<Back

Letter to the Editor: Sri Lanka safe

I would like to express my disappointment with the misrepresentation of the situation in Sri Lanka as portrayed by the S&B.

I would begin by contesting the term "civil war," employed no less than three times over the course of the article. Although the present situation technically meets the qualifications of a civil war-namely, a conflict between political factions within a country-as Chris noted, "it is generally seen as a fight among extremist groups on both sides, with the majority of the Sri Lankan people being caught in the middle." Further, the situation is never termed a civil war by Sri Lankan citizens; rather, journalists prefer to use ethnic crisis or ethnic conflict, terms which in and of themselves are somewhat misleading.

I would also point out that contrary to the beliefs of the S&B, the country of Sri Lanka continues to enjoy a ceasefire agreement and that since August, the conflict within the country has in fact decreased, as opposed to intensified, as the article suggests.

As for the travel advisory, I would clarify that it does not apply to the island as a whole, but rather to the northern and eastern provinces exclusively. It is no surprise that the ISLE program has continued to run under such conditions, as the program has operated continuously since its conception in 1982, with but one exception at the height of the conflict.

As my cousin Aaron, who studied abroad in Israel, has been known to say, statistically speaking, it is much more likely that you will be shot in Chicago than in Sri Lanka.

In conclusion, I would ask that the S&B please refrain from publishing such sensationalism in the future. Thank you.

-Jayme Siegel '07

<Back