No military solution can solve the Tamil problem alone - Dr. Gerard Chaliand

(October, 19, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Dr. Gerard Chaliand, Former Director European Center for the Study of Conflicts said the independence the LTTE demanding cannot be granted and LTTE, a totalitarian movement which has transformed its groups into a killing machine. “LTTE has brutally eliminated all other parties or groups willing to represent the Tamil. It has assassinated all those who were willing to offer an alternative to LTTE's position” he further asserted.

Dr. Chaliand was delivering the keynote address titled 'The threat posed by International Terrorist Networks' at the inaugural session of the three-day International Conference on Countering Terrorism, at the BMICH, Colombo. The Conference theme: "Terrorism: A Challenge to Democratically Elected Governments."

Dr. Chaliland also noted that Prabhakaran physically eliminated his own party members who could challenge his authority. He is "an absolutely intolerant sect. No peace seems possible with V. Prabhakaran as we have seen from the peace process of 2002-2005 which was but a tactical truce."

Chaliand's Assessment on Terrorism

The State Department has released, in April 2007, a report on World Terrorism for 2006. More then 14 600 attacks have been recorded. An increase of more than 6% on the previous year. That gives the frightening figure of 40 attacks a day!

The public, in the West, and particularly in the US cannot be but impressed by such figures. Should we be very worried about the future or is maybe that the State Department is selling anxiety?

There are two possible views on the terrorist phenomenon. One is to stress its tremendous importance as a threat to the security of world and to prepare ourselves to have to soon face WMD. The other is a cooler view trying to analyze if the given figure of terrorist attacks is not misleading.

The fact is that this total should not include attacks that are part of ingoing insurgencies, such as the ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Israel and the Palestinian territories; among others. Why should they be put on equal footing with terrorists' attacks like Madrid, London or Bali?

Is it relevant to define Iraq as terrorism? A situation which requires the presence of 160 000 US soldiers can only be defined as a war, and to be more precise, a multi-faced insurrection using irregular warfare.

Does it make sense to label terrorism an insurrection were frontal battles occur, as in Helmand, Afghanistan or when a CH-47 Chinook is reportedly shot down by a rocket? (June 2007). Can we count as part of world terrorism the Israeli July 2006 campaign against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon?

What is going on between the Tamil Tigers and the forces of Sri Lanka cannot be technically labeled terrorism when the insurgency uses, apart from terrorists attacks, guerrilla warfare and frontal battles when circumstances are favorable and even, on two occasions has bombed by air!

International terrorism, these days, is jihadist terrorism. In fact, between September 12, 2001 and the end of September 2007, jihadists have carried out, in 6 years about, 40 major attacks.The countries which have been most targeted are, in order: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Turkey, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco. We should add the federation of Russia, when it is hit outside of Chechnya (Moscow, Beslan, etc.). They represent nine tenths of all attacks, while some other countries have been hit once: Kenya, Tunisia and Yemen.

As far as Western countries are concerned, we have Madrid (2004) and London (2005). The total amount of deaths at the world level in those 6 years caused by jihadists is probably inferior to the number of victims of 9/11 alone.

The apocalypse predicted some years ago by Osama Bin Laden has been rather modest until now. 9/11 was the zenith of classical terrorism and a case in itself. Of course, a good number of planned attacks have failed to be delivered due to international police action. It is worth remembering that terrorism which is, by its very nature, covert activity organized by groups or movements working underground are best dealt with intelligence and police action. Since the end of 2001, national polices, all over the world, have been very efficient. Democratic countries, like Britain, once extremely liberal have learned to tighten their rules after being hit.

As for WMD, they have been one of the obsessions in the West, and particularly the US, since 1995, when the Japanese religious sect Aum Shirinko killed, with sarin gas, 12 people and wounded many in Tokyo's underground.

With Japanese expertise, one of the best in the world, unlimited finances and no interference from the Japanese police who did not, at that time, watch the religious sects, the WMD of Tokyo has not fulfilled the expectations of its perpetrators.

What is the aim of creating anxiety among the public and particularly in the US, by predicting the imminence of another attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or may be the use of WMD? Could it be that we are witnessing a political exploitation of fear?

What do we exactly mean, anyhow, by mass destruction (what kind of weapon? What amount of destruction? May be the biggest threat is in the wording?) If these weapons are going to be used one day- and that may well happen- they will probably produce more mass panic than mass destruction. But let's not talk about the future. A cool assessment is first concerned about what has happened from 9/11 until today.

What can be said about the terrorist phenomenon is that it is misleading to confuse insurrectional wars and random act of terrorism in a global count of terrorist attacks.

It is also misleading to speak of a "war against terrorism". A war waged against Iraq, for instance, could not be said as being directed against global terrorism.

Today's terrorism is jihadist. It is more relevant to speak about "al qaïdaism" than about al Qaïda which has become a prestigious model for would-be jihadist. Most of the members belonging to the original leadership have died or are in jail. Mohammad Atef, the former number two, has been killed in November 2001, during a US bombing on Kabul. Khaleed Cheikh Mohammad, Ramzi Ben al-Sheeb, Zin Abidin, Abu al Zubeidah who use to organize operations, logistics and recruitment have been arrested in Pakistan in 2002-2003. Most of the leaders or regional branches have been killed or arrested. That is the case of al Muqqrin in Saudi Arabia, head of "al Qaïda in the land of the holly places", of the Jordanian Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, who became leader of " al Qaïda in the land of the two rivers", whose violent inter-communal policy was criticized by Ayman al Zawahari.

Abu Mussab al Zarqawi was killed in June 2006. Two are still active regionally: the Algerian leader Abdelmalek Droukdal, who, in January 2007, to regain some prestige for his weakened organizations choose to rename it "al Qaïda in the land of Maghrib", and the Malaysian Nurredin Top, one of the organizer of the deadly attack on Bali (October 2002) which killed 202 and wounded many more. Nurredine Top is believed to be in Indonesia, in close connection with militants of the Jemaah Islamiyah.

Al Qaïda, as an organization is, today, much less important than the Taliban in Pakistan were its leadership is supposed to be, somewhere around the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Their training camps are very remote; few volunteers are able to join them from foreign countries. The man who has been speaking for al Qaïda in the last two years and a half is Ayman al Zawahari, among his close followers, the Libyan Abu Leith and some less well-known cadres. To be sure, Bin Laden has been able to create a dynamic which cannot disappear with him. A new generation that could be called the "cyber-jihad generation" has started to act, despite the fact they lack the training and sophistication of those who were called the "Afghans". But if a cool assessment has to be made about International Jihadism, one should point that it's a stronger movement on Internet than in reality.

What makes jihadists so specific is not religion, they are not a spiritual but a political movement. In their case, there is nothing with which to negotiate. That makes them specific. Ideologically, jihadists are still on the march. Armed forces alone cannot win this struggle. The real battle is ideological. But it seems improbable that the US will be able to discredit jihadist ideology. That is the task of Muslim societies themselves. Consequently, jihadist terrorism is going to be active for a generation, or may be two. But it will never be able to shake the world's status quo. Terrorism, as we all know, is the weapon of the weak, paradoxically, it shows, by his very existence, the stability of the world order.

Nevertheless, as terrorism is, above all, a psychological tool and is fought also in the minds and the wills, then jihadism should not, on those grounds, be underestimated but taken very seriously. Jihadist terrorism is a very costly nuisance, not a global threat, except on Internet. To communicate virtually does not transform small autonomous groups into a cohesive organization. A common ideology may unite but hardly coordinates. Anyhow, the fact is that in almost two decades, no group has been able to generate a mass Jihad. It failed in Algeria, did not succeed in Bosnia and "al Qaïdaism" in Iraq is marginal.

The overall situation in South East Asia is stable. But, as the conference is held in Sri Lanka, there are locally more serious concerns than al Qaïda, for instance, counter insurgency.

The political aims of the jihadists, some of them utopian, such as restoring the caliphate, are mobilizing young frustrated militants who have the conviction of sharing an epic struggle. However, they are not contributing to solving the crisis of most of the Muslim countries which is economic growth and social reforms. Societies like Japan have modernized without loosing their soul.

While China and India are growing economically at a quick pace, the jihadists are, with their attacks contributing to the lack of reforms and development of most of a Muslim world which is already late in adapting to the challenges of the day.

But was it called terrorism since 1968, with the first highjacking of an Israeli plane by the Popular Front of Liberation of Palestine (FPLP) and the so-called urban guerrilla of Carlos Marighella in Brazil and the Tupamaros in Uruguay does not fall in the same category as jihadist terrorism whose aim is global or tries to be.

Other movements and groups using terrorism are nationally oriented. In the last 40 years they can be divided into 2 types:

-those who have been or are class-oriented like, for instance, the Red Brigades in Italy or the Red Army Fraction, better known under the label of the Baader-Meinhof or the Shining Path movement in Peru.

-those who steam from ethnic and/or religious grievances.

I am not going to name them all because this second type is, by far, the most numerous. Why they are so numerous today, since the end of the colonial period is a question worth rising.

The right of self-determination has essentially been the right of the countries colonized by western powers to become independent. To this principle, there have been two exceptions: Bangladesh in 1971 because of India's intervention and Eritrea which became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union which was supporting the Ethiopian Marxist regime of M. Mengistu.

Elsewhere, minorities, whether ethnic or religious, if they felt discriminated or oppressed, had no international institution to address their grievances. The organizations of the United Nations represent only States and Human Rights as individual rights. Minorities, as a collective body, have only the rights which are granted by the State to which they belong.

Interventions by the United Nations to stop mass killings, organized by a State, have been very few in the recent past and we might as well remember that the genocide in Rwanda occurred, among other reasons, only after the United Nations decided to withdraw its troops because there were too few to control the situation.

So the only way left to minorities whose grievances were not taken into account, was most of the time to take arms, and this is going to be the case in the future.

This, of course does not mean that States should consider as legitimate the program and the aims of subversive movements. Grievances might be legitimate. On the other hand, what is asked by the fighting movement can be unacceptable.

To be sure, most of the "Marxist-Leninist" movements of the last 35 years -with, may be, the exception of Nepal's Maoists- have failed. The outcome of the ethnic/religious movements is much more complex.

In Europe, for instance, the IRA which has used terrorism as its sole technique, has finally, after more than three decades, got a compromise which has brought them more than what they had at the beginning of their struggle.

On the other hand, the small number of Basques terrorists still fighting for an independence that they will not achieve, are today cut from the very large majority of the Basques who are satisfied with local autonomy. They have tried with little success to find a sanctuary and sympathizers in the French Basque country.

It is worth mentioning that the Irish Catholics have benefited from the support of the Irish-American. A support which was already quite well organized during the Irish movement for freedom and independence in 1915-1920.

This, the case today, of the Tamil diaspora, which, willingly or not, is helping the LTTE financially. The role of diasporas today is an important factor, both in direct financial help and as a political lobby. This phenomenon is recent and is one of the numerous consequences of globalization. It gives to movements, which have no friendly State backing them or a sanctuary, a substitute of utmost importance.

Before World War II, diasporas were very few: some of the dispersions were the result of a tragedy, like the case of the Jews after the destruction of the Temple or the Armenians after the genocide organized by the Young Turks during World War I. They were also the economic diasporas of Chinese and Indians after the end of the slave trade created through the system of indenture. Of the 60 millions Europeans who left between 1840 and 1920, for the Americas, few would consider themselves as diasporas.

After World War II, and especially after 1960, emigration on a large scale occurred essentially from South to North. Communications becoming easy and cheap, the ties with the old country were most of the time never entirely cut and this has played a powerful role in helping political or terrorist movements in the mother country.

This has been, among others, the case of the Tamil of Sri Lanka whose large diaspora -not far from 1 million in North America, Western Europe, South and East Asia and Australia have been instrumentalized by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

What are the main subversive movements groups fighting today? To name a few:

-The Palestinians -PLO or Hamas who wish to have a State whose legitimacy has been recognized by the United State with a road map whose road seems to be still very long.

-Various people in the Caucasus which looks as conflicting today as were the Balkans not so long ago (Chechens, Abkhazs, Southern Ossetians, Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh).

-Muslims from the southern provinces of Thailand

-Kurds in Turkey and in Iran

-Albanians from Kosovo, in Europe who are a case in itself which, if they get independence, as it seems probable, are going to constitute an important precedent.

-Kashmir

And, of course, the Tamils of Sri Lanka.

I believe that, in almost every case, the grievances are legitimate. Few countries have, like Spain after 1975, when the country became democratic, granted large rights or regional autonomy. The general tendency, for the ruling group, like the Sunnis in Iraq or the Alawi in Syria, has been to keep power for themselves, even if they were themselves minorities. Incidentally, when we speak about minorities, the general understanding, concerning their status in non-democratic regime, is that they are oppressed. This is not automatically the case. Minorities can be minorities of superiority, like in Rwanda today or in Burundi, or in Syria.

It was the case of the Tamil at the eve of Independence in Sri Lanka. Used by the British in their indirect rule as their local allies, Tamil were over represented in the post-independence elites. They protested when their ratio in University were challenged. And the conflictual cycle started.

I believe that a demand for independence by a minority, whatever it may be, cannot be willingly granted by a State. This has been, in my own view, the original mistake in the 90's of the Chechens and in the 80's of the Kurds of Turkey. The Kurds of Iran, more wisely, asked for autonomy in the 80's.

Most of the movements I am referring to were not just terrorists, as they are labeled by the State which is fighting them. Technically speaking, they use guerrilla warfare, terrorism most of the time and sabotage.

In the case of LTTE, it is well known that they are at the same time able to confront and sometimes defeat the Sri Lankan army in conventional battles, that they use guerrilla tactics and ultimately that they are the most efficient terrorist movement in the world at present.

The independence they ask cannot be granted, not only because no State is willing to accept such a blow to its sovereignty but also because, like the Shining Path or the Khmers Rouges, LTTE, under the leadership of V. Prabhakaran is a totalitarian movement which has transformed its groups into a killing machine.

LTTE has brutally eliminated all other parties or groups willing to represent the Tamil. It has assassinated all those who were willing to offer an alternative to LTTE's position. Just like V. Prabhakaran has physically eliminated in his own party those who could challenge his authority. The manipulation of young boys and girls into fighters who die rather than surrender and the cult of suicide-attacks for the most dedicated of the militants for the sake of a movement whose charismatic leader has been transformed into an icon are signs of what the essence is of the movement. An absolutely intolerant sect. No peace seems possible with V. Prabhakaran as we have seen from the peace process of 2002-2005 which was but a tactical truce.

But no military solution can solve the Tamil problem alone.

Ultimately, for all the States concerned, apart from the military dimension of the conflicts they face, the problem remains political and so, at the end of the day, the solution.