The recent military victory of the Sri Lankan government over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam may unwittingly tempt and encourage governments to seek military options in quelling political movements within their own contexts. Such actions inspired by the Lankan experience would undoubtedly be counter productive and short sighted because while LTTE may be defeated, the ultimate political solution needed for peace is far-fetched. In other words, the desire for permanent and sustainable peace in Sri Lanka has not yet been attained. The necessity for political negotiations to find a solution that will bring genuine peace to the island still remains.
Human history has shown that conflicts of a political nature require political solutions. Yet, human history has also shown that states and governments have often taken the easier option of military force to quell political aspirations. This has however only prolonged the conflict and further complicated the issues of contention. More importantly modern history has only clearly shown that military solutions to political conflicts have never been viable; nor has it ever achieved in bringing genuine peace. Rather military options have only been a deterrent to peace, and reduce the possibilities of political solutions.
The recent military victory of the Sri Lankan government over the LTTE is therefore an important learning lesson for the international community; and more importantly for governments that are faced with political conflicts. The significant lesson is that despite the military victory, the necessity for political negotiations between the Tamils and the Sri Lankan government reveals the inherent limitations of military options in finding political solutions. And more importantly, military options come at a very heavy human price. The human catastrophe cannot be measured; it is not repairable and could be the breeding ground for more conflict in the future.
Military force as an option in political conflicts has only proved counter-productive. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also adequately demonstrated the gross limitations of military force as a viable response to conflicts that stem out of political issues. The fact remains, whether it is the LTTE, PLO, Hamas or any another armed group in areas of political conflict, they are only by-products of the issues that led to the conflict in the first place; and hence their defeat does not imply the end of the problem. The need for political dialogue cannot be avoided. This has been clearly acknowledged in Israel and more recently in Sri Lanka. Hence the need to decisively choose political options is fundamental in enabling conditions that will lead to sustainable peace.
In a world that is fast becoming interdependent, the need to develop non-violent and peaceful means of resolving conflicts has become fundamental. In a world that is increasingly becoming small, diverse cultures and societies have to negotiate and share limited resources, boundaries, and other aspects of human affairs. This has heightened the possibilities of perceived and real differences between different entities. Therefore, the need to evolve mechanisms to resolve problems through peaceful means is imperative. And towards this end, the military option used by Sri Lanka has clearly shown that use of military force is limited and counter-productive to sustainable peace. Now is therefore the right time to thing beyond military solutions!
