COIN லேபிளுடன் இடுகைகளைக் காண்பிக்கிறது. அனைத்து இடுகைகளையும் காண்பி
COIN லேபிளுடன் இடுகைகளைக் காண்பிக்கிறது. அனைத்து இடுகைகளையும் காண்பி

சனி, 11 மே, 2013

UK author eulogising Sri Lanka COIN backfires exposing USA

UK author eulogising Sri Lanka COIN backfires exposing USA

[TamilNet, Friday, 10 May 2013, 20:02 GMT]
While Sri Lanka’s genocidal war on the Eezham Tamils architected by world powers, being reduced to only ‘human rights abuses’ in the criticism by political actors within the Establishments, it is studied by military experts within the same system to ‘learn lessons’ in counterinsurgency (COIN). The latest is a COIN literature on Sri Lanka, ‘Total Destruction of the Tamil Tigers’ by British analyst Paul Moorcraft, which adds to the myth of a ‘successful innovative Sri Lanka COIN’, while covering up the genocide executed by GoSL. But, it exposes the various measures taken by the US-led powers to break the Tamils’ struggle, including advise by the Pacific Command to the GoSL as early as in 2002 to use cluster bombs. When the US-led West's military mindset is such an approval to the SL model, its ‘rights abuses’ talk is just a strategic façade, realize Tamil activists.

Published by Pen & Sword Books and released on February 2013, the blurb to ‘Total Destruction of the Tamil Tigers: The Rare Victory of Sri Lanka’s Long War’ claims that the conclusions and findings of the book are “the most authoritative, objective and closely researched account of this savage civil war to date.”

The author, Dr. Paul Moorcraft, British military and foreign policy analyst, a war correspondent with considerable experience and a former senior instructor at the Royal Military Academy-Sandhurst and the UK Joint Services Command and Staff College, however does not hide on which side his ‘objectivity’ lies.

Be it citing from a CIA summary to show that the first Sinhalese arrived to the island in 6th Century BC while giving the image of Tamils as invaders, citing extensively from the Sinhala military and state’s reports while dismissing reports from Tamils’ side as “propaganda war fought in the media”, publishing self-taken photos of ‘rehabilitated’ former Tigers and ‘hearts and minds’ operations, or the tacit downplaying of GoSL massacres and bombings of Tamil civilians while taking care to cite GoSL sources on LTTE attacks, the author makes it clear where he stands.
Book cover
Thankfully, the author claims that “This analysis is not a moral tract.”

His obvious bias apart, his presentation the Sri Lankan model of COIN should be an object of inquiry.

While he demonizes the LTTE leadership with analogies to Pol Pot, al-Qaeda and Nazis in passing commentary, in his military analyst mode, he studies the LTTE’s functioning by drawing parallels with the North Vietnamese/Maoist style insurgency.

Incidentally, prior to American involvement in the Afghanistan and the middle-east, Western military thinkers directed their greatest efforts to creating a COIN model to check the above insurgency styles.

The author states in the introduction that “it was the first time since the end of the Second World War that a large-scale indigenous insurgency had been defeated by force of arms,” and further that “If the peace is truly permanent, the conflict may well teach other nations how to end wars and bring peace.”

He concludes, after 168 pages of mostly praise for the GoSL’s military strategy, “Without getting involved in a semantic discussion about the precise nature of the conflict, the utility of examining how the government won should be apparent to all those who study wars and how they end.”

For a book whose unstated objective seems to be to give an obituary of the Eezham Tamils’ armed struggle, the author seems to forget the crucial lesson in COIN, as espoused by classical western COIN theorists like David Galula – that COIN is successful only if it wins on the military and the political fronts.

While the genocidal Sri Lankan state has successfully occupied the Tamil homeland post-2009, subjecting the Eezham Tamils to structural genocide through militarization, Sinhalization and routinization of physical and psychological abuse, the Tamil diaspora, especially the second generation youth are getting stronger on their identity and are challenging the Sri Lankan government and its abettors in several forums and protests.

Post-Mu’l’livaaykkaal has seen a phenomenal upsurge of pro-Tamil Eelam political activism in Tamil Nadu, largely involving students, but also IT professionals, lawyers, social activists, civil society and political parties. The recent student protests against the pro-LLRC US resolution have not just been the largest demonstration in Tamil Nadu after the anti-Hindi agitations in the 60s, they have also been the largest student protest in India in the recent times. These protests have not only strengthened the political discourse regarding Tamil Eelam in Tamil Nadu, they have also brought about a resolution in the Tamil Nadu assembly demanding a referendum among the Eezham Tamils.

The protests in Tamil Nadu are also unique for the fact that at no point in history have the symbolisms of the Eezham Tamils’ liberation struggle been so popular and so widely accepted among society, cutting across caste and class barriers.

Even as the GoSL brutally curbs protestors in the Eezham Tamils’ homeland through force and intimidation, Tamil mass demonstrations in Tamil Nadu and across the globe are gaining momentum on conceptual grounds, unwavering on the political solution of Tamil Eelam that the ‘Tamil insurgents’ stood for.

What is an even more jarring truth is that the west-advised ‘hearts and minds’ strategy approach was also defeated by the Tamil civilians in the Vanni who moved with the LTTE instead of moving over to the government side, and who bore the brunt of the GoSL assaults both during and after the war.

* * *

Moorcraft’s integration of the international involvement in Sri Lanka’s war on the Tamils is an interesting patchwork. While playing down the full extent of military advice and assistance that Washington-New Delhi combine gave to Sri Lanka so as give the GoSL an image of an innovator in COIN, he inadvertently gives examples of how the war would not have been possible without the help of these powers, including of course, the extensive military and technical aid provided by Israel, Pakistan, Russia and China.

He quotes Gotabaya, “Unless we had won the support of the Indian government, we couldn’t have won this war”, giving examples of how New Delhi gave the green signal to Colombo to finish the war while playing image games to manipulate Tamil Nadu.

Citing Air Chief Marshal Roshan Goonetileke, he shows how the US stopping LTTE’s procurement of SAM-18s, a more advanced surface to air missile, assisted the Sri Lanka Air Force to conduct their operations more freely.

Moorcraft, deeply interested in the naval tactics of the Sea Tigers, also notes how joint Indian and US intelligence helped Sri Lanka destroy LTTE’s Pigeon ships and how America urged the EU to ban the LTTE.

Likewise, the author explicitly portrays the desire of the US to see the LTTE defeated and its concomitant assistance and advice to Sri Lanka.

Some relevant excerpts:

“Also, in 2002, the US Department of Defense had sent Colombo a lengthy report compiled by a US Pacific Command team. Its numerous recommendations impressed Gotabaya Rajapaksa. They included the need for a combined national security council operating a clear national strategy; before the armed services had tended to fight their own wars in their own ways.”

“The Americans, while praising the fighting spirit of the infantry, criticized the fact that many soldiers lacked even basics such as helmets and body armour.”

“Much equipment was needed for naval operations, too. The Americans had correctly identified the supply of arms by sea as the LTTE’s centre of gravity (although traditional COIN theory usually would select the population, the sea in which the fish swim).”

“The Sri Lankan forces needed better armed and bigger ships but, equally important, the equipment had to fit into a new combined arms strategy.”

“The security forces had to be prepared for conventional full manoeuvre warfare in places like Vanni, but also classic counter-insurgency operations in areas of mixed support, as well as conducting counter-terrorism in urban areas, particularly Colombo.”

“Americans also urged the Sri Lankans to improve their night fighting capability, especially the air force, which required upgraded avionics and guided weapons.”

“The Americans pointed out that instead of buying MiG-27s money could have been better spent upgrading the Kfir fighters.”

“The Pacific Command also recommended the use of cluster bombs.”

The Sri Lankan government used this advice and a lot more to the best of its genocidal abilities.

But in an irony only the US is capable of, Admiral Robert F. Willard, US Navy Commander of the US Pacific Command (USPACOM) said in a statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2012 that “USPACOM’s engagement with Sri Lanka will continue to be limited, until the Government of Sri Lanka demonstrates progress in addressing human rights allegations.”

In a report to the same Committee this year on April, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, US Navy Commander of USPACOM from March 2012, said “Sri Lanka needs to work to move past its recent history and reconcile a nation divided by many years of civil war.”

In the same report however, he rather openly hinted at the US plans in the region.

“Pacific Air Force’s Operation PACIFIC ANGEL and Pacific Fleet’s PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP are two examples that bring joint, combined and nongovernmental organizations together to deliver cooperative health engagements, engineering civic action programs and subject matter expert exchanges to many nations, specifically in areas like Oceania, Sri Lanka, and Laos – opening doors that would otherwise be closed to a U.S. military presence.”

* * *

Paul Moorcraft’s approach to Sri Lanka seems to be indicative of a tendency among the military minds in the West, especially the US, on the lessons to be learnt for COIN at large from the ‘Sri Lanka solution’.

While state police forces and right-wing media in India, the local partner in the genocide, keep hailing the ‘Sri Lanka solution’ as appropriate to deal with the Maoist insurgency, influential military thinkers in the US appear to be doing a professional, scientific study of the Sri Lankan model and its applicability to other contexts.

Scheduled to be released in a few months from now is military expert Ahmed S. Hashim’s ‘When Counterinsurgency Wins: Sri Lanka’s Defeat of the Tamil Tigers’.

Besides having a profile of having taught subjects on military and strategic studies at the US Naval War College, and the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, incidentally the same institution where Sri Lankan ‘military expert’ Rohan Gunaratna teaches, Dr. Hashim is considered to be the main expert advising Pentagon on COIN in Iraq.

His book ‘Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq’ is a popular among both US military personnel and experts dealing with the conflict.

The advertising blurb of Hashim’s to be released book on Sri Lanka and the LTTE claims to be an analysis of “The first successful counterinsurgency campaign of the twenty-first century.”

The advertisement claims that the book “investigates those questions in the first book to analyze the final stage of the Sri Lankan civil war. When Counterinsurgency Wins traces the development of the counterinsurgency campaign in Sri Lanka from the early stages of the war to the later adaptations of the Sri Lankan government, leading up to the final campaign. The campaign itself is analyzed in terms of military strategy but is also given political and historical context—critical to comprehending the conditions that give rise to insurgent violence.”

Further, “The tactics of the Tamil Tigers have been emulated by militant groups in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Whether or not the Sri Lankan counterinsurgency campaign can or should be emulated in kind, the comprehensive, insightful coverage of When Counterinsurgency Wins holds vital lessons for strategists and students of security and defense.”

Dr. Hashim was also a participant at Sri Lanka Army’s Defence Seminar on ‘Defeating Terrorism: Sri Lankan Experience’ held from 31 May to 2 June, 2011, where, after congratulating the Sri Lankan state for its “remarkable achievement” for winning “the first counter insurgency victory of the 21st century”, he gave the GoSL advice “to counter the non-state actor with their own media narrative, prior to the conflict, during the conflict and particularly after the conflict,” using terms like reconstruction and reconciliation.

This ‘development’, ‘reconstruction’ and ‘reconciliation’ approach, interestingly, is still the approach taken by US-Indian establishments at Geneva.

* * *

Speaking at the same seminar was Dr. David Kilcullen, Australian born COIN expert.

Dr. Kilcullen, a former Chief Strategist at the Office of Counterterrorism at the US State department, is one of the biggest names in the modern Western COIN industry, whose 28 articles on ‘Fundamentals of Company-Level Counterinsurgency’ are found as an appendix to the US Field Manual 3-24.2, ‘Tactics in Counterinsurgency’ released in April 2009.

Speaking at the Seminar, Kilcullen was of the opinion that “The defeat of the Tamil Tigers represents an extremely important achievement that needs to be discussed and studied in detail.”

The laudatory remarks on GoSL’s ‘resettlement’ of IDPs, the LLRC and dismissive comments on HR violations allegations apart, Dr. Kilcullen’s crucial point is the lesson that he picks from Sri Lanka and presents to the world of COIN.

He argues that Sri Lanka’s victory “has led some people in the counterinsurgency community to question the basic precepts of classical counterinsurgency as understood in the West which advocates protecting the population and focusing on political primacy as a means to win over the population and isolate the insurgent and forge a lasting peace.”

Further, “Sri Lanka in this case shows a different path, somewhat in contradiction to these prescriptions and produced both quick and decisive results. Firstly, counterinsurgency is at its heart - a counter adaptation level - a struggle to develop and apply new techniques in a fast moving high threat environment against an enemy that's continually updating and developing. Counterinsurgency isn't defined by a single, specific set of techniques rather a combination of techniques used for a particular insurgency under particular circumstances. Sri Lanka's approach embodied that principle.”

Most ironically, in his book ‘Counterinsurgency’ published in 2010, Dr. Kilcullen had advocated that “Scrupulously moral conduct, alongside political legitimacy and respect for the rule of law, are thus operational imperatives: they enable victory, and in their absence no amount of killing—not even genocidal brutality, as in the case of Nazi antipartisan warfare, described below—can avert defeat.”

That Sri Lanka flouted all of the above and engaged in one of the worst genocidal brutalities of the 21st Century is fact well known to Kilcullen and the establishment that he is part of.

But yet, when influential COIN and military experts in the establishments like Kilcullen and Hashim praise the successes of Sri Lanka’s war on the Tamil people, overlooking the genocide and the concomitant political fallout in Tamil Nadu and the diaspora, and while the various HR reports produced by those NGOs and State Departments in the same establishments only engage in counting the trees without addressing the question of genocide, nationhood, and sovereignty of the Eezham Tamil nation, it is hard not to think that they are two sides of the same coin.

Likewise, criticism of Sri Lanka’s model as a deviation from classical COIN and as one that should not be ever admired, let alone emulated elsewhere has been made by some COIN writers in journals like Small Wars. But these writers are not of the profile or rank of a Kilcullen or a Hashim, who suggest that positive lessons can be taken from the Sri Lankan experience for COIN in general. If this is going to continue to be the case, then Tamils as a whole can arrive at no other conclusion but that the global COIN game played by the US led establishments that caused the genocide in May 2009 is still working against them.

வெள்ளி, 12 அக்டோபர், 2012

‘Sri Lanka model of COIN sets a dangerous precedent for humanity’

‘Sri Lanka model of COIN sets a dangerous precedent for humanity’

[TamilNet, Thursday, 11 October 2012, 18:26 GMT]
After the International Community of Establishments working in tandem with a genocide-intending Sri Lankan state oversaw a brutal military solution over the armed struggle of the Eezham Tamils in May 2009, the ‘Sri Lanka model’ of dealing with insurgencies is now being incorporated into the science of Counterinsurgency (COIN), opines RM Karthick, observing what dangerous ramifications this could have for struggling peoples worldwide in an article published on Sanhati, an Indian online journal, on Wednesday. Outlining internal and external factors in shaping the conflict, using the politico-military analysis of the late TamilNet senior editor ‘Taraki’ Sivaram, the author explains how internationally coordinated measures against the LTTE and the genocidal intent of Sinhala nationalists led to Mu’l’livaaykkaal and the systemic repression of the Eezham Tamils in their homeland that followed.

Full text of the article by Mr RM Karthick, a research scholar in Political Theory at the University of Essex, UK, published on Sanhati follows:

Genocide as Counterinsurgency – Brief Notes on the “Sri Lanka Model”

Speaking at a conference at Trinity College, Dublin on 24th May 2012 titled ‘The Local and the Global: The Geopolitics of Peace and Conflict’ exiled Sinhala journalist Bashana Abeywardane, opined that genocide was used as a Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy by the Sri Lankan state to crush the armed struggle for a sovereign state of Tamil Eelam led by the LTTE. Citing British military strategist Frank Kitson, who had played an important role in suppressing the Mau Mau uprising and the insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party, Mr. Abeywardane said that when you want to neutralize an insurgency movement, you must destroy its “genuine subversive element” – arguing that in the case of Sri Lanka, the genuine subversive element in the island was the Tamil population as such. He further cited geo-political factors that influenced the decision of the world powers to support the Sri Lankan state’s military offensive leading up to May 2009, arguing that the island held geo-strategic importance only if it was a unitary political entity.

COIN, as the term suggests, is a war manoeuvre used against insurgents by states. While the principal feature of COIN is to ensure that a state facing an insurgency does not lose its constitutional-legal monopoly over violence in the territory it controls/seeks to control over to the insurgents, there are specific cases where COIN gains additional features as well. According to David Kilcullen, a leading COIN expert based in the US, counterinsurgency “is an umbrella term that describes the complete range of measures that governments take to defeat insurgencies. These measures may be political, administrative, military, economic, psychological, or informational, and are almost always used in combination.” He further adds that to understand strategies deployed in particular conflicts it is necessary to take into consideration “the nature of the insurgency being countered, the nature of the government being supported, and the environment—especially the human environment—in which the conflict takes place.”

As a phenomenon, countering insurgencies is as old as states and empires. As a concept, study in COIN gained momentum in the colonial period so as to deal with frequently occurring rebellions in colonies as well as to counter the “communist menace”. As a science, it grew with late modernity and the rise of what ‘Taraki’ Sivaram (iconic Eelam Tamil journalist, military analyst and senior editor of TamilNet who was assassinated by Colombo in 2005) called “counter-insurgency nation-states”. We must understand that COIN has developed as a science, deployed by specific actors in specific conditions as a science. And by virtue of its being a science, each deployment – whether successful, partially successful, or failed - is closely followed, studied and applied by various states engaged in COIN operations according to the particular conditions they encounter.

Some refined political analysts, understanding the geo-strategic importance of Sri Lanka, have argued that the Sri Lankan war machine was ideologically and materially equipped in its COIN operations against the Tigers by a confluence of world powers. Reflecting on this, Mark Whitaker writes in his biography of ‘Taraki’ Sivaram that “by the middle 1990s Sivaram had come to view Sri Lanka’s conflict as a kind of military-political laboratory in which the various repressive forces of late modernity (local and international) were testing their clever, often cruel, counter-insurgency tactics”. Just that the lab rats favoured by the world powers in the island had genocidal intentions.

From here, we need to chalk out those points that need to be outlined so as to further study the ‘Sri Lanka model’ of COIN – both objective conditions and subjective forces that existed in the island.

Objective conditions:
  1. Location of the island of Sri Lanka makes it geo-strategically important. The position of the island between the routes of the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz make it an excellent base for a power seeking to exert influence in the Indian-Pacific waters;
  2. Demographic distribution in the island, with the Eelam Tamils identifying the North and East region as their traditional homeland (i.e. Tamil Eelam).


Subjective forces:
  1. A virulent strain of Sinhala/Sri Lankan nationalism that seeks to forcibly assimilate Eelam Tamils through Sinhalization, which possesses a neanderthal paranoia about external Tamil conspiracies to take over/divide its Sri Lanka, seeing the entire island as primarily Sinhala property, and exercises control over both repressive and ideological state apparatus;
  2. An Eelam Tamil nationalism that had manifested itself as an armed struggle, that aspired for a political solution based on the right of nations to self-determination;
  3. World powers with vested interests in preserving the unitary state structure of Sri Lanka.


The author needn’t spend time in elaborating on point (3). The inherent appeal for genocide that such a strain of nationalism would possess should be evident to readers. Suffice to point out that the ideological patriarch of Sinhala nationalism, Anagarika Dharmapala, a xenophobic monk who expounded theories of Sinhala race superiority and the need for their lebensraum, was greatly impressed by Japanese militarist nationalism. No wonder that what his sons did at Mullivaikaal is compared by Tamils to the Rape of Nanking.

Point (4) needs some observation. The armed struggle for Tamil Eelam led by the LTTE was categorized under “Identity-Focused Strategy” by the US Field Manual 3-24.2 on ‘Tactics in Counterinsurgency’ (April 2009). According to the manual, “The identity-focused strategy mobilizes support based on the common identity of religious affiliation, clan, tribe, or ethnic group. In this strategy, legitimacy and popular support are tied to their identity and, often, no effort is made to garner popular support outside their identity. Rather, communities often join the insurgent movement as a whole, bringing with them their existing social or military hierarchy. External support is garnered from international elements of the same identity.” Further, it is argued that this strategy “Protects what it considers the interest of the identity”, and “Mass base easily aligns with insurgency objectives.” In other words, the goals of this type of an insurgency includes preserving and protecting political, historical and cultural symbols that are of core value to the community, and the strength of this type of an insurgency is the support it enjoys amongst masses adhering to an identity.

To use Sivaram’s analysis [1], the LTTE, after it developed into a conventional army effectively challenging the monopoly of violence that the Sinhala state possessed, required the following conditions:
  1. A politically motivated population from which to raise battalions;
  2. An economy to raise resources to clothe, arm, feed and deploy its forces;
  3. A secure territory to train and barrack the forces;
  4. An efficient logistics system;
  5. Facilities to treat a battalion of wounded fighters.


To this, I would like to add another crucial condition (F), namely, a rear base to withdraw should a situation emerge when the best fighting forces risk complete annihilation. The Tigers had this in Tamil Nadu till the point when the Indian government turned hostile towards the Eelam Tamils’ struggle. The neutralization of the rear base by India cut-off the only possible, strategically favourable sanctuary the insurgents had in the region.

Other than this, the LTTE’s de facto state that emerged after hugely successful military operations against the Sri Lankan military secured all other conditions. Popular support among the Eelam Tamil people, a civilian infrastructure that functioned like a ‘normal’ government with its system of taxation, funds from a million strong diaspora, medical facilities to treat the wounded, a political and military stronghold in the Vanni region, and logistics system secured mainly through control of the sea with the Sea Tigers.

It was this force that the Sri Lankan state faced. From the conditions that the LTTE secured in their de facto state, we can map out those measures taken to destroy them.

Measures adopted by Sri Lankan government to destroy the LTTE:
  1. The measures taken by the co-chairs (the group of US, EU, Norway and Japan who were ‘managing’ the peace process initiated between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government since 2002 till its collapse in 2006) in the ceasefire period to restrict taxation by the LTTE in the territory in governed – but considering the taxation of the Sri Lankan government as legitimate [2];
  2. The measures taken in the ceasefire period to restrict the movement of the Sea Tigers, thereby affecting flow of logistics;
  3. Foreign intelligence supplied to the Sri Lankan military to target and attack the Sea Tigers’ bases, boats and supply channels;
  4. Proscription of the LTTE in Western countries where the Tamil diaspora is present, arrests of diaspora activists and criminalization of fund raising for political or relief purposes [3];
  5. Sri Lanka’s undeclared embargo on food, medical and other basic supplies to LTTE controlled regions;
  6. Sri Lanka ‘compelling’ the pull-out of relief organizations and NGOs after the collapse of the peace process in 2006;
  7. Sri Lankan military’s systematic targeting of hospitals, educational institutions and food supplies so as to leave the Tiger’s civilian infrastructure in complete disarray;
  8. Making the secure territory of the insurgents insecure for the population;
  9. Collective trauma inflicted to hurt not the insurgent alone, but the population as such, so as to destroy their political motivation. A study of the patterns of claymore attacks, Kfir bombings, and artillery shelling by the Sri Lankan military would show that these were intended to target the Tamil population primarily. Add to this cordon and search operations in Sri Lanka overrun Tamil territory, creation of High Security Zones and military enclaves, military checkpoints that make the Sinhala repressive state appear omnipresent, destruction of Tamil cultural and political symbols, routine tortures, rapes, interrogations, disappearances etc. The point is, reduce the population to subhuman conditions that let alone being political, even to be treated as something close to a human would appear as an act of benevolence by the Sinhalese.;
  10. Finally, with all external factors in its favour, with the political space for the Tigers completely blocked, and the internal factor of Sinhala nationalism being at an all time high, using the moment to inflict as much casualties as possible on the Eelam Tamil people as a warning of what would happen to those resisting Sinhala hegemony.


The adoption of these measures led to Mullivaikaal, with 40000 plus dead and many more disappeared. An observation of these measures shows that while the genocidal intention of internal actors in the state influenced the manner in which they handled conditions (A) and (C), the counter-strike to conditions (B) (D) (E) and (F) was dealt wholly or largely by external forces. Or, the external forces, which had vested interests in the island, created favourable conditions for the Sri Lankan state to unify the island through whatever means possible.

It all these known factors taken into account that made the ‘Sri Lanka model’ tick.

What followed after shows Sri Lanka’s operations did not stop with the military defeat of the Tigers. They are listed out as points to give readers a general overview – ideally, each of the points merits separate analysis – of what is happening in the so-called ‘post-war’ era. Some of these factors have been listed by Sivaram much earlier as being part of a COIN strategy.

— Increased military presence in the North and East and creation of military bases in Tamil areas. A report published in the July 14, 2012 issue of the Economic and Political Weekly titled “Notes on the Military Presence in Sri Lanka’s Northern Province” states that military to civilian ratio in the North is as high as 1:5 – higher than Kashmir. The Sinhala military monitors, dominates and penetrates all aspects of social, cultural and political life of the Eelam Tamils be it civil society protests, religious festivals or birthday celebrations. Paul Virilio contends that “Whoever controls the territory possesses it. Possession of territory is not primarily about laws and contracts, but first and foremost a matter of movement and circulation.” Sinhala military control of Tamil territory equals Sinhala possession over it, to facilitate smooth access of the Sinhala state apparatus to all corners of the island.

— Settlement of Sinhalese from the South in places where Tamils have been displaced. Tamil activists argue that this is a system of colonization intended to destroy the territorial integrity of the Tamil homeland by bringing about demographic changes that would make them a minority in their own areas.

— Building of Buddhist statues and monuments celebrating Sinhalese triumph in Tamil areas often carried side-by-side with destruction and desecration of places of political or cultural importance to the Tamils.

— Parcelling out Tamil lands to foreign investors through a military-corporate nexus. A combine of free-market capitalism that respects no borders and a militarist state that is bent on breaking the sovereignty that the Tamils aspire to, works towards facilitating exploitation of human and material resources available in the Tamil homeland.

– Induced proliferation of drugs, alcohol and pornography among the Tamil people. Likewise, a high prevalence of sexual abuse of Eelam Tamil women by the Sri Lankan military and police forces has also been recorded. An ICG report on “Sri Lanka: Women’s Insecurity in the North and East” credits this to the overwhelming military presence in the Tamil areas. However, the analysis and conclusions of this report has been criticized by Tamil feminists and scholars for failing to recognize the genocidal nature of the sexual violence perpetrated on the Eelam Tamils. Analysts further say that all of these processes have been intended to systematically tear the socio-cultural fabric that binds the Tamil people

— ‘Disappearances’ and routine psychological harassments of ex-LTTE cadres not just to make them broken persons, but also to warn those around of the consequences of rebellion. Particularly affected are women combatants. A TamilNet analytical feature details how women cadres have been subject to abuse and in many cases, forced pregnancies, in the course of ‘rehabilitation’. The fate of about 2000-3000 women cadres is still unknown, the feature notes.

What is to be noted here is that none of the world powers that aided the Sri Lankan state with ammunition and ideas, some of who have now started to ask the Sri Lankan government to speedily implement the “positive recommendations” of the ‘reconciliation’ commission setup by it, have addressed even one of these issues with the seriousness it deserves. Likewise, while the Sinhala nationalists justify/deny the above in the name of security, other observers call these processes a protracted genocide, results of structural violence. These are the effects of the ‘Sri Lanka model’ on the Eelam Tamil nation.

The science of COIN will add the ‘Sri Lanka model’ in its ambit. Already, numerous states across the world facing insurgencies have threatened to do a Sri Lanka on the rebelling people. Turkey of late has been making most references in public to this model to the Kurds. But as mentioned above, the success of the ‘Sri Lanka model’ depended on a combination of internal and external factors, objective conditions and subjective forces, none of which will be found at a different time and a different place – the laboratory and the lab rats would not be the same elsewhere. We must also realize that international legitimacy, ideas and weapons from all directions given to the internal actors who had genocidal intention played the major role in effecting the defeat of the insurgents and the concomitant genocide than the internal actors themselves. Other states needn’t have all the advantages that Sri Lanka had.

Then again, no COIN expert worth his salt would suggest a blind imitation of this model. It needs to be restated here that there is no pure model of COIN – each one influences the other and in turn is influenced by others. What will happen is that those aspects of the ‘Sri Lanka model’ that can find applicability in other conflicts will be studied deeper and applied accordingly.

One can see at least 3 general lessons emerging from the ‘Sri Lanka model’ that other states might find appealing to deal with insurgencies.

- Military solution first. Display ruthlessness in securing your hegemony and the population will be willing to accept any political solution you throw at them later.

- Winning ‘hearts and minds’ is outdated. Break the spine of the population; throw fear in their hearts and numb their minds. They will be grateful to you for letting them to just live.

- The press does nothing to influence public opinion that you don’t want it to. If they are against you, they are with the ‘terrorists’ and are to be dealt accordingly.

What this would mean for people involved in struggles against various oppressive governments is left to the reader’s imagination.

Notes:

[1] See Mark Whitaker, “Learning Politics From Sivaram: The Life and Death of a Revolutionary Tamil Journalist in Sri Lanka”, London: Pluto Press, (2007) p. 146.

[2] For further information on how the LTTE’s Peace Secretariat viewed the tilting of the parity of status by the co-chairs through various means during the peace talks, click this link.

[3] For a more elaborate account of how the criminalization of Tamil diaspora politics is still taking place in the West so as to arm-twist them to drop the demand for Tamil Eelam, refer to Vicki Sentas’ chapter “One more successful war? Tamil diaspora and counter-terrorism after the LTTE” in “Counter-Terrorism and state political violence: The ‘war on terror’ as terror” edited by Scott Poynting and David Whyte, Routledge (2012).

External Links:
Sanhati: Genocide as Counterinsurgency – Brief Notes on the “Sri Lanka model”