THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SOLDIER AND A TERRORIST

Sri Lanka Army

The contributions of the Sri Lankan soldier to society extend beyond wartime defense. They play a vital role in national development, disaster relief, infrastructure projects, and maintaining stability. Their sacrifices ensure the continuity of the state and the protection of civil liberties. In the aftermath of the conflict, the military has been actively involved in demining, rehabilitation, and reintegration programs, contributing to healing and rebuilding the nation. Their efforts aim to create a safe and prosperous society for all

The LTTE’s legacy is one of immense destruction. They caused immeasurable loss of life, destroyed infrastructure, displaced millions, and fostered deep divisions within society. Their actions crippled the economy, diverted national resources to war, and instilled a pervasive climate of fear

The scars of conflict run deep in Sri Lanka, a nation that endured decades of brutal civil war. As we reflect upon this tumultuous period, it is imperative to clearly distinguish between the forces that sought to uphold the integrity of the state and those that aimed to dismantle it through violence and terror. 

From a military expert’s perspective, this article seeks to illuminate the fundamental, indeed irreconcilable, differences between the Sri Lankan soldier and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) terrorist, dissecting their purpose, authority, roles, legal standing, societal impact, ultimate acceptance on both national and international stages, and the controversial statement made by a government deputy minister equating soldiers with LTTE terrorists which underpins the state and security apparatus.

Sri Lankan Soldier and LTTE Terrorist: A Categorical Distinction

At the outset, the distinction must be absolute. A Sri Lankan soldier is a member of the official armed forces of a sovereign nation, operating under a democratically elected government and bound by national and international laws. They are part of a recognized state apparatus, entrusted with the defense of the nation’s borders, its constitution, and its citizens. Their recruitment, training, deployment, and actions are governed by a hierarchical command structure, military regulations, and the principles of legitimate warfare.

In stark contrast, an LTTE terrorist was a combatant of a non-state armed group that sought to establish a separate state through armed insurgency. The LTTE was proscribed as a terrorist organization by numerous countries and international bodies due to its indiscriminate violence, suicide bombings, assassinations, and recruitment of child soldiers. 

Their operations were clandestine, their methods often barbaric, and their allegiance was to a self-proclaimed leader rather than a recognised state. The very definition of terrorism hinges on the use of violence against civilians for political ends, a hallmark of the LTTE’s modus operandi.

Purpose and Aim: State Protection vs. State Destruction

The fundamental purpose of the Sri Lankan soldier is to protect the nation-state, its territorial integrity, and the well-being of all its citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity or religion. Their aim is to uphold the rule of law, maintain peace and order, and defend against both internal and external threats. This mission is rooted in the social contract between the state and its people, where the state provides security in exchange for allegiance. During the conflict, the Sri Lankan Armed Forces were engaged in a defensive war, aiming to defeat a terrorist organisation that threatened the very fabric of the nation.

The LTTE’s purpose, conversely, was the violent secession of a part of Sri Lanka to create an independent Tamil state. Their aim was to achieve this objective through sustained armed struggle, targeting state infrastructure, military personnel, and often, critically, civilians who did not align with their agenda. Their violence was not a means to uphold existing order but to shatter it and impose a new, ethnically exclusive one. This fundamental difference in purpose – protection versus destruction of the state – defines their disparate identities.

Authority to Kill: Legitimate Force vs. Unlawful Violence

The authority to use lethal force is perhaps the most significant differentiator. A Sri Lankan soldier’s authority to kill is derived from the legitimate mandate of the state, exercised within the confines of national and international law, specifically the laws of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law – IHL). 

This authority is not absolute; it is subject to strict rules of engagement, principles of proportionality, distinction, and military necessity. Soldiers are trained to use minimum force necessary to achieve their objectives and are accountable for their actions under military law and, where applicable, civilian law. Their actions, even in combat, are intended to neutralise a threat to the state or its citizens.

An LTTE terrorist possessed no such legitimate authority. Their acts of violence, including killings, were acts of unlawful aggression against the state and its people. There was no legal framework governing their actions, no accountability beyond their internal command, and often, their killings were indiscriminate, targeting civilians, political opponents, and those perceived as collaborators. The premeditated targeting of non-combatants, a common LTTE tactic, unequivocally constitutes a war crime. Their “authority” to kill was self-proclaimed and inherently illegal.

Role and Task: Defenders of the Realm vs. Agents of Chaos

The role of the Sri Lankan soldier is multifaceted: to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, conduct counter-terrorism operations, provide humanitarian assistance during disasters, and contribute to nation-building efforts. Their tasks involve maintaining security, intelligence gathering, combat operations within legal parameters, and often, post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation efforts. They operate within a structured hierarchy, adhering to professional military standards and ethical guidelines.

The LTTE’s role was primarily to engage in armed insurgency, employing guerrilla warfare tactics, assassinations, suicide bombings, and extortion. Their tasks revolved around destabilising the state, terrorising the population, and enforcing their will through violence. They operated outside any recognised legal or ethical framework, often coercing individuals into their ranks and exploiting vulnerable populations. Their actions were designed to create chaos, fear, and division, not to uphold order or protect citizens.

Protection of Country and Citizens: The Sacred Oath vs. Self-Serving Agenda

The Sri Lankan soldier takes an oath to protect the country and all its citizens. This commitment is enshrined in their duty and is paramount to their service. They stand as the last line of defense against threats to national security and the lives of ordinary people. This protection extends to all communities within Sri Lanka, regardless of their background. The war effort, from the perspective of the state, was fundamentally about liberating all citizens, including Tamils, from the oppressive grip of the LTTE.

The LTTE, despite claiming to represent the Tamil people, often acted as an oppressive force within Tamil society itself. They extorted money, forcibly recruited children, assassinated Tamil political leaders who opposed them, and used civilians as human shields. Their actions, far from protecting the country or all its citizens, actively undermined the state and brought immense suffering upon the very communities they claimed to represent. Their agenda was self-serving, aimed at establishing their own power structure, even at the cost of immense civilian casualties.

Legal Aspects: Adherence to Law vs. Flagrant Disregard

The Sri Lankan Armed Forces, as an organ of the state, are bound by both national laws (such as the Constitution of Sri Lanka, military law) and international law, including International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL). While allegations of misconduct may arise in any conflict, the fundamental framework for accountability exists, with mechanisms for investigation and prosecution. The government has consistently affirmed its commitment to upholding these legal obligations.

The LTTE, being a non-state armed group, deliberately operated outside the purview of national and international law. Their actions were characterised by flagrant disregard for IHL, including the targeting of civilians, the use of child soldiers, and the perpetration of acts universally recognised as war crimes and crimes against humanity. They had no legal standing, and their actions were inherently illegal, making them subject to prosecution under national and international criminal law. The absence of internal legal mechanisms or accountability for their actions further solidifies their status as an unlawful entity.

Acceptance at National and International Level: Legitimate Force vs. Proscribed Terrorist Group

The Sri Lankan Armed Forces are the legitimate military of a recognised sovereign state and are accepted as such by the international community. They participate in UN peacekeeping missions, engage in bilateral defense cooperation, and uphold diplomatic relations with other nations. Their existence and operations are viewed through the lens of state sovereignty and the right to self-defense.

The LTTE, in contrast, was widely proscribed as a terrorist organisation by major global powers including the United States, the European Union, Canada, and India. Their methods, which included suicide bombings and targeting of civilians, rendered them unacceptable to the international community. Their political wing’s attempts at legitimacy were undermined by their continued reliance on violence and disregard for human rights. This international condemnation further underscores the distinction between a legitimate state actor and an unlawful terrorist entity.

Contributions and Destructions to Society: Builders vs. Demolishers

The contributions of the Sri Lankan soldier to society extend beyond wartime defense. They play a vital role in national development, disaster relief, infrastructure projects, and maintaining stability. Their sacrifices ensure the continuity of the state and the protection of civil liberties. In the aftermath of the conflict, the military has been actively involved in demining, rehabilitation, and reintegration programmes, contributing to healing and rebuilding the nation. Their efforts aim to create a safe and prosperous society for all.

The LTTE’s legacy is one of immense destruction. They caused immeasurable loss of life, destroyed infrastructure, displaced millions, and fostered deep divisions within society. Their actions crippled the economy, diverted national resources to war, and instilled a pervasive climate of fear. Their “contributions” were limited to the perpetuation of violence and the imposition of their will, leaving behind a trail of devastation and hindering societal progress for decades. Their focus was on tearing down, not building up.

Who is Acceptable to the Public and Society: Protectors vs. Oppressors

The Sri Lankan soldier, despite the challenges and controversies inherent in any conflict, is broadly accepted by the public and society as protectors of the nation. They are seen as fulfilling a vital role in ensuring security and stability. Their sacrifices are recognised, and their presence is often a source of reassurance. While critical scrutiny is essential in a democracy, the fundamental acceptance of their role as the legitimate defence force remains strong.

The LTTE, even among sections of the Tamil community, often operated through fear and coercion. While some may have sympathised with their stated political objectives, their brutal methods, forced conscription, and disregard for civilian lives eroded their legitimacy and acceptance among the wider public. Their actions were characterised by oppression rather than protection, leading to widespread public rejection of their ideology and tactics. Ultimately, a society yearns for peace and stability, not perpetual conflict and terror.

FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A SOLDIER AND A TERRORIST

The justification for dissecting this topic is paramount for a post-conflict nation like Sri Lanka. Understanding the fundamental differences between state armed forces and terrorist organisations is crucial for national healing, reconciliation, and preventing the resurgence of violence. It allows for a clear understanding of the sacrifices made by those who defended the state and the destructive nature of those who sought to dismantle it. This clarity is essential for upholding the rule of law, fostering national unity, and educating future generations about the perils of terrorism and the importance of a legitimate, accountable state. It is about distinguishing between those who served the nation and those who sought to destroy it.

THE GOVERNMENT MINISTER EQUATING GOVERNMENT SOLDIERS WITH LTTE TERRORISTS IS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY INACCURATE

From a military expert perspective, the recent statement made in the Sri Lankan parliament by a government minister, equating government soldiers with LTTE terrorists, is not only deeply concerning but also factually and legally inaccurate. Such a statement undermines the immense sacrifices made by the armed forces, distorts the historical narrative of the conflict, and risks jeopardising national reconciliation efforts and Sri Lanka’s standing on the international stage.

Here’s a logical and factual disproof of that statement, along with clear instructions for the government.

Disproving the Statement: Logical and Factual Arguments

The minister’s statement is a dangerous false equivalency that ignores fundamental principles of international law, the nature of state sovereignty, and the characteristics of legitimate armed forces versus terrorist organisations.

1. Legal Mandate and Authority:

• Sri Lankan Soldiers are components of the legitimate armed forces of a sovereign nation, operating under the explicit mandate of a democratically elected government. Their authority is derived from the Constitution of Sri Lanka and national laws, in adherence to international law. They are accountable to a clear chain of command and the legal system. Their use of force, while potentially lethal, is governed by Rules of Engagement (ROE) that seek to minimise harm to civilians and adhere to principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity as per International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
• LTTE Terrorists were members of a proscribed non-state armed group. They had no legal authority, no legitimate mandate, and operated outside any recognised legal framework. Their violence was criminal in nature, driven by a secessionist agenda achieved through terror. International law does not grant combatant status or associated protections to members of such groups when they do not adhere to the fundamental principles of IHL (e.g., wearing distinctive signs, carrying arms openly, respecting the laws of war). The LTTE consistently violated these tenets.

2. Purpose and Objective:

• Sri Lankan Soldiers: Fought to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka, to protect all its citizens, and to uphold the rule of law against a violent, separatist insurgency. Their overarching objective was to secure the nation from a group that sought to fragment it through force and intimidation.
• LTTE Terrorists: Their primary objective was the violent overthrow of the legitimate government in parts of the country and the establishment of a separate state through armed struggle. Their methods included indiscriminate attacks on civilians, suicide bombings, assassinations of political leaders (including Tamil leaders who opposed them), and the systematic use of child soldiers. This is not “fighting for a cause” in a legally recognised sense; it is terrorism.

3. Accountability and Structure:

• Sri Lankan Soldiers are part of a professional, hierarchical military structure. They are subject to military law and regulations, and in instances of alleged misconduct, there are established procedures for investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution. While allegations of human rights abuses during conflict are serious and require investigation, the existence of a legal framework for accountability is a critical distinction.
• LTTE Terrorists operated without any external legal accountability. While they had an internal command structure, it was not bound by any international or national legal norms regarding human rights or the laws of armed conflict. There was no independent oversight or mechanism for redress for their victims within their own framework.

4. Targeting and Methods:

• Sri Lankan soldiers are trained to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects. While civilian casualties can tragically occur in any armed conflict, direct targeting of civilians is a war crime. The Sri Lankan military’s operations, by definition, aimed to neutralise the military capabilities of the LTTE.
• LTTE Terrorists routinely employed terrorism as a tactic, which fundamentally involves the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects to sow fear and coerce a government or population. Their use of suicide bombers, targeting of public transport, places of worship, and civilian infrastructure unequivocally defines them as a terrorist organisation under international norms.

5. International Recognition and Stature:

• Sri Lankan soldiers represent a UN member state’s legitimate armed forces. Sri Lanka contributes to UN peacekeeping missions, engages in military-to-military cooperation with numerous countries, and its armed forces are recognised as a state entity.
• LTTE terrorists were proscribed as a terrorist organisation by dozens of countries and international bodies worldwide. This widespread international condemnation stems from their methods and objectives, clearly distinguishing them from legitimate armed forces.

Instructions to the Government (from a Military Expert Point of View)

The government must immediately rectify this damaging statement and ensure that such mischaracterisations are not repeated. Failure to do so carries significant risks for Sri Lanka.

1. Immediate and Unequivocal Clarification:

• The minister in question, or a more senior government official, must issue a clear and unambiguous retraction and clarification. This statement must:
• Reaffirm the legitimate status of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces as defenders of the nation.
• Reiterate the classification of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation due to its objectives, methods, and complete disregard for human life and international law.
• Acknowledge the immense sacrifices made by the Sri Lankan military personnel and their families in defending the nation.

2. Education and Awareness Campaign:

• The government should launch a national campaign to educate the public, particularly younger generations who may not have lived through the conflict, on the clear distinction between state armed forces and terrorist groups.

This should include:

Public information programs: Utilizing media, educational institutions, and public forums to explain the legal and ethical frameworks governing armed conflict and terrorism.

3. Upholding the Dignity of the Armed Forces:

• Actions and statements by government officials must consistently uphold the dignity and professionalism of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces. This includes:
• Avoiding Politicisation: Ensuring that the military’s role is not politicised or used for rhetorical purposes that undermine its integrity.
• Recognising Sacrifices: Regularly acknowledging the sacrifices of those who served and continue to serve the nation.

4. Reaffirming Commitment to International Law:

• The government must demonstrate, through words and actions, its unwavering commitment to international humanitarian law and human rights law. This is crucial for maintaining international credibility and trust.
• Support for Accountability Mechanisms: While asserting the legitimacy of the military, the government should continue to support and strengthen credible domestic mechanisms for addressing any alleged violations of IHL or human rights by any party during the conflict, as a commitment to justice for all victims.
• Engagement with International Bodies: 
• Continue constructive engagement with relevant international bodies and human rights organisations to address concerns and demonstrate transparency.

5. Protecting National Reconciliation:

• Equating soldiers with terrorists can severely hamper national reconciliation efforts by alienating segments of the population and undermining the process of truth and healing.
• Inclusive Narrative: Foster an inclusive national narrative that acknowledges the suffering of all communities during the conflict while firmly distinguishing between the legitimate state and unlawful violence.
• Focus on Healing: Prioritise policies and initiatives that promote healing, reintegration, and a shared future, without compromising the fundamental distinction between combatants and terrorists.

6. Strengthening Counter-Terrorism Frameworks:

• The government’s rhetoric should align with its legal and policy frameworks designed to counter terrorism. Contradictory statements can weaken the national and international fight against terrorism.
• Consistent Messaging: Ensure that all government communications regarding national security and the past conflict are consistent and reflect the legally recognised status of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE.

THE MINISTER’S STATEMENT UNDERPINS THE STATE AND ITS SECURITY APPARATUS

The minister’s statement is not merely a verbal misstep; it represents a dangerous erosion of foundational principles that underpin the state and its security apparatus. From a military expert’s viewpoint, such an equivalence is logically untenable, factually incorrect, and legally indefensible under international humanitarian law.

The Sri Lankan soldier is a protector of the state and its people, operating under a legitimate mandate. 

The LTTE terrorist was an agent of destruction, operating outside all legal and moral norms. To equate them is to deny the inherent justice of a sovereign state defending itself against a proscribed terrorist organization. The government has a solemn duty to correct this narrative, uphold the honour of its armed forces, and reinforce the clear distinctions that are vital for national security, justice, and lasting peace.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Statehood vs. A Scourge of Terrorism

In conclusion, the distinction between the Sri Lankan soldier and the LTTE terrorist is not merely academic; it is fundamental to understanding the nature of the conflict and the path forward for a peaceful Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan soldier, as a representative of the legitimate state, acted within the framework of law and with the ultimate purpose of protecting the nation and its citizens. Their legacy, though marked by the harsh realities of war, is ultimately one of preserving statehood and ensuring the continuity of a unified Sri Lanka.

The LTTE terrorist, by contrast, operated outside the bounds of law, engaged in wanton violence, and sought to destroy the very fabric of the nation. Their legacy is one of terror, destruction, and immense human suffering. Recognising this indelible divide is not about condoning every action in war, but about acknowledging the profound moral and legal difference between defending a nation and seeking to tear it apart through indiscriminate violence. For Sri Lanka to truly heal and prosper, this fundamental distinction must remain clear, serving as a powerful reminder of the sacrifices made for peace and the enduring cost of terror.

The writer, Major General Dr. Boniface Perera is a distinguished individual with a multifaceted career. He is a battle-hardened Infantry officer who served the Sri Lanka Army for over 36 years, dedicating 20 of those years to active combat. Dr. Perera is a former Security Forces Commander of the Wanni Region and Eastern Province, and he also served as the Competent Authority responsible for resettling 300,000 displaced people in the North.

In addition to his military service, Dr. Perera is a respected international researcher and writer, having authored more than 200 research articles and 16 scientific books. He holds a PhD in economics and is an entrepreneur and international analyst specialising in national security, economics, and politics.

Email: [email protected]