In 1999 alone, the world was plagued by 14 full-scale wars and several armed conflicts. In 2000, these numbers did not fluctuate much. In fact, the world experienced an increase in violence and conflict, especially in the Middle East, Congo, Sudan, Sri Lanka, South Philippines, Indonesia, the Basque Region in Spain, and Fiji. The media especially have reported many of these conflicts as ethnic in nature, leaving the impression that such violence is a result of ancient hatreds and tribal differences. Although many of these conflicts are aligned along ethnic and racial lines, it must be understood that there are many underlying factors and forces contributing to them. By referring to these conflicts as "ethnic," the real causes of the violence are ignored and not paid the attention they deserve.
One good example of the misperception of an ethnic conflict is that of the one currently devastating Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan violence has many dimensions of nationalistic, secessionist, economic, religious, and political undertones in comparison to the automatic "ethnic" labeling of the war. Perhaps the fact that the conflict is fought between differing ethnic groups gives added weight to the definition of this war as ethnic. The Tamil minority, led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("Tigers"), constitute about 17% of the country's 19 million people. The Tigers are fighting for an independent Tamil state, separate from that of the Sinhalese majority. This war has claimed the lives of more than 60,000 people, disrupted the once-promising economy, and wreaked havoc on its peoples.
But what are the causes of the Sri Lankan war? The main roots are embedded in the politics and economics within the country. Upon independence from Great Britain in 1948, Sri Lanka was seen as a beacon of hope to the rest of the world as having a peaceful transition to democracy. During its colonization, the British had brought ethnic Tamils to Sri Lanka as tea plantation laborers, once one of the nation's booming industries. These Tamils differed from the indigenous Sinhalese in language and religion; Tamils are mainly Hindu and Roman Catholic and the Sinhalese mainly Buddhist. It was during the 1950s that Sinhalese was made the official language of Sri Lanka, causing much uproar among the Tamils for equality of the two main languages. This inevitably started the fight of the Tamils for equal status and an independent nation. As can be seen by delving further into the actual history of this conflict, there are many other factors at work in addition to the ethnic component; nationalism, religion, economics and politics all play a huge role in the perpetuation of the violence. We would be more accurate to say that this conflict is a "civil war." By broadening the label, we can encompass more of the factors instead of simply ethnicity.
The danger in calling a conflict "ethnic" is that it has very negative connotations. An "ethnic" war often carries the perception that there can be no resolution between the fighting parties because the source of the problem is one of ancient, primordial hatreds. It must be understood that other factors of politics, economics, religion, historical legacy of colonialism, etc. are all important in explaining the causes of the violence. Maybe if we were not too quick to label conflict as "ethnic," we would be working to solve the problems more expediently.
