Comments on: It is a hostage crisis, stupid!

By: K.Anaga

K.Anaga — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:43:08 +0000

The situation has been worsened by the fact that the government has not allowed Independent reporters to be present at the war zone to ascertain the actual facts. Why? This is a clear indication of the fact that the government is hiding the ground situation from the world. On the other hand LTTE have called for Independent reporting.
In effect two nations are at war in one country,. The fact that the peace accord has demarcated certain areas to be managed by the Tigers until a final solution is reached, has been violated by the government unilaterally.
A question was asked by a girl in a recent interview over the BBC Tamil service thus:- If India and Pakistan is at war, and Pakistan have the upper hand, will India ask its civilian population to go into Pakistan to avoid being killed, thus enabling Pakistan to walk into India and destroy its army?
The ideal way to ascertain facts is to allow independent observers to visit the war zone at their own risk and report.

By: Rajesh

Rajesh — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:17:51 +0000

To Observer:

Most other hostage takers also have completely unreasonable demands, so the situation is not as dissimilar as you might suspect.

The LTTE has clearly demonstrated that they intend to fight on to the last man/woman/child in their custody. In their moral and ideological calculus, their organisation is indivisible and inseparable from the Tamil people at large, and they take this to the extreme of viewing the lives of Tamil civilians, as with LTTE fighters, as expendable for the greater glory of the nation and the larger than life cause that they have assumed.

If the govt also adopts the attitude that these civilians are expendable pawns, whose lives must (tragically) be sacrificed for the greater good under some perverse cost-benefit calculation, then there is very very little to morally distinguish the two sides.

This desperate and gruelling standoff is a test of character and strength for everyone. It has the potential of becoming as much of a historical turning point, and as searing a moment in the consciousness of future generations as was July 1983. In my humble opinion, the LTTE has, in just the past 3 months, already done enough to discredit themselves irredeemably. By calling the attention of the whole world onto their self-inflicted calamity in the hope of invoking intervention, they have succeeded only in arousing widespread disgust at themselves, and in winning some grudging sympathy for the approach of the Sri Lankan government.

The present stand-off has provided the Sri Lankan state, and the Sinhala majority community at large with an opening and a moral choice that, if approached with compassion, humanity and wisdom, will help to overcome the many injustices of the past. If instead, they do what Observer suggests, and take the easy path of finishing off the Tigers at the cost of the civilians, then they will be remembered for another generation, as the people who committed a terrible outrage and that participated in the deaths of thousands of innocents. It will be a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

By: Realist

Realist — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:20:01 +0000

We seem to have lost our sense of humanity and humanism. In the nationalist ideology the “other” do not ahve any rights. They are not us. They are our enemies and don’t deserve any sympathy. So why bother. Of course Jesus Christ said ‘love yor enemies, do good to them that hate you” Buddha said that hatred is not extinguished by hatred but only by love. But religion in our country today has nothing to do with these teachings of the Great Teachers. Ours is a religion of sanctimonious hypocrisy. Just see how piously our politicians appear on TV carrying sacred objects of worship on their heads. But they are hypocrites. They never practise any moral values. Religion here is formalism, ceremonial and ritualistic. It is all hypocrisy to hoodwink others.

By: Rasika

Rasika — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:02:47 +0000

Thanks for a good analysis of the situation and what the response should be. A concerted effort to annihilate the LTTE has now turned into a hostage crisis. And very correctly, the primary concern in a hostage situation is the hostages. But must the current situation in Sri Lanka be defined (primarily) as a hostage situation for there to be â€˜concern’ for its citizenry. What if there was little evidence to suggest that the LTTE was holding people hostage? Is there then an equal argument for the safety and concern of the people?

As someone said, this is an outright effort to defeat the LTTE, and let’s call it that. But, if we are unable to â€˜rescue’ those citizens trapped by the LTTE in a ruthless and selfish attempt to clutch at a last resort, then we will have failed by these people and all other people in this country. How we deal with the rescue effort will be a legacy we carry forward into the futureâ€¦

By: The Underdog

The Underdog — Sat, 02 May 2009 07:06:29 +0000

@ Sair,

A very good point. And can someone explain to me what would happen if one of those camp dwellers filed a fundamental rights petition saying (very rightly) that his/her right to freedom of movement has been impinged. The only way for the government to get around this is to arrest him/her under emergency regulations. In which case, they really would have to consider all of the refugees as under arrest.

By: Sabes

Sabes — Sat, 02 May 2009 06:50:45 +0000

As it is becoming clear that it is in fact a hostage crisis in Vanni, sadly a theatre like suspense is gripping most of us watching the scene. We are becoming hostages of a gripping drama waiting anxiously whether the siege will end with or without a bloodbath. The questions build tension. â€˜Is Pirabhaharan still alive? Has he escaped? Will he commit suicide or will he die fighting? Any time now it may end and we must not miss the final scene!’ As the end nears, the tension rises. Commentators and chat show hosts are cashing in on the suspense and its tension. The danger of such a spectacle is that once it ends we will forget that it was a reality and therefore we may forget that the people were real too.

A second but a related point is that by focusing on the hostage crisis if Vanni we have taken our attention away from several other hostage crisises of the country. This is the problem of intensely gripping spectacles. Let us not forget the hostages of the Sri Lankan Army in Vavunia who escaped LTTE. Let us also not forget the hostages of JVP and JHU – that is the Government- who have to perform in the theatre of Vanni. Sri Lankan Governments are a type of policy hostages. Let us think of ways to end the supremacist ideology, which held generations of Singhalese politicians as slave hostages.

As for Pirapaharan he is a hostage to his own obligations to the Tamil People that he has taken upon himself to save them from Singhala domination.

The whole country is in a hell of a hostage crisis, some of which are historical and some manage to hit the screen in a big way!

One thing is clear, that the country is united in its fate to be hostages of its own making.

By: Engun

Engun — Sat, 02 May 2009 02:29:49 +0000

Realist >>

Very nicely put, and I agree with you a great deal, except for a few additional aspects in this situation.

1. Terrorism may be a tactic of the weak, but it’s also a tactic of the unimaginative. Instead of defeating the strong idealogically, they choose to outdo the strong with a show of their own strength. I think the results are visible to all of us.

2, , By using utterly despicable means and offering endless justifications for those crimes they have also completely stripped themselves of any supposed moral high ground.

3. The LTTE believed itself to be stronger through its repeated rejection of peace-talks. It refused to make itself amenable to any reasonable solution. Again, the results are visible to all.

4. It outdid the supposed racism of the govt. with a response which was a thousand-folds amplified, a response that has become increasingly disproportionate to the problem over time.

Apart from that, yes, I would agree with you. A better analysis of the reasons/justification used by them is certainly necessary.

What should concern us is not the existence of an LTTE ( should we be concerned about the existence of the American Nazi Party? ), but the reasons why a majority of Tamils felt compelled to start supporting the LTTE. I certainly hope those issues can/have been addressed. IMHO, the LTTE, on the other hand, is yet another racist outfit, insistent on creating a little racist utopia for themselves. They should and must burn in the hell they so justly deserve, so that reason and sanity can prevail and the real problems of the Tamil people can be addressed.

By: Sair

Sair — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:20:00 +0000

Should we consider those kept in the camps as hostages as well? Because they are clearly not allowed the psychological support they require to survive or at least maintain their sanity.

By: Nishan

Nishan — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:07:57 +0000

If The Underdog is challenging the *diagnosis* of the problem as a hostage crisis, then we do clearly differ. But can the govt “response” be described as one appropriate to a hostage crisis? My answer is likely the same as The Underdog.

If DJ means the US response to the Iranian embassy hostage crisis of 1980, then details are available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis the concern, patience and compromise then to rescue the hostages alive, was truly impressive.

If other responses and finally Observer with “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” mean that the moral compass of SL is being set by the actions of George W. Bush as US President, then I think they are — perhaps unconsciously — making a devastating critique of SL society and govt.

By: Realist

Realist — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:59:41 +0000

I am afraid we are treating a very serious human issue very callously. Technically, terrorism is a tactic for waging war. What counts as terrorism is defined by traditional just war theory and not by what George Bush said or anybody else says. Just war theory says war is only justified when fought for just cause, minimally self-defense, as well as by just means. The latter includes rules of engagement, for instance proportionality, targeting combatants and
not civilians, treatment of prisoners of war with compassion, etc. Terrorism, we are told, is barbaric because it intentionally targets civilians, so it fails the just means test. But fighting terrorists also comes within the just war theory.
IIn World War II, for instance, the just war against German and Japanese aggression turned into an unjust war when the United State and its allies intentionally targeted German and Japanese civilians in the fire bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities, as well as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Americans have no doubt violated the just war rules which are embodied in the Geneva Conventions. But pointing them out will not excuse us from violating these rules.
Indeed, the technology of warfare today is so enormously destructive that more civilians regularly die in conflicts than combatants, as is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan today, In spite of euphemistically named directed targets there is little doubt that civilians would have been killed in air strikes” despite giving credit for best intentions. It is not just the United States that is culpable; it is every war everywhere in the world today. The logic of war always tends towards total war; win by whatever means necessary or perish. War is an ugly business and inevitably brings out the worst (as well as some of the best) character traits in humans. The logic of war and the technology of war almost always trump the just war theory, but it does not mean that we should abandon the discourse of just war, the Geneva Conventions, the prohibitions against child-soldiers, etc. What is actually going on in spite of our best efforts, should not blind us to these ideals nor make us overlook any violations of the Geneva Conventions, remembering the old adage that in war truth is the first casualty.
What do we make of terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic in guerilla warfare. ,
. This is not to justify such methods, but to point to the obvious, that terrorism is a tactic of the weak.
If we want to end wars in the world today, or here in Sri Lanka, then we must understand that many of injustices, perceived and real, lie behind human conflicts. The powerful can enforce an unjust status quo. The powerless will always be tempted to use the tactics of terror to advance their causes and seek address to their grievances. It is more the obligation of the powerful to address the root causes of the injustices, than it is of the powerless to abstain from what they generally understand to be legitimate “self-defense”. Still I would argue that the oppressed and powerless would be much better served by nonviolence. And whatever side of a conflict one finds oneself, without an attempt to understand one’s enemies, it will not be possible to resolve these many conflicts.
Whether we fight wars with so-called conventional means, or with unconventional means, war unleashes a social dynamic of terrible power. To motivate soldiers to kill and be killed requires an enormous amount of ideological and psychological indoctrination. We may have an innate instinct for aggression, but we also have an innate instinct for self-preservation.