Analysing the Sri Lankan civil war through the lens of conflict resolution theory

Abstract

The Sri Lankan ethnic conflict can be identified as a landmark event in recent history, reflecting a visible social disunion between the majority and minority ethnic communities. Sri Lanka witnessed a major turnover of events, from circumscribed ethnic clashes to a full-scale civil war. The ripple effects of this Sri Lankan civil war crossed borders and it was neighbouring India that bore the brunt. Responding to the crisis, the Sri Lankan government deployed forces to contain the growing insurgency and involved external powers for added assistance. Neutral third parties were also involved for an unbiased resolution to Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. However, there were a multitude of shortcomings that restricted the scope for a successful conflict resolution. This paper highlights both conditions for success and failure of conflict resolution, and the use of third-party intervention as a crucial toolkit. It also throws light on the pre-conditions that were set for introducing third-party intervention in Sri Lankan, exposing the limitations that led to the fateful end of the Sri Lankan civil war. This research points out the equation between roles of third-party mediators and behavioural patterns of the disputed parties in conflict resolution processes. Theory teaches us how third-party intervention can be used as a preferred tool in attaining desirable outcomes. However, application of such tools become subjective on ground, depending upon the behaviour of the parties involved and their intentions towards solutions. Thus, exposing a variety of challenges that the mediators are often unprepared for. Such unpreparedness of third-party negotiators brings to the surface the drawbacks of this method of conflict resolution. Challenges faced in the Sri Lankan peace process uncovered the shortcomings of third-party mediation. This study holds potential to drive future researchers closer to exploring means to minimize the impacts of such limitations on forthcoming reconciliations.