Message-ID: <v01510101adaa72568967@[205.246.26.33]> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 18:33:44 -0400 From: Frank Baitman <mailto:fbaitman@MARS.SUPERLINK.NET> Subject: Re: Massacre and Development To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
James:I must unhappily agree with your judgment. It is not desirable to sit on the sidelines, but then again intervention often doesn't work. I was in Sri Lanka in 1984 when the fighting began, and what I found most frustrating was the bloodshed without visible purpose. A Sinhalese would attack a Tamil because of ethnic background and everything else about each man was irrelevant. In this case, no one is innocent. Behavior is not rational. And negotiation is difficult, if not worthless.
There are a couple of exceptions that I think deserve discussion, however. Foreign intervention in Bosnia and in Somalia. (Albeit, Somalia is a bit different because massacre was not necessarily ethnic). But in each case, foreign intervention (beyond humanitarian means) seems to have minimized the suffering. Time of course will tell.
Frank Baitman
>Having lived in Sri Lanka several years ago and Uganda more recently,
>I really do not believe intervention to bring about unity provides
>much beyond temporary relief for the opposing forces to regroup. It
>is only when one or both of the competing factions have been defeated
>or destroyed that any sort of unity will be achieved. One could
>argue that such unity is repression or domination -- which it is --
>but case after case world-wide supports this observation. Unfortunately
>I cannot recall the specific article (in Atlantic Monthly sometime
>last year I think) but the message was that in every society there
>is a dominant group (perhaps even groups) and dominated groups. The
>argument went on to say that while complete equality across socio-
>economic groups, racial lines and so on was a noble objective, history
>had shown that such situations had led to much instability and ultimately
>the repression of one or more of the non-dominant groups.
>
>In the case of Uganda,I think the lack of outside interference allowed
>the people to butcher each other until all the participants -- those
>that were left -- just got tired of it and decided to co-exist. They
>have been lucky to have had a capable and well meaning leader to act
>as a referee and mediator. Though the common Sri Lankan, Sinhalese
>as well as Tamil are probably prepared to co-exist in relative harmony,
>until the most militant in the non-dominant group are eliminated there
>will not be unity.
>
>Lessons? Not very desirable to the western world but the best options
>are to stay out of the way, provide limited humanitarian assistance
>so both sides and all constituents realize the suffering, and make no
>promises of external assistance to rebuild what is destroyed by the
>short-sighted actions of the warring factions. Some sort of unity will
>eventually result and it will probably be more enduring than some
>brokered or imposed concilliation.
>
>Just one point of view...I'm sure there are many others. Please keep
>in mind the difference between reality and idealistic optimality.
\Frank Baitman\ \Cranbury, New Jersey\ mailto:fbaitman@mars.superlink.net