Karuna’s revelation that Norway provided funds for the LTTE to purchase lethal weapons has revived the focus on that country’s role in the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict.
The Sri Lankan government seems to be in a desperate hurry to bring about all the necessary revisions in the constitution to strengthen the Executive Presidency without any provision of checks and balances. Sri Lanka, under Rajapaksa, is headed towards nepotism and dictatorship as the 18th amendment suggests.
On April 12, 2010 the majority of citizens of the island of Sri Lanka's two main linguistic communities celebrated the Sinhala and Tamil new year and the categorical end of war and terrorism with considerable optimism, despite the lack of a clear political solution to the ‘ethnic conflict’. The new year celebrations, the first since the end of the state's 30 year war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), were in the wake of recently concluded parliamentary elections that returned the ruling party to power.
The outcome of the April general election makes clear that Sri Lanka would be evolving its own model of post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation to address the causes of conflict.
A critical appraisal of the national security decision making (NSDM) during IPKF operations is revealing. At every stage, the NSDM was found wanting. The fact that none of the actors possessed the delicate skill or means by which to control events proved that not much thought had gone into the decisions. Involvement of numerous actors made the decision making challenging, which was further complicated by varied and cacophonous inputs and assessments. Overconfidence also created an opaque in the clarity of decisions taken. Lessons from the IPKF involvement are numerous.
A critical appraisal of the national security decision making (NSDM) during IPKF operations is revealing. At every stage, the NSDM was found wanting. The fact that none of the actors possessed the delicate skill or means by which to control events proved that not much thought had gone into the decisions. Involvement of numerous actors made the decision making challenging, which was further complicated by varied and cacophonous inputs and assessments. Overconfidence also created an opaque in the clarity of decisions taken. Lessons from the IPKF involvement are numerous.
