The Conflict in Sri Lanka and the Responsibility to Protect
In mid 2008, the Sri Lankan government began a military offensive against LTTE rebels. Civilians trapped by the fighting face a double peril: if they flee, they risk being killed by the LTTE; if they stay, they must face the government’s bombardment. All this has prompted some humanitarian advocates to invoke the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (RtoP) principle. Are they right to do so?
The US proposal to end war in Sri Lanka
The Sri Lankan government’s victory at the Western Provincial Council election held on April 25, 2009 can only have added to its confidence that it is proceeding on the popular path with regard to the war in the north. At these elections the ruling alliance secured 65 percent of the popular vote, which is a huge margin of victory. But what of the international response?
Sri Lanka Needs Peace, Not R2P
Proponents of “responsibility to protect” or “R2P” have been linking their concept in recent weeks to the waning civil war in Sri Lanka. Are they right to do so? Talk of R2P may well distract from what should be a clear and unified demand to both sides: Cease fire.
The Bi-Polar Perspective and the Sri Lankan Crisis
The Sri Lankan government is losing the ideological battle while it is winning the military battle. This has tremendous implications for policymaking. Even if the government completely vanquishes the LTTE, the government could be pressured into an unfair and unsustainable political settlement due to the deeply entrenched ethnic analysis.
Sri Lanka’s military showdown may not be the end of its war with Tamil separitists
It is likely in the coming days that the Tamil Tigers lose their last piece of territory. However, without a political agreement to address the grievances of Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority, Sri Lanka will continue to be beset by a different, and perhaps more intractable, type of conflict.
