Discussion 1: Capacity Building and Transformation
Transformation is critical to sustaining any peacebuilding effort. Transformation involves moving societies and governments away from destructive conflict and toward constructive growth opportunities. Your course text describes four levels of transformation: structural, cultural, relational, and personal. Any one peacebuilding effort may not address all levels. Your course text also uses a similar term, conflict transformation. The author refers to conflict transformationas a way to identify the underlying causes of conflict, build relationships, and develop solutions. This Discussion addresses your textbook’s explanation of transformation (rather than conflict transformation).
Prior to participating in transformation efforts, societies and governments must first develop and maintain the capacity to proceed through the transformation process. In the language of peacebuilding, the process of developing and maintaining capacity is known as capacity building, and your course text alternates this term with building capacity. Your course text explains four approaches to capacity building: education, development, military conversion, and research and evaluation. Examples of transformation and capacity building exist worldwide. Your Learning Resources provide case studies from several countries.
To prepare for this Discussion:
- Review Chapter 9 in your course text, The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding. Pay particular attention to approaches in conflict transformation.
- Review Chapter 10 in your course text, The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding. Focus on approaches to capacity building.
- Review Chapter 11 in your course text, The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding. Note the explanation of levels of transformation.
- Review the “Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report Executive Summary.” Consider the report in terms of capacity building and levels of transformation.
- Review the articles, “The Challenges of Conflict Management: A Case Study of Sri Lanka,” “The European Union, Borders and Conflict Transformation: The Case of Cyprus,” and “Conflict in Africa: A Case Study of the Shaba Crisis, 1977.” Select one conflict to review in detail and use for this Discussion. Focus on themes, issues, and peacebuilding approaches raised by the cases.
- Consider one approach to capacity building represented in the case study that you selected.
- Think about one level of transformation fostered by the effort or program described in the case study that you selected.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post a description of the case study that you selected. Explain one approach to capacity building that peacebuilders used. Explain one level of transformation fostered by the peacebuilding effort or program.
he Challenges of Conflict Management: A Case Study of Sri Lanka
Conflict processes are determined both by the larger geopolitical context and
the domestic political structure. Yet current studies tend to examine either
international or domestic factors, neglecting their interaction. This article
undertakes an analysis of the Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka in order to examine
domestic-international intersections. In countries where civil war coexists
with stable, democratic institutions, conflict management becomes a complex
process of balancing competing demands within the government. Under such
conditions, noncoercive intervention, such as mediation, can play a more
constructive role than military action. The argument of this paper marks a
shift from the existing literature which tends to focus on conflicts in failed,
anarchic states where coercive intervention becomes necessary.
Over the last 15 years, the number of civil wars worldwide has declined. Systemic
changes such as globalization, the spread of democracy and greater international
involvement in domestic affairs are encouraging states to adopt a negotiations-based
approach to conflicts.1 When exploring the ebbs and flows of ethnic conflict, a twin
track approach, which looks at both the domestic and the international levels of
analysis, is critical. Yet, the existing literature tends to focus on either international
intervention or domestic institutions; that is, each factor is examined in isolation.
What conditions explain the management or resolution of civil wars?
Uncertainty and mistrust between the state and minority groups drives political
violence. Mitigating these conditions becomes essential for building peace. Extant
studies of third-party efforts to resolve civil war are based on the pessimistic notion
that conflict-affected states face such acute levels of institutional vacuum that they
require forceful intervention. The literature fails to address cases where the dynamic
is a more complex interplay of both interstate and intrastate politics. In countries
where stable institutions coexist with political violence, third parties must take this
intersection into account. Under such conditions, non-coercive intervention, such as
mediation, can play an instrumental role in overcoming trust barriers. This article
examines the Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka in order to explain the impact of domestic
and international interactions upon the peace process, within the context of a
relatively stable democratic polity.
The following section reviews the current body of literature in the field. Next, I
discuss the reasons that make the Sri Lankan case particularly relevant to such a
study. A brief history of the conflict is provided. The paper then discusses different
Civil Wars, Vol.8, No.1 (March 2006), pp.46–65 ISSN 1369-8249 print/ISSN 1743-968X online
DOI: 10.1080/13698240600886057 q 2006 Taylor & Francis
phases of international intervention and the domestic context in which intervention
occurred. The domestic and international dimensions of the conflict management
process are explored. The paper concludes with a discussion of its implications. The
study is state-centered and focuses on the Sri Lankan government’s decisions during
the conflict. While the tactics of the rebelling group are discussed, a full-length
exploration of both sides to the conflict is beyond this study’s scope.
INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION IN ETHNIC CONFLICT
The Need for International Intervention
Within the robust body of literature on civil wars, there is relatively little scholarly
research on the de-escalation, management and resolution of conflict. Despite the
growing role of international intervention, theoretical development in understanding
third-party action in ethnic conflict is still lacking. The literature exhibits a
considerable amount of debate, driven in part by the circuitous nature of conflict
processes. Systematic studies of specific cases can help us probe causal processes
and understand the impact of various types of intervention.2
In security related studies, the international–domestic boundary used to be
fairly rigid.3 Scholars worked under the assumption that the international system is
marked by anarchy. As a result, they focused on security dilemma and commitment
problems. Students of domestic politics have, in contrast, worked under the
assumption that states have a working hierarchy. Consequently, they studied laws
and institutions. Scholarship in recent decades has challenged these boundaries
between international and comparative politics.4 As global interdependence
increases, conflict resolution is often an outcome of factors at both the domestic
and the international levels.
International intervention refers to economic, military or diplomatic activity by a
third-party actor, which aims to influence the course of an ongoing civil conflict.
International engagements have facilitated the settlement or containment of an
increasing number of ethnonational wars. Third parties can modify the costs and
benefits of the conflict by providing information, helping to design creative and
feasible solutions, offering incentives and/or threatening sanctions. In civil wars,
conditions of mistrust make the probability of compromise quite low. In many cases,
the conflict comes to be viewed as a zero-sum game by the actors. This often makes
mediation, or other forms of external action, a necessary ingredient in negotiations. 5
Combining Levels of Analysis
Why is it important that we place intervention within the context of the domestic
political situation? Current studies of third-party actions often assume that war-
affected states mirror the state of anarchy found in the international system. In part,
this has been a result of discourse that suggests a binary opposition of failed and
successful states.6 This dichotomy suggests that conflict-affected states are failed
countries with no central authority, legitimacy or ability to provide public goods.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 47
Domestic anarchy calls for a third party to stabilize and monitor the situation
through heavy intervention.7
In fact, state capacity in countries facing ethnopolitical violence is not uniformly
weak. Not all conflict-affected countries are collapsing or failed states.8 For
example, India is an enduring democracy with a federal structure. Yet, institutional
weaknesses have encouraged numerous ethnic rebellions. Other examples include
Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), Papua New Guinea
and the Philippines. Many of these states occupy a middle ground between the
supposed dichotomy of failed and successful states. Wars in such situations may be
resolved without the heavy-handed stability guarantees that are touted in existing
scholarly and policy studies.
Because of the literature’s focus on high-decibel cases of state failure like
Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, we
ignore cases of peace negotiations and/or settlements which have occurred with a
partnership of domestic and international actors, such as in Indonesia and Papua
New Guinea.9 As a consequence of this limitation, most studies on the role and
efficacy of international intervention ignore local capacity. Conversely, studies that
examine the relation of domestic institutions to ethnic conflict do not examine the
possible intersecting effects of international intervention.10 Even though scholars
have encouraged an integration of international relations and comparative politics in
understanding peace processes,11 few studies of conflict management have actually
addressed this gap.
INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION IN DEMOCRACIES
Understanding the complementary role of international and domestic factors
becomes particularly important when we examine conflict processes in democratic
countries. Because democracies provide more information about decision-making
processes and outcomes, the security dilemma and resulting conflict spirals are
mitigated.12 However, since democracies allow the open expression of dissent, they
might also send unclear signals to rebelling groups about the extent of consensus and
political will in the government.13 These dynamics have a significant impact on civil
war, a point that has not been investigated in the current literature. The research
presented here will point to the complex relations between democracy and conflict
Theoretically, democratic regimes are more transparent, receptive to dissent and
amenable to power sharing. These factors should make them more willing and
able to compromise with rebelling groups. Where democratic institutions have been
manipulated and weakened, the credibility of political structures declines. In such
situations, the challenge of balancing competing claims to state power and resources
becomes very complex. Electoral competition can make it difficult for the
government to seek a compromise solution with rebelling groups, particularly if the
latter are perceived to threaten national integrity and unity. Being receptive to
international intervention, especially if it involves foreign military presence, can
make the government vulnerable to accusations of weakness and trigger a nationalist
backlash. International intervention, even in softer forms such as mediation, can
suggest the government is unable to address its internal problems.14 In the war of
images that often characterize internal conflict, such a move can strengthen the
rebels. In other words, stable and democratic countries are also vulnerable to civil
conflicts. In such situations, the efficacy of international intervention might be
limited by the democratic politics of the affected state. Low- key intervention,
which facilitates, rather than forces, the peace process is a more useful conflict-
management tool in such cases.
A number of studies in international relations have shown us that states are not
unitary actors. Internal debates and rivalries affect most foreign policy decisions.
This realization has not been adequately extended to examinations of international
influences on civil wars. The state is often assumed to be a unitary actor with a single
set of rational preferences.15 In practice, governments wrestle with clashing demands
and interests while attempting to resolve domestic rebellions. Democratic regimes
do tend to have a higher probability of engaging in direct dialogue with rebelling
groups.16 At the same time, they have decisional constraints that limit the ability
to reach power-sharing agreements with minority groups. Disagreements and
competition within the state can play a pivotal role in the conflict process. Such
processes are often most visible and influential in democratic regimes, where
electoral competition and alliance politics determine policy decisions.17 Recognition
of intra-government differences is critical for a nuanced understanding of the effects
and limitations of international intervention.
Few studies consider the receptiveness of a country towards intervention in terms
of local perceptions of sovereignty. In the Sri Lankan case, India’s offer of security
guarantees was greeted with intense popular opposition because it was seen as a
threat to the country’s integrity. Such perceptions are likely higher in countries with
a greater degree of local state capacity and can exercise a direct influence on the
efficacy of third-party intervention. There is a need to develop a better understanding
of conflict situations in stable and democratic countries, and to explore the limitations
and opportunities of third-party intervention in such situations.
Enforcement Intervention: Is it Necessary?
Scholars have argued that enforcement-based intervention, such as military action or
providing security guarantees, is necessary to overcome the chronic credible
commitment problems that plague civil war. The emphasis on enforcement leads us
to neglect the distributional and political conditions that foster dialogue. Strong third-
party intervention can create an ‘unnatural peace’ which merely shifts the problem of
credible commitment to external parties.18 Research on interstate crises has also
indicated the negative unintended consequences of heavy-handed intervention.19
Peace is viable only so long as the external actors remain committed tomonitoring
and enforcement activities. Such external commitment is in itself rare. Realist theory
suggests that international actors will be reluctant to commit substantial and sustained
resources to a distant conflict unless they have a direct interest in it. If the security
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 49
guarantors are interested parties, it would follow that they would be perceived as
biased by at least one of the conflict actors. It is unclear how such a perception could
override themistrust, which is driving the conflict. InCambodia, Somalia andAngola,
external security guarantees have collapsed, leading to further domestic warfare. In
other cases, such as Guatemala and El Salvador, noncoercive, normative intervention
has greatly facilitated the peace process. 20
An Integrative Ttheory
In sum, the existing literature does not pay adequate attention to the intersections
between domestic and international levels of analysis in conflictmanagement. Taking a
more nuanced look at this interplay challenges the emphasis on forceful international
intervention and security guarantees present in some studies. 21 The United Kingdom
(Northern Ireland), Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, India and
Philippines, have all experienced rebellions while having democratic institutions and a
central focus of control. Third-party actions in such situations face particular challenges
due to the weaknesses of internal political structures. Where the state is not facing a
collapse of authority, facilitative intervention, such as mediation, can be a more cost-
effective conflict management tool than high-cost, high-impact actions. Identifying
alternatives to coercive intervention becomes particularly important given the relative
rarity of external security guarantees.
WHY SRI LANKA?
This paper will examine the interactive processes of domestic and international
influences on the Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka. The island nation of Sri Lanka has a
population of about 19 million people. A majority of the country is Sinhala (about 74
per cent), while an estimated 12–13 per cent are Sri Lankan Tamils.22 Since the
1980s, Sri Lanka has faced a protracted violent conflict, led by the militant
Liberation of Tamil Tigers Eelam (LTTE). The LTTE has demanded a separate and
independent state for the Tamil people, who are concentrated in the north-eastern
part of the country. The Sinhala-dominated Sri Lankan government (GoSL) has
refused to acquiesce to this. The war has affected the vast social and economic
potential of this country, once hailed as the next Singapore of Asia. It continues to be
one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. 23
Sri Lanka has several factors, which make it a particularly interesting study, distinct
from the failed states that often constitute explorations of intervention in civil wars.
First, the country has reasonably strong political institutions, with stable
bureaucratic and juridical structures. Except for the LTTE-controlled areas of the
northeast, the government enjoys territorial sovereignty and sufficient military
capability. Despite the long-standing conflict in the Jaffna Peninsula, the rest of the
country has experienced ‘regular’ life and a strong civil society.24
Second, Sri Lanka is a long-standing democracy with an active and competitive
multiparty system. Theoretically, democratic structures provide transparent power-
sharing mechanisms which can help overcome commitment problems. Some
scholars have, however, questioned the ability of democratic governments in
developing countries to prevent or manage conflicts.25 A close examination of the
Sri Lankan case will highlight some of the challenges of conflict management in a
poorly functioning democracy.
History of Intervention
Sri Lanka has had a long history of international intervention. Broadly speaking,
there have been two major phases of external action. The first phase involved a high
level of diplomatic and military intervention by the country’s powerful neighbor,
India. This intervention culminated in India’s controversial, and ultimately failed,
military incursion and subsequent withdrawal in 1990. The next major phase of
intervention began in 1997 and has involved mediation by Norway. 26
The case illustrates many of the challenges and opportunities presented by third
party-action. The disastrous Indian intervention highlights the potential dangers of
military action, particularly in a country with a strong sense of sovereignty and
nationalism. On the other hand, facilitative intervention has played an important role
in enabling the conflicting parties to engage in dialogue with each other. At the same
time, the Sri Lankan state’s internal divisions have prevented it from taking decisive
steps towards reaching a viable settlement. In sum, examining the Sri Lankan case
will enable us to understand the role of different forms of intervention: mediation,
diplomatic pressure and military intervention.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT
Sri Lanka (then known as Ceylon) was a British colony from 1795 till 1948. As in
many of its other colonies, the British encouraged the development of a small group
of cosmopolitan, English-speaking administrative officials. As a result of the
historical concentration of educational facilities in the Jaffna Peninsula, Tamils, who
were in a majority in this area, came to dominate this English-speaking group. Much
of the Sinhala population was excluded from this elite circle.27 Sri Lanka gained
independence from Britain through a peaceful transfer of power in 1948. From its
inception, it was a parliamentary democracy. While the first few post-independence
years were marked by a great deal of optimism, ethnic strife was soon to become a
scarring and permanent feature of Sri Lankan politics.
In post-independence Sri Lanka, linguistic differences became a highly divisive
issue. Acquiescing to the demands of nationalists, the government instituted
Sinhalese as the sole official language. Concerned with their marginalization, Tamil
politicians began to seek autonomy for their community. Assurances were given to
the Tamils that their language would be given due recognition. However, as rival
political leaders tried to attract the Sinhala vote by attacking attempts at power
sharing, the assurances did not yield results.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 51
In an effort to garner Sinhala votes, successive governments enacted a series of
measures aimed at asserting the preeminent position for the majority group. A new
constitution in 1972 emphasized the unitary structure of the state. It also made
Buddhism the foremost religion and Sinhalese the dominant language. In 1973 the
government introduced a system of positive discrimination in favor of Sinhala
candidates in university admissions. This resulted in a fall in educational and
employment opportunities for Tamils. As the Sri Lankan economy faltered and
unemployment increased, the government resorted to greater numbers of populist
moves to fuel Sinhala nationalism. Successive governments in Sri Lanka would
support greater rights for Tamils but back down in the face of Sinhala opposition.
Ethnic outbidding had become a standard feature of Sinhala politics. As a result,
Tamil groups looked upon government proposals with cynicism and demands for a
separate state became more entrenched. Sri Lankan politics became marked by
competing and clashing claims of Tamil and Sinhala nationalism.28
Tamil militancy came to the fore during this time. The Tamil New Tigers was
formed in 1972; this group was to become the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE) in 1976. The year 1983 marked a significant escalation in ethnic polarization
and violence. On 23 July 1983 Tamil militants killed 13 soldiers in Jaffna. This was
followed by indiscriminate rioting in Colombo, where Tamil civilians were brutally
attacked and killed. Politicians and government officials openly participated in
the violence and President J. R. Jayawardene showed little, if any, regret for the
situation. The riots directly led to the creation of a large Tamil refugee population,
both within and outside the country. There was an exodus of Tamils to Europe, North
America and neighboring India.
The Tamil diaspora that had been displaced after the 1983 riots helped create
a global militant movement. The LTTE evolved into one of the world’s most
disciplined, well-funded and well-organized militant organizations, with strong
bases in India and several Western countries. The group has continued to wage a
brutal campaign against Sri Lankan forces. 29
MILITARY INTERVENTION BY INDIA
Because of the island’s geographical location and strong kinship links between the
Tamil populations in the two countries, India has had a long-standing interest in
political developments in Sri Lanka. India’s position has, however, been riddled
with internal contradictions. As demands for autonomy grew among Sri Lankan
Tamils, the Indian government became concerned with the possible impact on its
restive southern state, Tamil Nadu. At the same time, Indian politicians used the
conflict in their own brand of ethnic outbidding. Political parties in Tamil Nadu
vied with one another to support Tamil demands in Sri Lanka. The central
government supported these moves in order to garner votes. Additionally, the
Indian government sought to enhance its influence over the country. As a result, the
Indian government adopted a muddled, twin-track policy. While Sri Lankan Tamil
militant groups were trained by India’s intelligence agency, Research and Analysis
Wing, New Delhi became a mediator in the conflict.30
In 1985 Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi convinced Sri Lankan President
Jayewardene to hold talks with separatist Tamil groups under Indian mediation.31 Sri
Lankan authorities met representatives of five major Tamil guerrilla groups in
Thimpu, Bhutan for two rounds of talks in 1985. Initially, the talks seemed to progress
well with discussions on devolution of power. Yet, the actors were unable to reach a
final decision, as each side continued to blame the other for ceasefire violations.
During the talks, President Jayewardene’s ability to make concessions was
hampered by domestic alliances and conditions. Sinhala nationalists launched a
virulent campaign against the peace talks and the Buddhist clergy allied itself with
the rival party. Jayewardene resorted to populist rhetoric to placate Sinhala
nationalists and took an increasingly hardline stance toward Tamil demands. The
Tamils withdrew from the talks in August, protesting an outburst of violence in a
northern town.32 As the talks headed towards collapse, new fighting erupted between
the two sides.33 The Indian government continued to try and facilitate the peace
process, but its efforts were unsuccessful. By 1986 talks had broken down
completely and the violence escalated.
In 1987 secret talks between the Indian and Sri Lankan government led to a
peace accord. According to its terms, Tamil militant groups would not be permitted
to operate on Indian soil. In addition, Indian troops would be sent to the northeastern
Sri Lanka to help disarm Tamil militants and protect civilians. The secrecy
surrounding the talks fueled the belief that the Accord was imposed by the Indian
government upon President Jayewardene and on the LTTE.
The Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) that was sent to Sri Lanka was, initially, a
security guarantor to maintain peace in the Jaffna Peninsula. Yet, the role of the
Indians was fraught with problems from the onset. Both Tamil and Sinhala
nationalists opposed the accord. Tamil militants were enraged that discussions
leading to the pact excluded their involvement and were suspicious of the fact that
the accord gave primacy to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.
Sinhala nationalists were virulently opposed to Indian involvement, viewing it as a
violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty. Even ministers within the Sri Lankan
government expressed their unhappiness with the agreement. The accord led to riots
in Sri Lanka’s capital, Colombo, and a resurgence of the militantly nationalist
Janata Vimuki Peramuna (‘People’s Liberation Front’) or JVP. This ensued in
extreme and protracted violence in the southern part of the country, where the JVP
had its traditional base.34
By October 1987 relations between the IPKF and the Tamils had reached its
nadir, as allegations of brutal actions against Tamil militants and civilians reached
their peak. The IPKF’s role changed from a security guarantor to an enemy force,
hated by both sides to the conflict. In 1990 the Indian troops finally left Jaffna under
persistent demands from the Sri Lankan government.35 After the departure of the
IPKF, the LTTE declared the onset of its Eelam War II and a new phase of military
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 53
LIMITATIONS OF THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION
The IPKF operation was a disastrous mission. It destroyed India’s reputation and
entrenched hostilities between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government. The
Indian intervention failed to achieve its goal of ending the war in Sri Lanka and, in
fact, had a counterproductive impact on the situation. The Tamils’ experience of
the harshness of the IPKF operation cemented their commitment to fight for an
independent state. 36
The Indian intervention shows the limitations of third-party action, even when the
actor in question is a powerful one. The government of Sri Lanka was suspicious that
India favored the Tamil militants, while the latter viewed India with hostility after the
IPKF debacle. The military intervention was also seen as an unwelcome challenge to
Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. In sum, both sides mistrusted Indian involvement.
FAILED PEACE MOVES
In the 1990s it became more apparent that the two sides were at a military stalemate.
As a result, the actors became more receptive to the idea of a negotiated settlement.
In 1994 the People’s Alliance (PA), under the leadership of Chandrika
Kumaratunga, came to power in the parliamentary elections. One of the PA’s
principal election planks had been a promise to initiate talks with the LTTE. The
party’s victory showed popular support for this. After coming to power,
Kumaratunga introduced confidence-building measures to underline her govern-
ment’s interest in working towards a peace settlement. 37
Although some talks were held between the two sides, prospects for a settlement
were not positive. First, Kumaratunga enjoyed only a slim majority in the
parliament, limiting her ability to implement reforms. Second, it was more than
likely that even her own party members would resist surrendering political power to
the Tamils. Finally, while the talks were continuing, the two sides continued to
engage in military hostilities. In response to a major LTTE attack on a presidential
candidate in October 1994, the government suspended peace talks with the group.38
In 1997 the Sri Lankan government made a renewed push for peace by trying to
obtain a broader consensus on devolution while continuing its military actions against
the LTTE. However, as in earlier instances, neither the opposition nor the ruling party
showed a commitment to cooperate with each other on the peace process. The
opposition of the Buddhist clergy played an important role in preventing any concrete
proposals from being made. The LTTE, too, continued to arm itself, underlining its
own reluctance to follow a negotiations-based approach. The Sri Lankan
government’s postponement of provincial elections and renewed military operations
in the north underscored the lack of credibility in its peace overtures. 39
In sum, the ongoing policy of ethnic outbidding ensured that the government was
unable and unwilling to offer tangible autonomy to the Tamils. For its part, the
LTTE was not committed to the peace process and the group declared EelamWar III
From 1998 the two sides once again appeared more willing to engage in dialogue.
This was facilitated by a growing interest from Norway and a steady realization that
the conflict had reached political and military stalemate.40 The Norwegians held
meetings with senior members of the Sri Lankan government, opposition parties and
the LTTE in order to facilitate dialogue. India supported the Scandinavian
initiative.41 International interest pushed both sides in the conflict towards
attempting to find a political solution.
Efforts to generate cooperation between the government and the opposition
ultimately fell victim to the ethnic outbidding that has plagued Sri Lanka for
decades. Hardline Buddhist monks and other Sinhala nationalists opposed
the proposal on the grounds that it relinquished too much to the Tamils. The
Sinhala nationalists were also suspicious of Norway’s overtures to the LTTE and
alleged that the intervener was biased in favor of Tamil separatists. Keen to avoid
losing the nationalist vote, the President and the opposition leader publicly
declared that they would take decisive steps only after consultation with Buddhist
In 2001 military hostilities increased with a renewed battle for Jaffna and a major
LTTE suicide attack on the international airport in Colombo.42 At the same time, the
major Sinhala political parties traded accusations on the handling of the conflict. The
growing strength of Sri Lankan nationalist parties, such as the JVP, contributed to
the unwillingness of the leading parties to take bold decisions on the conflict.43 Once
again, the efforts of the Norwegian mediation team were stymied by ethnic
outbidding between the major political players in the country and the intransigence
of the LTTE.
AFTER 9/11: A SHIFT IN PERSPECTIVE
Despite these setbacks, international opinion in India, Canada and the US continued
to support a peace process. Donor countries and international organizations began to
exert pressure on the government of Sri Lanka to work towards a negotiated
settlement. The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 marked a change in the
LTTE’s position. International sentiment and policy towards militant organizations
hardened. Access to funds was tightened in several Western countries in which
LTTE had a base. The group’s sympathizers became more open in their questioning
of the viability, effectiveness and legitimacy of its militant activities. As a result, the
group showed an increasing preference for dialogue with the GoSL, even though it
did not dilute its military strength.44
In December 2001 the UNP won the parliamentary elections and Ranil
Wickeremasinghe, who had promised to hold talks with the LTTE, became prime
minister. Highlighting the importance of international intervention,Wickremasinghe
said that he would rely on world opinion to withstand opposition from hardline
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 55
A significant breakthrough was achieved by the Norwegians in March 2002. The
two sides signed a ceasefire pact and agreed to hold direct talks. The agreement
provided for the creation of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), led by
Norway. Direct talks were held in Thailand and in Norway in 2002. GoSL and LTTE
representatives discussed rehabilitation work and security issues such as the
withdrawal of the military from certain Tamil-dominated areas. In December, the
two sides made a major tactical shift by agreeing to explore a federal structure for Sri
Lanka. Previously, the LTTE had been adamant in its secessionist stance. The
agreement in Oslo indicated that the group was finally willing to seek a solution
within the framework of a united Sri Lanka.46 For its part, the GoSL had earlier been
very reluctant to explore federalism. Sinhala nationalists had viewed the concept
with a great deal of suspicion, concerned that it would directly lead to a breakup of
The Oslo summit also underlined the LTTE’s continuing quest for international
legitimacy. The group welcomed the presence of foreign officials at the meeting and
sought to send representatives to different democratic countries to study various
models which could be applied to a reconstituted Sri Lanka.47
While these talks generated optimism and were encouraged by both India and the
United States, concerns remained about the impact of domestic politics on the
negotiations. In particular, the bitter rivalry between Prime Minister Wickrema-
singhe and President Kumaratunga was expected to be a major impediment.48 The
President alleged that the ceasefire terms violated the sovereignty of Sri Lanka by
giving too much power to the Norwegians. She also opposed lifting the ban on the
LTTE, a demand to which the Prime Minister had already agreed. The JVP was very
hostile to the agreement and accused the government of betraying the country and
succumbing to Norwegian interests.49
In April 2003 the LTTE unilaterally suspended negotiations. The Norwegians
continued their attempts by talking to both the Sri Lankan government and the
Tigers. Despite its pullout from direct talks, the LTTE showed a continued, albeit
questionable, interest in the peace process. The ceasefire stayed in place, despite
some minor violations and allegations that the LTTE was recruiting children as
soldiers. On 31 October 2003 the LTTE presented its much awaited counterproposal
outlining an Interim Self-Governing Authority for northeastern Sri Lanka. This
was a significant step, as in the past, the LTTE had awaited the government’s offers
rather than offer some of its own.
Soon after the counterproposals were presented, however, the government
of Sri Lanka once again found itself in turmoil. Exercising her constitutional
powers, President Kumaratunga took over several key portfolios and prorogued
parliament. Kumaratunga’s move highlighted the bitter conflict between her and
Wickremasinghe and the danger that this rivalry posed to the peace process. Because
of the lack of clarity over the authority structure in the GoSL, the Norwegian
government formally put its role in the peace process on hold.
In the 2004 parliamentary elections the PA came back into power with the
support of the nationalist JVP. This cast doubt on the government’s ability to push
forward a settlement with the LTTE. The JVP has consistently and vociferously
opposed moves to recognize the LTTE and share power with Tamils. The party has
also protested government cooperation with the militant group in the tsunami-
affected areas of northeastern Sri Lanka. Nonetheless, Kumaratunga’s government
showed an interest in continuing the peace process. After assuming power, the
President said that she welcomed Norwegian intervention and supported working
with the LTTE on tsunami-related relief work.
Unfortunately, the hope that the conflict in Sri Lanka would be eased through
cooperation in tsunami-related reconstruction efforts proved to be short-lived. Amid
continuing ceasefire violations, increasing incidences of LTTE violence and
frequent changes of power in the government, the peace process appears to be in
serious jeopardy. In 2006 the Norwegians were able to arrange the first face-to-face
dialogue between the two sides, preventing a possible return to war. The dialogue
failed, however, to stem the rising numbers of killings. In the absence of a strong
political direction from the Sri Lankan government and the recalcitrance of the
LTTE, it is unclear where the peace process will ultimately lead.
INCENTIVES TO AGREE AND TO DISAGREE
There are at least three compelling reasons for the conflict parties to seek a
First, there is tangible war weariness among the population of the country.
Second, the conflict has reached a military stalemate, with neither side in a
position to score a compelling victory. It is possible that the LTTE views its present
situation as preferable to an ultimate settlement because it has de facto control over
parts of the country. Nonetheless, the likelihood of the group being granted a
separate state is small. Moreover, post-9/11 sanctions are believed to have hurt the
finances and legitimacy of the organization.
Third, international pressure to resolve the conflict by peaceful means is strong.
This includes both political and financial incentives. The conflict actors stand to gain
from the substantial amounts of international financial assistance promised for post-
conflict rehabilitation, reconstruction and development.50
Furthermore, leading Sinhala politicians acknowledge that the Tamil population
has been wronged in the past and devolution is necessary. Yet, the path of peace has
been filled with vacillation, both from the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government.
Given the strong incentives to continue the peace process, why has the Sri
Lankan government been so unwilling to commit to it? One obvious reason is the
mistrust of the LTTE. Many domestic and international officials are skeptical of the
group’s interest in co-existing in a united Sri Lanka. LTTE’s violent methods do not
reflect a credible commitment to the democratic governing process. The group has
been criticized for continuing to violate the ceasefire, procure arms and forcibly
recruit children as soldiers. The LTTE also mistrusts the government’s intentions, as
do many Tamil civilians. Consequently, each side’s negative perceptions get
reinforced, creating a formidable obstacle to the peace process.51
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 57
The second reason is the internal nature of Sri Lankan politics. Just as denying
Tamils equal rights and status had been the hallmark of Sri Lankan politics in earlier
decades; scuttling the peace process has become an integral part of recent party
politics. The party in power supports the peace process; in response, the opposition
casts doubt on the ruling party’s commitment to a united Sri Lanka. As a result, the
credibility of the government’s assurances to the Tamils is very low. Ironically, the
two principal parties, the UNP and the PA, have very few substantive differences on
the peace process. They agree that the conflict has reached a military stalemate and
that a decisive victory is unlikely. They also concur that a negotiated settlement is
necessary for Sri Lanka’s economic and social progress.52 Yet each party questions
and challenges the other’s peace moves and refuses to give the support necessary for
a settlement to be reached. The LTTE’s quest for absolute power among the Tamils
is matched by the intense competition between the PA and the UNP. These two
forces have worked together to entrench the conflict and prevent it from ending.53
The Sri Lankan case illustrates some of the ways in which democratic politics can
hinder conflict management.
THE PARADOX OF DEMOCRACY AND THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF
Theoretically, a democratic regime is well placed to mitigate commitment problems
by allowing for a structure of competition, dialogue and power-sharing. We would
expect that democracies have a greater probability of having substantive and
successful negotiations with a rebel group. In Sri Lanka, however, we see an
opposite process at work. Sri Lanka’s electoral politics has been marked by ethnic
outbidding from the outset. In addition, the structure of electoral politics in Sri
Lanka and the division of power between the President and Prime Minister makes it
difficult for any single party to gain decisive control over governance. As a result,
the party in power is often dependent on alliances with smaller parties, who, in turn,
have their own agendas. As a result, no government is strong enough to push through
a peace agreement; and no opposition is willing to support the government in its
attempts to secure such an agreement. Uncertainty has become a constant and
defining feature of politics in Sri Lanka, affecting every stage of the peace process.
There have been times that the government and the opposition have attempted to
cooperate on peace plans; however, these have been always been thwarted by
the exigencies of party politics. The unwillingness to cooperate has affected the
peace process by making the government’s offers less credible. It may be true that
democracies are more transparent in their negotiations.54 This does not, however,
lead to stability, particularly where democratic institutions are governed by the
politics of expediency and shifting alliances. While democratic transparency can
help the process of negotiations, democratic politics can, paradoxically, hinder it.
The international community does not support LTTEmoves to establish a separate
state. Such recognition would violate international norms against secessionist
movements. It might also send a signal that terrorism can yield benefits.55 This has
worked to the advantage of the Sri Lankan government. In addition, there are
significant financial incentives for both sides to arrive at a peace settlement. Thus,
international pressure has been active in encouraging negotiations.
During the phase of Indian military intervention, relations between the LTTE and
the GoSL were very weak. When intervention took a more diplomatic, facilitative
nature, we witnessed periods of substantive talks between the two sides. This was
the case during the Thimpu talks in the mid-1980s and the Norwegian push towards
peace from the late 1990s. International intervention has, however, had a weaker
influence on the dynamics of intra-Sinhala politics. While the party in power tends to
adopt a more conciliatory position, the one in opposition follows a more belligerent
and critical path. This, in turn, impacts the progress of talks between the government
and the Tamil separatists. Ultimately, this has created a situation where facilitative
intervention does create room for talks but no agreement is reached.
In contrast to Norway’s intervention, India’s military action had a highly
detrimental impact on Sri Lankan politics. It exacerbated the conflict and created a
long-term antipathy toward foreign intervention. This, in turn, has led to mistrust of
Norwegian intervention. The IPKF debacle shows the far-reaching pitfalls of a
poorly planned, coercive intervention. In countries with functioning political
institutions, noncoercive, facilitative intervention might be more useful in dealing
with civil conflicts. Noncoercive intervention, such as mediation, represents a low-
cost alternative between inaction and risky large-scale military intervention.56 It also
has a higher likelihood of getting local support as it does not threaten the country’s
Figure 1 illustrates the international and domestic dimensions of the conflict.
International intervention has helped facilitate dialogue between the conflict
actors. Given the extent of mistrust between the two sides, third-party action is, in
fact, essential to facilitating negotiations. Ethnic outbidding and reputation concerns
have, however, created a situation where the government and opposition parties
THE DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION
Source: The author.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 59
are unwilling to cooperate to find a credible, peaceful solution. The question of
international intervention feeds into this dynamic to the extent that the government
needs and seeks external help, but is reluctant to seem dependent upon it. These
dynamics, in turn, affect the success of talks between the government and the
From a policy perspective, the situation raises some difficult questions. It is not
clear if the international community can, or should, take any action to alter the
domestic political calculations. Nonetheless, this dimension is a critical intervening
factor, one that the international community must be cognizant of and sensitive to.
From a theoretical perspective, it is important to consider the impact of electoral
politics on the efficacy of international intervention efforts.
Political institutions can and do play an important role in maintaining ethnic
peace. In order to play a constructive role, however, they should be viewed as an
impartial mediator by citizens. When institutions are not consistent and impartial,
the citizenry will lose confidence in them. In Sri Lanka, political institutions have
been weakened and manipulated to the extent that ethnic outbidding has become a
standard feature of the island’s politics, creating an atmosphere of extreme
mistrust.57 In such a situation, impartial external intervention becomes essential to
fulfill the mediatory role abdicated by domestic institutions.
In Sri Lanka, previous peace efforts have been obstructed by two factors, the
LTTE’s extremism and domestic politics. Under international pressure, both
economic and political, the positions of the LTTE and the GoSL had softened,
although there are renewed fears about a return to war. What remains missing is a
domestic consensus on a viable settlement. While third-party action has been
successful in convincing the LTTE and the government of the need to reach a
negotiated settlement, it has not been able to restrain the ethnic outbidding
characterizing Sri Lankan politics. Even in strong states, negotiations to end
violent conflict require a significant amount of diplomacy and political will.
Leaders need to consider popular support and their political survival while
arriving at a compromise solution.58 In other words, domestic consensus on the
peace process is essential, even in the face of strong international support for
Electoral considerations in competitive, multiparty systems can make the
construction of such an agreement very difficult and complex. The international
community must, therefore, be sensitive to actions that might harm such a consensus
(e.g., mention of sending peacekeeping forces) and those that could help build an
agreement (e.g., offering economic support to a peace agreement, which would
benefit the country as a whole).
IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
The Sri Lankan case provides some interesting and previously understudied insights
into the challenges of facilitating peace through international intervention.
The Importance of Recognizing Intrastate Divisions
Debates over power sharing, autonomy, constitutional reengineering, and
intervention create significant fissures within the government of a conflict-affected
state. Contentious issues can become particularly public and bitter in democratic
states, such as in Sri Lanka. In a multi-party system, numerous contrary opinions on
how to deal with conflict are inevitable. The existing literature on conflict
management tends to view the state as a unitary actor with a rationally defined set of
preferences.59 The case study presented here shows that the state’s internal divisions
can be as germane to the conflict as external factors. Often, the government does not
have a single set of preferences. Rather, opposition and ruling parties can have
contrary positions, based on electoral calculations. Conflicts in other democracies,
such as India and the United Kingdom, reflect a similar dynamic. Recognizing the
non-unitary characteristics of many conflict-affected states will encourage third-
parties to pay greater attention to the need to develop an internal consensus before an
agreement is signed. This dynamic is particularly strong in democratic states.
In order for international intervention to be effective, third-party actors must
have a keen sensitivity to the motivations of the government to compromise (or not)
with rebelling groups. The Sri Lankan case challenges our earlier understanding of
when and why governments seek to reach negotiated settlements with insurgents.
The past literature has argued that conflict actors are more receptive to negotiation
when a mutually hurting stalemate has been reached.60 A more recent study by
Walter (2003) shows that governments are less likely to negotiate if territory is at
stake and if the state is also facing other, potentially disgruntled minority groups.
She contends that if a country has only one significant challenger (as is the case in
Sri Lanka), it is rational for the government to negotiate rather than bear the high
costs of fighting. 61
An unpacking of the ‘black box’ of the Sri Lankan state challenges some of these
arguments. First, the country is unlikely to face significant threats from minority
groups other than the Tamils. Second, it is evident that a military victory is unlikely,
if not impossible. Third, the conflict has reached a stage where secession – that is,
actual loss of territory – is far less likely than before. Fourth, the financial incentives
for ending the conflict are enormous. The Sri Lankan government is unwilling to
negotiate because of its reputation concerns with its own domestic voters. In other
words, its position is driven by electoral compulsions.
Being aware of this dynamic is critical for the efficacy of third party intervener.
The latter can no longer assume that territorial or military questions are the most
germane issues in the conflict. Instead, building alliances with the various domestic,
often conflicting, constituents is essential for a viable peace process. From a policy
perspective, it may not be feasible for an external actor to play an active role in
structuring or modifying domestic politics. Nonetheless, an awareness of this dynamic
is critical because it highlights the fact that interveners cannot simply address two sets
of demands – one of the government and the other of the rebel groups. Rather, they
must grapple with a multitude of demands within the government.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 61
Democracy and Negotiations
The Sri Lankan case challenges the argument that democracies are more able and
willing to negotiate with minorities.62 The literature on international conflict has
long argued that, when dealing with international crises, democracies generate
distinctive patterns and outcomes because of the public nature of political
competition.63 When there is strong domestic consensus, the credibility and strength
of the decision can be very high. In the absence of such consensus, credibility signals
are very weak. The finding of this article extends this argument to the arena of
domestic conflicts. The Sri Lankan case highlights the difficulties of balancing
electoral compulsions with the need for compromise. International intervention can
mitigate the problems created by internal dissent by giving consistent support to
particular peace moves and encouraging domestic constituents to recognize the
long-term political benefits of peace. Controversial forms of action might, however,
exacerbate intrastate divisions.
This paper has argued that the growing body of literature on intervention must take
into account the interactions at the systemic, state and intrastate levels. In other
words, situating third-party action within the domestic political context of the
conflict-affected state will yield valuable insights. Such an approach marks a shift
from the prevailing literature, which tends to assume that civil wars occur in anarchic
environments, where domestic institutions are non-existent or virtually ineffective.
The case study of Sri Lanka showed a contrasting finding. The country’s relatively
stable institutional structure has created a culture of democratic politics that is both
an opportunity and a significant challenge. On the one hand, the island’s long history
of competitive multiparty elections provides avenues for inclusive policies and open
dialogue. Its relative political stability means that the international community does
not have to invest resources in creating entirely new security or governance
structures. On the other hand, the practice of ethnic outbidding hampers the efficacy
of international intervention. Successive governments have had an inconsistent
response to mediatory efforts, because of concerns regarding electoral performance.
External intervention must not be seen as usurping the country’s sovereignty
or favoring either the government or the rebelling forces. In sum, international
intervention in Sri Lanka must work with existing structures and actors without
overtly challenging the country’s pre-existing political institutions. These findings
are transferable to other cases, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, India and Papua
New Guinea, where violent political conflict has not precluded the existence of
relatively stable and democratic institutions. In several countries, including
Mozambique, Mali and Tajikistan, third parties have played a valuable role in
conflict management. They achieved success not by offering independent incentives
but by mediating in order to making the negotiating process more credible.64
A closer examination of such cases might provide us with a valuable understanding
of the role of facilitative intervention in peace processes.
I wish to thank Mark I. Lichbach, R. William Ayres, Neil DeVotta and the anonymous reviewers at Civil Wars for their helpful comments and suggestions. Previous versions of this article were presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, in March 2006 and the Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies, Denver in September 2005.
1. Ted Robert Gurr, People Versus States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century (Washington DC: US Institute of Peace 2000); Monty G. Marshall and Ted Robert Gurr, Peace and Conflict 2005: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-Determination Movements, and Democracy (College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management 2005); T. David Mason, ‘Globalization, Democratization and the Prospects for Civil War in the New Millennium’, International Studies Review 5/4 (2003) pp.19–35; Mark Peceny and William Stanley, ‘Liberal Social Reconstruction and the Resolution of Civil Wars in Central America’, International Organization 55/1 (2001) pp.149–82.
2. Paul F. Diehl, ‘Chasing Headlines: Setting the Research Agenda on War’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 19/1 (2002) pp.5–26; David James and Patrick Carment, ‘Third-Party States in Ethnic Conflict: Identifying the Domestic Determinants of Intervention’, in Steven E. Lobell and Philip Mauceri (eds.), Ethnic Conflict and International Politics (NY: Palgrave Macmillan 2004); Patrick M Regan, ‘Conditions of Successful Third-Party Intervention in Intrastate Conflicts’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 40/2 (1996) pp.336–59; Steven R. David, ‘Internal War: Causes and Cures’, World Politics 49/4 (1997) pp.552–76; Paul Stern and Daniel Druckman (ed.), International Conflict Resolution after the Cold War (Washington DC: National Academy Press 2000); I. William Zartman, ‘Comparative Case Studies’, International Negotiation 10 (2005) pp.3–15.
3. SuzanneWerner, David Davis and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, ‘Dissolving Boundaries: Introduction’ , International Studies Review 5/4 (2003) pp.1–7.
4. Virginia Page Fortna, ‘Inside and Out: Peacekeeping and the Duration of Peace after Civil and Interstate Wars’, International Studies Review 5/4 (2003) pp.97–114; David A. Lake, ‘International Relations and Internal Conflict: Insights from the Interstices’, International Studies Review 5/4 (2003) pp.81–9; Barry R. Posen, ‘The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict’, Survival 35 (1993) pp.27–47; Barbara Walter, Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars (Princeton UP 2002).
5. Gurr (note 1); Michael Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis, ‘International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis’, American Political Science Review 94/4 (2000) pp.779–801; Fen Osler Hampson, Nurturing Peace: Why Peace Settlements Succeed or Fail (Washington DC: US Institute of Peace 1996); David A. Lake and Donald Rothchild, ‘Containing Fear: The Origins and Management of Wars, 1945–1993’, American Political Science Review 89/3 (1995) pp.681–90; Monty G. Marshall and Ted Robert Gurr, Peace and Conflict 2003 (College Park, MD: CIDCM 2003); T. David Mason and Patrick J. Fett, ‘How Civil Wars End: A Rational Choice Approach’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 40/4 (1996) pp.546–68; Patrick M. Regan, ‘Third-Party Interventions and the Duration of Intrastate Conflicts,’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 46/1 (2002) pp.55–73; Patrick M. Regan, Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press 2000); Walter (note 4); I. William Zartman, ‘Mediating Conflicts of Need, Greed and Creed’, Orbis 44/2 (2000) pp.255–66.
6. Walter (note 4); Pinar Bilgin and David A.Morton, ‘From “Rogue” to “Failed” States? The Fallacy of Short-Termism’, Politics 24/3 (2004) pp.169–81.
7. Diehl (note 2); Doyle and Sambanis (note 5); James Fearon and David Laitin, ‘Neotrusteeship and the Problem of Weak States’, International Security 28/4 (2004) pp.5–43; Fortna (note 4).
8. Werner et al. (note 3); Lake (note 4). 9. David Carment and Patrick James, ‘Assessing State Failure: Implications for Theory and Policy’,
Third World Quarterly 24/ 3 (2003) pp.407–27; Gurr (note 1); Gary King and Langche Zeng, ‘Improving Forecasts of State Failure’,World Politics 53 (July 2001) pp.623–58; Robert I. Rotberg, ‘The New Nature of Nation-State Failure’, Washington Quarterly 25/3 (2002) pp.85–96.
10. Atul Kohli, ‘Can Democracies Accommodate Ethnic Nationalism? Rise and Decline of Self- Determination Movements’, Journal of Asian Studies 56/ 2 (1997) pp.325–44; Marta Reynal-Querol,
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 63
‘Ethnicity, Political Systems and Civil Wars,’ Journal of Conflict Resoluion 46/1 (2002) pp.29–54; Stephen M. Saideman, David J. Lanoue, Michael Campenni and Samuel Stanton, ‘Democratization, Political Institutions, and Ethnic Conflict: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis 1985–1998’, Comparative Political Studies 35/1 (2002) pp.103–29.
11. James and Carment (note 2); Stephen M. Saideman, ‘Overlooking the Obvious: Bringing International Politics Back into Ethnic Conflict Management’, International Studies Review 4/3 (2002) pp.63–86.
12. B. Finel and K. Lord, ‘The Surprising Logic of Transparency,’ International Studies Quarterly 43 (1999) pp. 315–39; Alexandru Grigorescu, ‘International Organizations and Government Transparency: Linking the International and Domestic Realms’, International Studies Quarterly 47 (2003) pp.643–67.
13. Kenneth A. Schultz, Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy (NY: Cambridge UP 2001). 14. Zartman (note 5). 15. Rupen Cetinyan, ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of Third Party Intervention’, International Organization
56/3 (2002) pp.645–77; Mason and Fett (note 5); Barbara Walter, ‘Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict’, International Studies Review 5/4 (2003) pp.137–53.
16. Bidisha Biswas, ‘Managing Discontent: Institutions, Intervention and Ethnic Conflict’ (Doctoral diss., Univ. of Maryland 2006).
17. I. William Zartman, ‘Dynamics and Constraints in Negotiations in Internal Conflicts’, in idem (ed.), Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars (Washington DC: Brookings 1995).
18. Fortna (note 4); Hampson (note 5); Caroline Hartzell and Matthew Hodie, ‘Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Conflict Management’, American Journal of Political Science 47/2 (2003) pp.318–32; Walter (note 4); Doyle and Sambanis (note 5); Hampson (note 5); Peceny and Stanley (note 1); Saideman (note 11).
19. Loraleigh Keashly and Ronald J. Fisher, ‘A Contingency Perspective on Conflict Interventions: Theoretical and Practical Considerations,’ in Jacob Bercovitch (ed.), Resolving International Conflicts (Boulder,CO: Lynne Rienner 1996) pp.235–61; Herbert C. Kelman, ‘Informal Mediation by the Scholar/Practitioner’, in Jacob Bercovitch and Jeffrey Z. Rubin (ed.), Mediation in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner 1992) pp.64–96; Thomas Princen, Intermediaries in International Conflict (Princeton UP 1992); Suzanne Werner and Amy Yuen, ‘Making and Keeping Peace’, International Organization 59/1 (Spring 2005) pp.261–92; Jonathan Wilkenfeld, Kathleen Young, Victor Asal and David Quinn, ‘Mediating International Crises: Cross- National and Experimental Perspectives’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 47/3 (2003) pp.279–301.
20. Peceny and Stanley (note 1). 21. Walter (note 4). 22. Neil DeVotta, Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri
Lanka (Stanford UP 2004); Ronald Rotberg (ed.), Creating Peace in Sri Lanka (Washington DC: Brookings 1999).
23. Zartman (note 17). 24. Ann Hironaka, Neverending Wars: The International Community, Weak States, and the Perpetuation
of Civil War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP 2005); Edward Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP 2001).
25. Atul Kohli, Democracy and Discontent: India’s Growing Crisis of Governance (NY: Cambridge UP 1991); Jack Snyder, From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict (NY: W.W. Norton 2000).
26. There was a minor intervention by Britain in 1997–98. Japan, a major donor to Sri Lanka, has also been interested in seeing a resolution to the conflict. India has continued to play an influential role, but with a diminished intensity of involvement.
27. Alan J. Bullion, India, Sri Lanka and the Tamil Crisis 1976–1999: An International Perspective (NY: Cassell 1995); Stanley J. Tambiah, Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy (Univ. of Chicago Press 1986).
28. Dennis Austin, Democracy and Violence in India and Sri Lanka (NY: Council on Foreign Relations 1995); Bullion (note 27); DeVotta (note 22); Snyder (note 25); Tambiah (note 27).
29. DeVotta (note 22); John Sislin and Frederic S. Pearson, Arms and Ethnic Conflict (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield 2001).
30. Bullion (note 27). 31. Eric Silver, ‘Colombo Peace Moves Collapse / Indian Efforts to Revive Sri Lankan Peace Talks
Falter’, The Guardian, 9 Nov. 1985.
32. John Elliott, ‘Gandhi Greets Sri Lanka Peace Deal’, Financial Times (London), 12 Oct. 1985. 33. John Elliott, ‘Gloomy Outlook for Tamil Talks’, Financial Times (London), 14 Aug. 1985; Eric
Silver, ‘Tamil Peace Talks Near Collapse over NewKillings/Bhutan Talks Endangered by Upsurge of Violence in Sri Lanka’, The Guardian (London), 19 Aug. 1985; Eric Silver, ‘Time Running out for Sri Lanka / Peace Negotiations to Resume between Government and Tamil Separatists in Bhutan’, The Guardian (London), 21 Aug. 1985; Vyvyan Tenorio, ‘Sri Lankan Adversaries Dig in Heels as Gandhi Tries to Save Talks’, Christian Science Monitor, 29 Aug. 1985; Steven R. Weisman, ‘India Role Grows in Sri Lanka Talks’, New York Times, 15 July 1985.
34. Bullion (note 27); K. M. De Silva (ed.), Sri Lanka: Problems of Governance (Kandy: International Centre for Ethnic Studies 1993); Tambiah (note 27).
35. Bullion (note 27). 36. Sumantra Bose, States, Nations, Sovereignty: Sri Lanka, India and the Tamil Eelam Movement (New
Delhi: Sage 1994). 37. ‘Sri Lanka: Patting the Tigers’, The Economist, 22 Oct. 1994. 38. Niresh Eliatamby, ‘Sri Lankan Soldiers Launch Attack Amid Peace Moves’, Associated Press, 26
Sept. 1994; Amal Jayasinghe, ‘Presidential Candidate, 56 Others Die in Suspected Tiger Attack’, Agence France Presse, 24 Oct. 1994; N. Ram, ‘We Are Willing to Talk, I Don’t Like to Settle This by War’, Frontline, 19 Dec. 1998–1 Jan. 1999.
39. Dexter Cruez, ‘Fierce Fighting Leaves at Least 200 Tamil Rebels Dead’, Associated Press, 28 July 1995.
40. Rotberg (note 22). 41. D.B.S. Jeyaraj, ‘A Norwegian Initiative’, Frontline, 4–17 March 2000. 42. D.B.S. Jeyaraj, ‘The Facilitator Fracas’, Frontline, 23 June–6 July 2001. 43. DeVotta (note 22); Rajat Ganguly, ‘Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Conflict: At a Crossroad between Peace and
War’, Third World Quarterly 25/5 (2004) pp.903–18; Nirupama Subramaniam, ‘Back to the Freezer’, Frontline, 19 Aug.–1 Sept. 2000; Nirupama Subramaniam, ‘A New Package’, Frontline, 22 July–1Aug. 2000.
44. Ganguly (note 43). 45. Christine Jayasinghe, ‘Sri Lanka: Calling a Truce’, India Today, 11 March 2002; ‘LTTE, Govt Agree
on Measures to Ensure Safety of Muslims’, The Press Trust of India, 31 Oct. 2002; ‘Monks Protest against Norwegian-Backed Peace Process in Sri Lanka’, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 5 March 2002.
46. Some observers have questioned the sincerity of the LTTE’s interest in such a framework. 47. D.B.S. Jeyaraj, ‘A Tactical Shift’, Frontline, 21 Dec. 2002–3 Jan. 2003. 48. V.S. Sambandan, ‘Heady Start for Peace’, Frontline, 12–25 Oct. 2002. 49. V.S. Sambandan, ‘The Long Road to Thailand’, Frontline, 14–27 Sept. 2002. 50. Jeyaraj, ‘A Tactical Shift’ (note 47). 51. DeVotta (note 22) p.189. 52. Ibid.; Rotberg (note 22). 53. Ram Mannikkalingam, ‘Political Power over Ethnic Identity’, Frontline, 22 June–5 July 2002. 54. Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Introduction: Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International
Bargaining’, in Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson and Robert D. Putnam (eds.) Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press 1993).
55. DeVotta (note 22); Hironaka (note 24). 56. Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, Pamela Aall (eds.), Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in
a Complex World (Washington DC: US Institute of Peace 1999). 57. DeVotta (note 22); Snyder (note 25) 58. Hironaka (note 24). 59. See, for example, Walter (note 15). 60. Donald Rothchild, ‘Ethnic sBargaining and the Management of Intense Conflict’, International
Negotiation 2 (1997) pp.1–20; I. William Zartman, ‘Ripeness: The Hurting Stalemate and Beyond’, in Paul Stern and Daniel Druckman (eds.), International Conflict Resolution after the Cold War (Washington DC: National Academy Press 2000).
61. Walter (note 15). 62. Gurr (note 1). 63. Schultz (note 13). 64. Ibid.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN SRI LANKA 65
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!”
The post Capacity Building and Transformation appeared first on nursing writers.