puppet regime in the Eastern Province, allowing Colombo to claim credit for devolving power while retaining full practical control.

C. R. Jayasinghe, the Sri Lankan ambassador to India, says that the government will abide by the provincial poll results and fully implement the constitutional amendment. Without a more serious effort to redress discrimination, however, many international commentators believe the military campaign can't succeed. The fighting alone "cannot be the whole solution, because that alone won't address the grievances of the minority community," says Susan Hayward of the United States Institute of Peace in Washington. Unfortunately, Rajapaksa, who is surrounded by Sinhalese hardliners, has shown little interest in truly reaching out to the Tamils. Which means that while there may well be a military solution to Sri Lanka's civil war, it probably isn't this one.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: thambirajan @ 04/11/2009 5:18:43 PM

Also get your facts right. Tamils make up less than 12% of the population of Sri Lanka. How is that a "quarter" as you claim? Ridiculous.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: thambirajan @ 04/11/2009 4:48:24 PM

Overall the majority of this piece was pretty neutral, for a change, but Why oh Why is every article on this issue always filled with several paragraphs of gibberish, which expose the authors for their lack of research ability and also their excellence at re-spouting terrorist propaganda?! Pathetic. Another note for the future, Jeremy, this war has never been about religion. It has been a tale of terrorists and their civilian supporters who saw their last best chance of dominating the Sinhalese (something which their ancestors for thousands of years had tried and failed miserably to achieve) as the Independence movement gathered momentum back in the 1940s. From those days onwards, they resorted to terrorism with the training of a succession of countries, starting with India's RAW, followed soon by the UK and Norway; and the funding of those completely oxymoronic organizations, the NGOs. Finally terrorism is being defeated, and the peace and prosperity of the Sinhalese and the Sinhala nation is about to be guarunteed once again. Thank you Rajapakse brothers, thank you Armed Forces, and above all, All Hail the Sinhalese!
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: thambirajan @ 04/11/2009 4:48:06 PM

First of all, there is only one Buddhist party, not the "parties" that you claim. Secondly, Tamils are not discriminated against. In actual fact, successive Sinhala governments have discriminated against the SINHALESE while tamils had free reign to dominate the civil service, professional classes, business, and land ownership - a disgusting remnant of colonial favouritism of the converted-to-Christianity tamils. Any attempts to redress this imbalance and bring equality to ALL citizens of Sri Lanka always leads to claims of "discrimination" by tamils. Please provide evidence of the "discrimination" and the lack of "interest in reaching out" before regurgitating pro-terrorist tamil propaganda.

Also, how APPALING to see a commentor desecrating the name of Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgama, a true son of Sri Lanka, a Tamil, and a man who was against tamil separatism and terrorism with every fibre of his being. Sadly, he was assassinated by the "liberators" and "saviours" of the Tamils, by an LTTE execution squad, one of hundreds of moderate Tamils executed by the LTTE with the support of their Diaspora and foreign agents (including NGOs and foreign "diplomats") in order to maintain their hold over the Tamil population.

Oh and lovejusticepeace, the red COLOUR existed before communists and communism. It is a colour that has been associated with the national flag of the Sinhalese and the Sinhala Nation since time immemorial - a flag that has been in existence for longer than most of these preaching hypocritical western nations and their terror supporting duplicitous officials and NGOs. Get OVER it.

This article started off on a bad note with the completely inaccurate and laughably unresearched claim of the existence of several Sinhala Buddhist "parties," although there is only one such party, which has little support from the Sinhala population. Then, it ends with the implication that people who are interested in preserving the sovereignty of an Ancient nation can be described as "hardliners." How would you then describe those who invade other countries which pose absolutely no threat to their own country? Silent on that eh?