The US, EU, and India all put the Tigers in their lists of official terror groups, but nobody seems to care too much about the group, as they're mostly nobody's problem but Sri Lanka's (who nobody cares too much about). Ultimately, the Tigers are a separatist movement that uses terror tactics, which makes them fundamnetally different from Islamic Extremists in a few ways (that have been sadly conflated by the wanton use of the word "terror" in the past 7 years). The first is that they have a limited and well-defined political agenda (the separation of a certain geographical area from a government), which makes them plausibly reasonable to deal with at negotiating tables. The second, is that they're a problem for a very limited number of people (in this case, Sri Lankans), so it's very easy for other countries to ignore them. This is in contrast to, say, Al-Qaeda, which seeks revenge on innocent non-Muslims for the deaths of any Mulsim at the hand of non-Muslims in history; or Hamas, which seeks to irradicate the Israeli people. "religious genocide" is not a goal that one can negotiate with.
The Tigers may be on their way out, thanks to the persistence of the Sri Lankan military and token help from a few friendly countries like India. They are definitely bad dudes that do bad things to good people. My primary worry is that cases like the Tigers are going to increase the terrorist-separatist conflation, allowing countries like China to brutally crack down on anyone in Xinjiang or Tibet thinking about waving a flag of their own.
2 comments:
It's one thing to say that the Tamil Tigers are fundamentally different from various violent Islamist groups, and quite another to imply that they are not a terrorist group. Many of the various violent Islamist groups are fundamentally different from each other in their theology, organization, goals, and reach, but groups that use "terror tactics" are still terrorists. Just because their goal is statehood (like Hamas) rather than global jihad, and just because they are focused regionally (like Hamas) rather than internationally, does not mean that they are not terrorists. Terrorism is a matter of methodology, which the Tamil Tigers have been very adept at using.
But you're right that "terrorism" is a very broad umbrella term, and can be used by governments to do things they otherwise wouldn't have been able to get away with. You don't have to look as far as China to see the effects of that.
I did not make it clear that I indeed agree that the Tigers are a terrorist group. Terrorism is indeed based on your tactics, rather than your aims.
As I meant to convey, and as I said, the Tigers are different from Islamic Extremists. They are, of course, a terrorist group.
My other point is that there is a conflation that occurs for most people when the word "terror" is used, and often, the aims of the terror group are forgotten.
I should have been more clear that the reason the difference is important is that separatists and other politically-minded terror groups, like the IRA, can be talked down and reasoned with, where religious extremists mostly cannot, and this makes for dealing with each group a very different business.
Post a Comment