A brief discussion would be in order.
I don't for a moment profess to understand the intricacies involved in this dispute, but I can recognise parallels between the Tamils and the South African coloured and white ethnic minorities.
An important consideration is that the colonial powers, Portugal and Holland, treated the Tamils and the Sinhalese as seperate sects. Typically the British felt it expediate to combine the two entities, and then granted independence on a one-man-one-vote basis, effectively eliminating Tamil aspirations.
If you read the history you will notice that from the moment independence was granted, the new government, consisting of an overwhelming Sinhalese majority, began to legislate systemic oppression with the Ceylon Citizenship Act and the Ceylon Amendment Act. These effectively denied Tamils, of Indian origin, access to citizenship and reduced the legitimate Tamil representation in the legislature.
In 1956 the Sri Lankan government then passed the Official Languages Act, where Sinhalese was designated the only official language. Formerly the Tamils had been favoured under the British since they were largely english speaking, and of a higher class. This piece of legislation was an attempt to correct an imbalance. This law had the effect of restricting education and employment opportunities for Tamils.
Consider that everytime there was economic hardship the Tamils received a disproportionate amount of blame.
All of these, as well as excessive government force, finally resulted in the establishment of the Tamil Tigers, which took up an armed struggle for self-determination. It is probably true that the Tamil Tigers became too militant, but do not let this detract from the original objective.
The Tamil Tigers never received Western endorsement. The contrary in fact, most Western countries, including the UN, classified the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organisation. So in the wake of 9/11 the Tamils became a legitimate target, and nobody questioned whether their cause was just. Actually nobody really cared, and everbody turned a blind eye to the blatant genocide that followed.
After having read the above, consider South Africa's circumstances. Not all that different. The ANC is demographically superior, they want to aggressively redress perceived past wrongs, the whites are excessively blamed for all of the country's woes, the whites have become marginalised through discriminatory legislation et al. A popular move to seceed could easily take hold, and would just as easily be suppressed, ultimately leading to an armed conflict. Do you think the West will endorse such a move? Never. Would armed conflict be classified as terrorist activity? Absolutely, and would amount to "open season" on the whites.
So we probably need a different approach. Any ideas anybody?