“Conflict Area”

Whose conflict? Whose area?

On Feb. 27, the United Nations indicated that the Sinhala-Tamil civil war will not be a matter for discourse at the world body, effectively giving the go-ahead for the Sri Lankan state to proceed with its war on Tamils without regard for civilian lives.

The humanitarian case before the council was that of immense suffering endured by more than 300, 000 Tamil civilians who have been forcibly displaced and are either being shelled while sheltered in areas administered by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or are locked up in detention centres in Sri Lankan military occupied areas.

Presence of civilians in the “conflict area” was articulated by council president, Japan, as the crux of the issue. The solution, as advocated by the UN, is to remove all civilians from the defined area and “keep” them in areas designated by the Sri Lankan military.

Thus, the civilian issue has been reduced to one concerning the “conflict area”. International Community (IC) and its institutions are unanimous in the view that locking up in excess of 300, 000 people, depriving them of their livelihoods is an acceptable means of conflict resolution.

While the Sri Lankan military is dictating the time and location of conflict, a ceasefire that would allow the people of the region to live in just-peace in their historic homeland is seen as a troublesome manoeuvre.

The question now is: What if the “conflict area” is widened? What if an actor other than the Sri Lankan military began defining the time and location of violence?

Indeed, if it is the lives and livelihoods of the Sinhalese people that is threatened by violence, Sri Lanka’s response will be critically different. If economic interests are within the “conflict area”, IC is unlikely to watch with the same glee. India, for example, would not be keen to see “conflict” in the heart of Trincomalee, where an Indian company owns oil storage facilities.

So, what will the IC and its institutions do if Colombo, for instance, becomes the “conflict area”? Will they respond by calling the affected people to displace to detention centres or will they call for a “ceasefire”? We believe that the answer is all too obvious.

If it is a ceasefire that the LTTE wants, most sensible course of action would be to widen the “conflict area” to include as much of the island as possible. In particular, threat of violence in the Western Province, which accounts for a vast share of the island’s economic activity, is the only spectra that is likely to jolt the policy makers, both local and international.