War on terror won’t address any wrongs

Written by Devapriyo Das

Wednesday, 27 May 2009 15:48

The recent carnage in Sri Lanka, barely mentioned in Africa’s media, marks the conclusion of twenty-five years of rebel insurgency on the island nation. The rebellion pitted guerrilla forces claiming to represent the country’s Tamil minority against its Sinhala majority. After years of futile efforts to broker a peaceful solution, the Sri Lankan army overwhelmed the rebels through a brutally determined military campaign. In all, the conflict claimed over 80,000 lives, and displaced at least 275,000 people. But why should this concern anyone in Uganda? Since “9/11”, regimes in Sri Lanka, Uganda, Pakistan, the USA, the UK and elsewhere have often used the threat of being a target of terror, suggesting that their nations are under siege. In Sri Lanka, this simplistic argument has combined with historical antagonisms between Tamils and Sinhalese, resulting in a series of repressive acts. These include economic marginalisation of whole communities and areas, legislation that limits freedoms of press and expression, state-sanctioned assassinations, torture and disappearances; and racist denigration of cultures. Such behaviour has emanated from actors on all sides of the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the ‘terrorism’ tag, attached to what many consider to be a legitimate struggle for Tamil rights, allowed Russia and China, permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to consistently veto any resolutions censuring the Sri Lanka conflict. This in turn, encouraged neighbouring India to keep silent. Importantly, Uganda is a temporary member of the Security Council. Along with its fellow temporary members, it refrained from calling for a ceasefire when the fighting was at its heaviest a few weeks ago. Military responses to terrorism often indicate that the social and historical tensions that led to civil disruptions in the first place have not been properly dealt with using peaceful means. Africa’s Great Lakes region abounds with examples of heavy-handed responses having little impact. Thus, separatist movements thrive in Sudan’s Darfur, in Ethiopia’s Ogaden region, in eastern DR Congo and in Somalia; all in spite of sustained armed intervention by the ruling regimes of those nations. Meanwhile, northern Uganda’s own 22 year insurgency, which sprang from unresolved historical grievances, has merely moved shop across the border, while the region’s population is just happy to have peace, if not actual development. Sri Lanka’s own prospects, despite the government-announced victory, are uncertain. The cost of war has left its economy teetering on the brink of insolvency. Its population is war weary and its elation might be short lived, overtaken soon by more pressing concerns of unemployment and a battered infrastructure. Most Tamil civilians who fled rebel and army fire in the war zone are now being held in government refugee camps; ostensibly for their own safety, but also to restrain potentially radical elements. Rights groups fear that these might become long-term detention centres that will merely nurture and perpetuate ancient hatreds. This conflict holds serious lessons for Uganda and its Great Lakes neighbours. They would benefit if they stopped dealing with aggrieved sections of their populations as if they were threats that have to be sorted out by military action. Moreover, President Obama’s administration has admitted it no longer uses the term “war on terror”. In this time of worldwide recession, it would be unrealistic to expect any more first-world military funding for third-world wars. Terrorism is no longer a good enough excuse for avoiding economic development and a just peace.