The Promise of Reconciliation? by Urbain Olivier Kimura Ehito. & Olivier Urbain

Author:Urbain, Olivier,Kimura, Ehito. & Olivier Urbain
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis (CAM)
Published: 2016-03-02T16:00:00+00:00

Violence, Nonviolence, and Ethnic Reconciliation in Post-War Sri Lanka

S. I. Keethaponcalan

Introduction

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the dreaded nonstate armed group, which was also deemed by some a terrorist organization, was militarily defeated and the civil war effectively ended in May 2009. The end of the war, although problematic, bestowed upon Sri Lanka an opportunity to address ethnic issues that had been lingering for more than half a century and to move the country on the path to reconciliation. Many in Sri Lanka and outside believed that the crushing of the LTTE marked a new beginning. Others were cautiously optimistic. The optimism generated by the end of the war soon faded, and a closer look at Sri Lankan society currently indicates greater polarization of ethnic communities, especially the Sinhalese and the Tamils. In fact, one could argue that Sri Lanka has become a failed case of reconciliation as of today. This chapter examines the socio-political factors that frustrated hopes of ethnic reconciliation and argues that failure of reconciliation and the greater polarization of ethnic communities in postwar Sri Lanka have their roots in the violent past, especially the way in which the war was terminated. The chapter also makes the case that returning to nonviolent conflict resolution methods will help foster healthier ethnic relations and even reconciliation, eventually.

Reconciliation and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution

Reconciliation, a popular concept among peace scholars and activists, remains a loosely defined and vague idea. Increasingly, all postconflict issues or discourses are linked to reconciliation because of the lack of clear-cut definitions and proper understanding of the concept. At times, conflict resolution itself is called reconciliation despite the distinct differences between the two subjects. That is precisely why Ted Kober, president of the Ambassadors of Reconciliation, a Lutheran religious ministry, wrote a piece with the title “Don’t Confuse Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation” (Kober 2010). He argued that “conflict resolution focuses on resolving the material or substantive issues in a dispute, while reconciliation seeks to restore relationship by addressing the personal or relational issue” (Ibid., 1). The distinction between conflict resolution and reconciliation is significant for this chapter, as it is written on the premise that the nature of conflict resolution has an impact on the effectiveness of reconciliation in the postconflict era.

Rationalizing the complications or vagueness of the concept, the IDEA handbook on reconciliation claims that “reconciliation means different things to different people. Its significance varies from culture to culture, and changes with the passage of time” (IDEA 2003, 19). Conciliatus, the root word of the term reconciliation, means “coming together” (Kumar 1999, 1). Reconciliation means the act of coming together of former enemies. Yet, a vast majority of studies on the subject examine the projects that are undertaken to promote reconciliation, not the goal or the end result. Mindful of the differences between the act of coming together of former enemies and the projects, which is commonly called the reconciliation process, the handbook points out that “reconciliation is a complex term, and there is little agreement on its definition.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.