Sonique said,

February 25, 2007 @ 12:16 pm

“when past actions have proved there is no heart all theirs cryings sound like blood thirsty growls deservedly”

What?!?!

Che said,

February 25, 2007 @ 8:33 pm

Sonique,

I wish you hadn’t sullied the Rumsfeldian profundity of that last sentence.

Sittingnut,

As a matter of simple fact, you are totally and utterly wrong in attempting a distinction between the LTTE and the SPLM/A and the KLA. The point Publius seems to make is that the international community blackballed the SPLM/A and KLA for years as terrorists, with the result that the States they were opposing were emboldened to military adventurism, then in turn the intternational community gets digusted with the States and their gruesome amaturism, and the rebels have the last laugh. You will do your case immeasurable good if you get those facts right, and you certainly should do so before making scatter gun accusations of amnesia on the part of others.

Having said that, the more important question you raise is about the mismatch between what you see as the LTTE’s rhetoric and its actions, and indeed, its capacity to follow through on its rhetoric. It is certainly an interesting question to raise at this juncture in mid-conflict cycle. Let’s wait and see, but if your preference is for a military solution, you should pay more heed to the point Publius is making, than strike ill-informed and ultimately self-defeating postures. Remember that many anti-terrorist warriors have come to grief because of this, including Slobodan Milosevic.

aadhavan said,

February 25, 2007 @ 8:45 pm

Much of the latest media release smacks of LTTE legal adviser Rudrakumaran. A few months ago, he delivered a paper arguing that international law does not necessarily recognise the single state parameter as a necessary precondition for negotiations in solving intra state conflicts, citing examples from Sudan, Montenegro etc. I tend to think this highlights the problem with the LTTE. While on the one hand they have unwavering faith in the discourse of war, they also have this almost naive belief that studied, sophisticated arguments would convince the IC of the justness of the Tamil cause. They are to date, uncomfortable with the realpolitik of diplomatic wrangling with all its attendant chicanery and tact. The sooner they realise that international law is just a projection of international politics the better, for them, for Tamils and for all Sri Lankans.

Sanjana said,

February 25, 2007 @ 8:58 pm

That Sittingnut is in his own inimitable fashion attempting to engage with the content of the original post is in and of itself, rare and need to be encouraged. That he can only do so, Che, in what as you say is a rather Rumsfeldian fashion, is no surprise to those of us who have followed his ramblings online for a while. I expect your kind forbearance in this matter - he is quite excitable, and is often a victim to the words he pens down in haste.

However, he does raise an extremely important point - that the LTTE isn’t really saying anything new. We recall the Clogard smile of Tamilselvan as he repeatedly uttered the most dire threats and warning against the continued aggression, as he saw it, of the GOSL, last year, and how it would force the LTTE to take immediate action to safeguard its peoples and territory. That no such action, to the extent possible & expected given the LTTE’s past history of suicide attacks and guerrilla warfare, has taken place to date is indicative of a marked deterioration of their counter-attack capacity, attributable in part to the defection of Karuna.

My interest in the (excellent) original post is captured in the complex issues brought up by the last paragraph, which articulates an argument similarly expressed by Tisaranee Gunasekara (http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/4688):

“Though stability in South is important for the war in the North, this should not come at the expense of pluralist democracy. In fact any attempt by the regime (and its Sinhala hardline allies) to use the war to crack down on democratic rights and activities in the South would serve to de-legitimise the war in the eyes of not just the international community but also a substantial segment of the Sinhala South.

If ‘anti-government’ is equated with ‘pro-Tiger’, political opponents will be treated as national enemies. Southern society will be polarised and systemic stability undermined. And if Sri Lanka is seen by the world as a dictatorial country with scant respect for the basic rights of her peoples, it will render legitimacy to the Tigers’ quest for a separate state.”

Clearly, those who share a victory at all costs mentality fail to recognise that securing and safeguarding human rights is precisely the bulwark that separates “us” from “them”, if “us” is an elected, democratic state, and “them” are terrorists with scant regard for rights, democracy or pluralism, the eyes of the international community which both the State and LTTE jostle for acceptance in a perennial war for the moral high ground.

The issue, this year in particular, is how repressive the State will become to quash terrorism, and how much more vicious the terrorists will become the more they are pushed into a corner. The point that Publius makes about the total absence of a political imagination towards the framework for a political settlement, and the murky future for the APRC proposals, are deeply indicative of a regime hell bent on eradicating terrorism at all costs and at the same time blithely ignorant of the equally vital need to address the underlying causes of terrorism.

Arjun said,

February 25, 2007 @ 10:07 pm

Well here’s the US Ambassador supporting Publius:

‘I don’t think a military solution is possible without a parallel political strategy. The LTTE has significant capability to attack, using terrorist means. We should not underestimate that. I think there would be costs (to pay) to a military strategy. The most important thing in our view is to come up with a credible (political) process.’

———————

And here’s the (same) US Ambassador stating the less obvious:

‘The government is committed to peace. Every time I speak to (President Mahinda Rajapakse) and senior members of the government, they assure me they are committed to a peaceful settlement. I have no reasons to doubt that.

‘The military believes in a military solution but the policy of the government is to pursue (a negotiated settlement). At this point of time, without a proposal, there is nothing to negotiate over.

———————

And here’s the (still the same) US Ambassador on the LTTE:

‘As for the LTTE, I cannot say if they are committed to peace. Their record of 20 years shows they have never seriously pursued the peace option. The government will have to soon give them a chance to see if they are ready to negotiate in good faith.’

——————-

From http://www.indiaenews.com/srilanka/20070225/40845.htm

sittingnut said,

February 26, 2007 @ 9:40 am

che
opponents of sudan regime ( which was considered terrorist friendly) were never considered terrorists by ‘international community ‘ ( in fact the southern rebels were long aided by americans through uganda) even the more formidable southern rebels, let alone the ragtag darfur rebels. while kla was termed terrorists justifiably for a year or so mainly due to its islamic connections and drug trafficking its actions never matched ltte’s , while independence struggle in kosovo was led until serbin intervention by non violent politicians mr rugova for instance, hardly the case here. western intervention in kososvo was motivated by opposition to serbian regime (which engaged in variety of military adventures in croatia, serbia etc) than any particular support for kosovars.

nor did any of them engage in kinds of acts of terrorisms associated with ltte, al queda, or some palestinian terrorists. so there is a distinct distinction between ltte and rebels of sudan and kosovo. those are the facts on which i based my statements. i

to wait for ltte words to come true this time after their predicted failures to do so time and (time) again, while they go on with their oppression of the tamils under their control and attack the others either through terrorism, guerrilla, and conventional military means, do require a bout of amnesia.

‘international community ‘ more correctly actual individual foreign governments, general public, and gosl, cannot and will not, forget that unlike some other actors of negligible significance politically. they will not “wait and see” for ltte to come good. to expect an ‘intervention’ as in kosovo, sudan etc or even by india, and terrorists here having the ‘last laugh’ is to day dream, though some terrorist apologists are lobbying for it ( which should be countered ). i always base my statements on actual actions of those mentioned not on some far fetched speculations. btw india announced it is giving (another) ship to sri lankan navy. that fact says more about what is actually happening, than contradictory posturing of some diplomats or politicians for the consumption of various groups.
—

those here who expressed the sentiment that ltte terrorism was ‘justly’ caused, ( bc of very real and substantiated anti tamil discrimination, riots , etc perhaps) ,or taking the ltte’s claims at face value, should work out the logical implications of that statement and realize its highly racist, and damaging (and double edged) nature. even at the most basic level it implies intentionally killing innocents can be ‘just’ and that a whole ‘race’ support it. it is also wrong, as actions and feet of tamils and others in north and east, and the political victories through democratic means of once worse off other minorities in sri lanka have shown. may be they should look at themselves for developing some the qualities they accuse the government of lacking.

as always look at the substantiated actions to base your statements, you wont make such errors that way .
–
i on the other hand do make errors in english, so sonique etc. who were discussing last sentence of my first comment :
my apologies. i will be the first to admit my english is ‘bad’.
you on the other hand are such experts that after ( lets see…) the title of the post (what would fowler say?) you find my sentence gibberish, ”profound’ etc. oh well.

Che said,

February 26, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

Sittingnut,

Nice try, but doesn’t wash.

The SPLM/A and its predecessors from the time of the Torit Mutiny, through the Anyanya rebellion, were in fact considered terrorists and separatists, under the Cold War rules of the international game, by one pole or the other. So were they treated by the departing Brits as well as their condominium partners the Egyptians. This was a significant cause of what led to armed conflict rather than peaceful power-sharing. The fact that in the last two decades or so the West began supporting them (helped not least of all by their clever exploitation of the Christian identity in lobbying the American Right), has to do with their ability to assert themselves militarily and politically, and the comprehensive failure of the Khartoum regime to secure international support due to their unacceptable behaviour. This vindicates Publius’s argument about international politics, not yours.

The KLA was and what remains of it still is considered a terrorist organistion. The point about the entire conflict resolution discourse (which you and your fellow-travellers reject in the pursuit of jingoism, ignorance of history both short and long term, and a complete analytical incapacity to draw the self-evident lessons from experience), is precisely in engaging groups like the KLA and LTTE (the IRA is an even better example, if what you want are parallels of brutality and international crime) and locking them into a process of conflict transformation.

Interesting that you should bring up Ibrahim Rugova in the context of your argument. If you do not recall Ponnambalam Ramanathan, Ponnambalam Arunachalam, GG Ponnambalam, SJV Chelvanayakam, S Nadesan and A Amirthalingam, and what happened to them in their commitment to non-violence and parliamentary struggle for a constitutional accommodation of Tamil aspirations, then you know where the ‘amnesia’ hat fits.

Having attempted political repression of power-sharing claims within a united country, and thus having pushed the debate into armed conflict, people like you are now justifying even more repression to militarily deal with essentially a political and socio-economic problem. This is not only remarkably stupid, but also decidedly masochistic. The way to deal with LTTE thugs is not to unleash and legitimise a thuggish government, but to see how we can bring it into the democratic mainstream and foreclose the opportunities that can be used by it to return to violence. More broadly, the concern is also as to how we can ensure the end of violence-exalting politics on either side of the ethnic divide. Therefore, the laborious argument about justifying terrorism, is utterly misdirected.

You have wholly misunderstood what I meant when I said “let’s wait and see”. What I meant was that we are in the midst of a conflict cycle in which it will be interesting to see how both actors on the military front will next act. Your misrepresentation of this is thus a display of your own paranoia and does not reflect any sentiment held by me. The problem with people like you is that you cannot see the wood for the trees. The fact that I represent a viewpoint that sees conflicts as capable of peaceful resolution through negotiation, rationality and good will, aligns me with the way the world has moved since WW II.

An approach, as Sanjana lucidly points out above, that focusses on the politcal causes of terrorism does not make one condone terrorism. It is for this reason that while I find the LTTE’s methods reprehensible (just as much as the war-mongering politics of the JVP and JHU it might be added), that I see great urgency in addressing the poltical elements that give the LTTE sustenance in the interests of a peaceful, just and united Sri Lanka.

So India has donated / leased another coastguard vessel represents in your view an endorsement of the unitarian-militarism of this government, without any conditions attached (apart from of course the trade and economic related concessions that India extracts for these token gifts of a military nature, in addition to ensuring that Pakistan is not the sole military supplier of Sri Lanka)?

That is a particularly foolish argument to make given that India’s consistent policy on the ethnic question has been, continues to be, and will be that the Sri Lankan government must (a) negotiate a political solution, (b) devolving maximum power, (c) along the ethno-territorial unit set out in the Indo-Lanka Accord and repeated in the Oslo Declaration, and (d) for the purposes of (c), the merger of th North-East must be re-established. More intelligent commentators of your particular worldview routinely base their analysis on this basis.

So next time you decide to venture out, please cut out the tiresome conspiracy theories, and try and reflect a little more on our experience before impugning the intentions of those who are equally committed to a united Sri Lanka, and even more committed to a just peace than the ethno-religious supremacists and miltary adventurers now wielding power in Sri Lanka.

Che said,

February 26, 2007 @ 9:45 pm

Des - great point.

My own view is that if Karuna and the government hold the East, Publius’s argument is invalidated. But the story of the conflict from the 1980s is that neither the government nor the Tigers have been able to capture as well as hold territory. If either side was able to do this, then the matter may have been resolved either way, or at least, the trajectory would have been very different.

Therefore, what is interesting about the current phase of the conflict is whether all contributory factors such as the military balance in favour of the government, the support of the international community, the economic wherewithal to hold the East while the Northern campaign is sustained etc, would cohere to make the government’s strategy a success. If they do, then the traditional cycle would have been broken and we’ll have to see what that brings.

On the other hand, if experience repeats itself, then the government will get bogged down in the Vanni, effective control over the East will be lost through attritional guerrilla warfare, and the entire exercise would lead to another stalemate, leading to perhaps a conflux that occasions another peace initiative on the basis of what is left on the battlefield.

Any of these things are possibilities.

sittingnut said,

February 27, 2007 @ 9:20 am

che
you are free to think sundanese and kosovar rebels as same as ltte terrorists, that the world thinks otherwise is proved by their actions. world’s reaction ( as opposed to daydreams of some ppl) is the best answer to your contradictory arguments. while ltte fund raisers and arms buyers are arrested and convicted, rebels in those countries are provided with arms and funds. and that will not change.

you are free to select a few words from some diplomat etc. and make mountains, forgetting other words from same diplomat etc. in the real world ppl check actions.

same goes for your comments about indian policy. frankly as long as they know what ltte is, without amnesia, they do not have any choice but to selll/donate arms to gosl , crack down on ltte etc. and that is what they do.

if ltte do act like ira when it enters peace process instead of going on with killing, bombings, etc. and take steps to decommission its arms, it may make peace but in every attempt it did not keep faith. its commitment to peace is mere words only. may be when it is in the same weak situation as ira or when it lose its current leadership it may do what ira did.

when you say there are political causes for terrorism you are in fact justifying ltte. it had a choice like other minority politicians. it was not inevitable that it should choose terrorism if it wanted to fight for tamil rights. this is true even if earlier democratic politicians have failed. your argument is like saying if a person is hungry bc he was fired from earlier job ( may be unfairly ) he will inevitably steal. you probably do not see anything wrong in such a theft as well. most ppl do.
of course ltte is in fact not fighting for tamils but for itself like any group of criminals. that is merely its excuse. some fall for it

best answer to your justifications of ltte’s alleged ’cause’ is the political victories of other minorities through democratic means. in one instance, over one million ppl were enfranchised ( in country with 20 million ppl). that imo is great democratic victory.

tamils are not allowed that by ltte’s actions. may be you think such victories are too small and worthless?or too difficult and messy? may be you prefer an ‘all or nothing’ solution like the ltte ? well for your information democracy everywhere is messy , corrupt, and hard, you get some of what you want through hard work, tough negotiations, making ‘deals’, etc, so that most parties get some benefit. in a democracy ppl compromise ltte doesn’t as proved by its actions.

yes there are political grievances, but any sustainable solutions to them can only be arrived at in a democracy through democratic means, not by appeasing terrorism. sooner we have democratic tamil politicians willing and capable of working the system, and who are tolerably fairly elected and not appointed by ltte there is a way to address those grievances. ltte prevents that. you are free to defend them for preventing that.

you made a reference to conspiracy theories, may i ask what you are referring to bc i referred to actions not theories to back my statements. you on the other hand make use of speculations without a foundation on reality.

anyway thanks for your thoughts.

sonique:
“Again, what?!?!”
now what would fowler say to that… that ..what is it anyway? i don’t mind, but since you are so keen on ‘correct’ english you should mind,… i think.